Hi, when you add a template like {{Cleanup}} it automatically adds the categories to the page. You don't need to add Category:Articles needing cleanup yourself. (This means that when the template is removed the categories are too.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Rich. I re-added it in because I inadvertently removed it during reverting of what I considered over-enthusiastic cleaning earlier.

It was originally added by user Phantasm99 here - you might want to drop them a similar note? Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relocated to the talk page, which is a better forum: Talk:Year 2000 problem Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever find the answer to this question? I just now saw it and wouldn't know how to answer.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope you’re well!

I edited the infobox pictures on some of the Harry Potter pages this afternoon but the edits were reverted by yourself. I wondered if we could open up a discussion on making illustrations of the characters within the infobox rather than the film portrayals. I feel this would be more consistent with other literary character pages on Wikipedia.

Just a suggestion I wanted to put out there. I have also opened this for discussion on the Ron weasley talk page. Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.

I don't deny several notable individuals are mentioned in the legacy section. It does appear to me though that the persons listed seem to all range from humourists, to physicians, to journalists, to video game designers-- some of the latter I'm personally very fond of. However, do these individuals qualify as ever holding "major roles in the British computer industry"? Not that I'd ever arrogate myself to the position of deciding who is and who isn't prominent in that field, nor am I disparaging the great work of video game developers (as my username may hint). But I do perhaps think "major roles" may be slightly strongly worded. Do you have any thoughts on this?

Thanks for your time. I'll put the link to the edit in question here too, on the off-chance you don't remember and this whole message reads to you like the deranged ramblings of a madman. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZX81&diff=1010465414&oldid=1010446918 VideoGamePlaya (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VideoGamePlaya, fair point - and well put. At first glance, perhaps "significant", instead of "major" - both are similar, but carry slightly different connotations. I suppose we could also just lose "major" altogether, having thought about it? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may very well be the case that such individuals do in fact exist, they just aren't mentioned. Some digging on my part may be able to unearth something, but as it stands, 'major' definitely seems a strong word. And I apologise for the slow reply.VideoGamePlaya (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed "major" as we're both agreed on that point. No problem about delay - it took me a week to respond as well... Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your helpfulness.VideoGamePlaya (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment expressing surprise at 2 previous comments on Albus Dumbledore's Talk page and you reverted it. I am wondering why, seeing as it wasn't offensive or a direct article edit. --OtuNwachinemere (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What value does "huuuuhhhhh!!!" add to the article or talk page? Your response should take into account WP:FORUM Point 4 and also Talk page guidelines: "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor". Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel Riens, I understand your desire to explain yourself in the article talk page as to why one of the sections should be deleted, but shouldn't discussion in article talk pages focus on the article? Might it be a good idea to bring it up somewhere else, to avoid meta discussion? Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to ping me when leaving a message on my own talk page.

The absolute best place to discuss talk page content is not only the talk page itself, but the section in question. Talk pages can refer to themselves - you can't have a talk page for a talk page...

As per WP:TALK: "This page in a nutshell: Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." As the section does exactly the opposite - expresses an opinion, and offers nothing to improve the article - it's perfectly corect to question both the value and necessity of it on the talk page. I still maintain that the OP was correct to remove it for exactly those reasons.

If you've taken time to respond here, please also take time to respond on the talk page in question with arguments as to why the section should stay, and the value it adds to both talk page and article, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad with the ping, it's a habit. I don't really have a counterargument, so I don't really see why I should respond with one in the talk page. Thanks for answering my question, though. Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chaheel Riens, just to answer your question. I reverted this (my own) edit as I realised that the grammatical item mentioned in the comment did not match the edit. This happens when I'm editing an AWB list and in this case moving to a different list (and therefore description) within the same session. Occasionally one of these mismatches slips through and I'll revert it, so as not to confuse anyone with a description that does not totally match the edit. I'll typically catch up with the relevant page in another edit cycle if the original issue still exists. Neils51 (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, uh, wanna take a look at my work on Cueva de las Manos and let me know what you think? I've added significant content and I thought it would be good to ask a more experienced editor to come check it out. Thanks :-) Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with the edits, Why dont you too take it up on the Hausa talk page instead of engaging in edit war, and look at why your edits are being reverted. Pls stop this act deliberate misinformation about the Hausa. The more you do that the more people will come out with more facts and info in defence of Hausa people,Ppdallo (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are guilty of exactly the same thing you are warning me about. Ppdallo (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, which is why I have stopped reverting you. However you should note that (childishness aside) you started it. You added inaccurate, and unsourced information into an article which I challenged. You added more inaccurate information - which I again challenged. You then added a third inaccurate source - again challenged.

You may want to look up WP:BRD - Bold, revert, discuss. However, you should also note that while discussion is happening - the original version should stay in place. Your refusal to follow this is not really encouraging.

Also, your final edit summary on Hausa People states: "See talkpage for rationale" - you haven't provided one yet. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. -Arch dude (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arch dude - it's like the old days of CB radio! Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hausa people. Template:Z189 Ppdallo (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]