User talk:Atomdestroyers

Hi Atomdestroyers! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Kj cheetham (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits again. They're breaking the page on the web version of WP. Whatever you're doing results in an enormous picture of the stone swamping the page. Please don't do it again. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I've looked through a bunch of your recent edits. You have to stop this. You're making work for people who will have to correct the damage you're causing. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

When you add an image to an infobox, just put the file name. Don't use the format that is used in the body for images. For example, on Normandykes, you added [[File: View of the North Sea through the Dee Valley from Normandykes - geograph.org.uk - 1376451.jpg|upright=.8|center]]. If you looked at the result after you made your edit (which you should always do), you would have seen how oversized the resulting infobox was. The infobox field for the image should merely have been View of the North Sea through the Dee Valley from Normandykes - geograph.org.uk - 1376451.jpg. I have fixed that article, and will fix some of the others, but it would be helpful if you would also go back through your edits and correct that error. Thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I have to say I'm a bit confused as to what the actual issue is, but I certainly didn't intend to mess things up. The user who raised the issue seems to be seeing different behaviour to me as the images in the infobox seem to be reasonably sized and certainly aren't filling the screen (on web or mobile). When I make the change to the image it does get bigger but it doesn't increase the horizontal size of the infobox, it just fills in some of the padding (which seemed like a good change to me as it increased the readability of the image).

The basis for the change comes from the Help:Infobox/picture#Using one or two parameters. As you can see it uses the same format and parameters I've been using. Have I been misled by this page? Does the help page need updated? Cheers Atomdestroyers (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know when that was written, but I had to change it in numerous articles that you edited because it blew up the size of the infobox. In a few instances, the file was larger than the width of my monitor. Just, don't do it that way. Use the file name only. Schazjmd (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Almond Valley Viaduct, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Almond. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This really wasn't a good idea, giving a number of tiny categories that hinder anyone actually looking for information on the stones. I take it you never discussed these changes with anyone? I probably won't put the cats up for re-merging, but I think someone else may well do, which I would support. Please DON'T make similar changes without a discussion first. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod. I did not discuss the changes prior. My motivation for the change was that there already existed a few categories that were based on region i.e. "Pictish Stones in Aberdeenshire", "Pictish Stones in Angus, Scotland" and "Pictish stones in Highland (council area)". My thinking was this should be done for all regions not just a chosen few. Additionally several articles were simultaneously categorised under the region and parent categories so I fixed this as well. I also added some missing stones e.g. Fiskavaig Stone.

Given the state of the categorisation prior to my changes I think you're being a little harsh. I would not oppose merging the categories but I would say this should be for all of the regions not just some. Atomdestroyers (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Pictish stones in Aberdeen indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)