User talk:Aadirulez8

Orphaned non-free image File:Aksharam-1995.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aksharam-1995.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2023

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Loved the work you did on 2024 lahore college case article. BakrxKiNG12 13:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixing CW project etc. errors

Hi Aadirulez8 - at your recent edit at Bird migration, you changed "Grus americana" to "Grus Americana". Please note this is a false positive in the checking; in scientific names of animals, plants, etc., the species name (americana) is never capitalised, whatever its etymology, just as the genus name (Grus) is invariably capitalised. This is very important; please make sure errors like this don't happen even accidentally. I've restored this one. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You nasty stupid twit!

I have restored – one-by-one dammit! – each and every one of the anchors that you very stupidly deleted from the "Antenna types" article on 13 October. If you are going to try to be helpful in the CW project, please carry on – some of the changes that you made to antenna types were spot-on.

I think that I appropriately use the word "stupid" to describe your decision to delete each and every one of multiple anchors. To begin with, I think it's reasonable for me to suppose that even now, you have no idea whether those anchors are linked to from outside the article; if you had actually used a Wikitool to check, it would have found all the links inside the same article. Dumb. Just plain irresponsibly and destructively dumb: It's this kind of behavior that deserves to be reported as vandalism, something that I'm sure you had no malicious intent to do, so instead of calling you a vandal, I charitably suppose that you are not quite cautious or clever enough to check, and that you edit other editors' deliberate work on impulse, instead of thinking about what you are doing. Hence "dumb" rather than "malicious". The effect is none-the-less nasty.

Next time you consider deleting a bunch of links in an article, I strongly recommend that you first open the entire article and search for the use of the anchor-labels in the wikitext. Something that you obviously did not do, since you left behind at least 15 dangling links in the introduction section, and possibly others for cross-references among the article sections.

Don't screw up like this again. If you are skimming through the radio / telegraphy articles and trying to make them cohere, that's very good. Please continue. But please go out in the back yard and dig up a lot more humility than you've been exercising so far. It looks to me like you need more than you've got now to contribute constructively to the CW project.
02:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Aadirulez8: "Hi, you could do direct simple rollback/undo, if you find the edit totally out of place. I am learning as I go, I will try to be more cautious now. I thought one rule applies everywhere but in some sub-wikipedia pages, they follow their own writing style. My only intention was the cleanup which was good faith edit, Sorry for the troubles.

Thanks, Aadirulez8"

Please respect quotations, and British English in British-English articles

Please do not change quotations so that they no longer match the source. In British nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century English, groups of words functioning as adjectives are hyphenated. That happens in modern British English in formal settings (such as WP articles) too. If you are not familiar with British English, please do not try to "correct" it to American English. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Could you help me guide to the article where I did the mistake, so I don't follow the same anywhere else.

Also clear me a doubt, we have <blockquote> to refer quotes in Wikipedia, can't they be used?

Thanks, Aadirulez8 (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are you removing author links?

I do not understand why this is happening. It is not progression. Why are you doing this?

To my mind what you did with Cardwell Reforms is akin to vandalism. Keith H99 (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Keith,

Author link are deprecated. As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia project I'm doing the clean ups.

Thanks, Aadirulez8 (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you provide the source in which author-links are described as deprecated. I was unable to find anything in the source you did provide.

Maidenhair (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

you can find it here Template:Citation Style documentation

Thanks, Aadirulez8 (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

In the second source you provided, the table "Deprecated CS1/CS2 parameters" displays "none deprecated at present." Possibly, you are referring to the following:

• author-link: Title of existing Wikipedia article about the author—not the author's website; do not wikilink. Aliases: author-link1, author1-link, authorlink.

I interpret the phrase "do not wikilink" to indicate the correct use is:

|author-link=Robert Ensor

not:

|author-link=[[Robert Ensor]]

This is because a wikilink in an "author-link" parameter does not result in a link to the author's article, it results in the error "Check |author-link= value". The second source you suppied does not imply, to me, that "author-link" parameters are deprecated.

Maidenhair (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Parineti Hindi Tv

Angry 😡 I cannot Sleep 😴 without Thinking about Why is Government allowing Dumb Indian Director to Prevent Dumb Neeti From realising that Dam DNA 🧬 Will prove That Parvati is Babli’s Biological Sister Pari etc?(49.206.58.22 (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)).