User talk:Alexiszerflin

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Alexiszerflin! Thank you for your contributions. I am Thewikiguru1 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thewikiguru1 (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Fedor Flinzer. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance templates

Please help me understand why you insist on removing the template. Is there something that's unclear about the requirement for footnotes? You had one, in an incorrect location, which I moved down to the text, but you still require more. This is not your article. Please don't remove the template without addressing the issue. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're confused - footnotes. That's what you need. You already have references. You need footnotes. That's what the maintenance template is about. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fedor Flinzer

Hi Alexiserflin, I noticed your edit. Just to inform you:

Only double images were removed
Correct description of the files was added
No wrong links were inserted, just using reFill tool.

In my opinion the page looked much better then than it is now again. But if that makes you happy. Lotje (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lotje, Thank you for your message. My feedback in short:

Sorry, but that's not true. Just compare your version with the version that is online again. In your version I'm missing the illustration with the little kitten. You are correct, my mistake, sorry.
Could you provide an example for a "correct description"? I'm not sure having understood what you mean. By "correct description", I mean the description of the file at commons or, the description on other pages for that particular image.
Links: This may be, but there were a lot of links to nowhere after your edit. Links to nowhere? That would mean reFill is changing them? That would surprise me very much.
Layout of the page: Yes, you are right. Your layout was definetly better. But it's no solution to delete images for a better layout. However, what about using the gallery to put there the "duplicates"?
By the way: I appreciate your engagement and your layout work. Don't hesitate to improve the article!
Finally: You made a lot of changes. In such a case you should allways leave a (short) comment in the according field. That helps to avoid misunderstanding. In future, prior to any changement on Fedor Flinzer, I will leave a message on your talkpage. Lotje (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lotje, Again, thank you for your feedback. What I meant was a short comment in the field "Edit summary" that can be found at the end of the "edit window" of every article. Kind regards, Alexiszerflin (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Alexiszerflin, that is exacly what I meant when I said Trying to improve but I guess this was not the correct wording in that case.

Lotje (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cat

That's your 4th revert since my content removal, which constitutes violation of WP:3RR. The section in question is not even supported by prose to justify it. Regardless of how important it is, it violates Wikipedia standards. Please refrain from edit-warring. Blue sphere 10:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Batrachomyomachia

Re [1], the new link I added pointed to commons:Category:Batrachomyomachia, of which commons:Category:Froschmäusekrieg (1878) is a subcategory. It wasn't a deletion, it was a replacement. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. But there is/was no category commons:Category:Batrachomyomachia in the article. Alexiszerflin (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the right-hand side. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Alexiszerflin (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]