User talk:Vanderwaalforces
| Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
| This is Vanderwaalforces's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
 | Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words. |
 | Scam Watch
Warning: There is an on-going scam targeting people who would like Wikipedia to have an article about them. See this scam warning for detailed information. If you've been scammed please send details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org to help others who could be future victims of this scam. |
 Archives (Index) |
"Getting Out Our Dreams II LLC" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
The redirect Getting Out Our Dreams II LLC has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 4 § Getting Out Our Dreams II LLC until a consensus is reached. —a smart kitten[meow] 06:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Linguistic monogenesis and polygenesis[edit]
Hello @Vanderwaalforces. Thank you for your review of Draft:Linguistic monogenesis and polygenesis. I think I've solved the inline citations problem (adding inline, in-depth citations to most statements in the article). Do you think that's necessary to remove the template and for the article to be created? Pcg111 (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Pcg111 Hi there, you’ve done well. There’s no need to remove the template, it is needed for an AfC reviewer to get to it. So just hold, someone will get to it soon. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello again @Vanderwaalforces: Sorry to bother you again. I think I've solved all the issues on Draft:Linguistic monogenesis and polygenesis (the duplication issue is commented at the draft talk). Could you please review it again?
P.D.: I don't know it it's possible, but could you, before potentially declining the creation of the article, say to me the things to improve? Thanks, Pcg111 (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC).
- @Pcg111 I don’t want to review that draft for reason which Remsense already mentioned. When there’s an article for monogenesis and progenesis, why do we need this one? The question is more or less rhetorical, so let someone give it a review, just be patient. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you and sorry for bothering you. Pcg111 (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Pcg111 Don’t worry, you didn’t bother me. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you and sorry for bothering you. Pcg111 (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
New page reviewer granted[edit]
Hi Vanderwaalforces, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.
This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:
- Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
- If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
- If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies
You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)