User talk:DaisyThePug

October 2023

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Roche. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. ♥ Melody ♥ 07:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Carl Michael Bellman, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 04:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi DaisyThePug! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. WikiProject Sweden has many topics that would benefit from informed attention.

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

I note that you have bumped into a couple of issues that often affect new editors. It's obviously necessary for articles to be encyclopedic in tone without personal opinions or comments, and for claims to be cited to reliable sources such as textbooks or national newspapers. Since there is a wealth of historical writing in both English and Swedish on Swedish history, you should have no problem finding appropriate material to cite.

Happy editing! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Stockholm

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Stockholm, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation gone

Hello! Looks to me like you removed a citation here whereas the summary says you added one. Please explain! Best wishes, SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have now seen more examples of your only using the edit summary "Added citations" when you actually removed article content. Please make sure your edit summaries are genuine! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was changing the citation to a different one. Should have said I changed it, sorry! DaisyThePug (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! My point was to ask you never to use "Citation added" or similar when you are removing article content, article content, not just citations. And please don't stop giving summaries at all! They help us all. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR, citations

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Eugenics, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you.

[End of boilerplate message.]

Also, your edit [1] had some other issues, such as:

Emotive wording ("heavily").
Injecting YYYY-MM-DD date formatting into an article that uses D[D] Month YYYY dates (see MOS:DATEVAR).
Abusing the |first= and |last= citation parameters to repeat the publication or publisher name plus generic words like "staff". See WP:CITE for general information on citing sources, and the documentation of the template you are using for more specific instructions, e.g. Template:Cite web.
Also, all citations here are presumed English-language unless specified otherwise; adding | is just unneccessary code bloat.

In particular, this mangled citation:

<ref>{{Cite web |last=Staff |first=I. G. N. |date=2020-08-28 |title=Resident Evil: The Story So Far |url=https://www.ign.com/articles/resident-evil-story-synopsis-plot-summary-lore-explained |access-date=2023-10-28 |website=IGN |language=en}}</ref>

is more properly rendered:

<ref>{{Cite web |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=28 August 2020 |title=Resident Evil: The Story So Far |url= https://www.ign.com/articles/resident-evil-story-synopsis-plot-summary-lore-explained |access-date=28 October 2023 |website=[[IGN]]}}</ref>

The |author= part, using an HTML comment that is hidden from rendered display, is optional; it just helpfully tells later editors that the author information is not accidentally missing. For usual individual authors, the format is |last=Smith|first=April X., or for multiple, |last1=Smith|first1=April X.|last2=Jones|first2=Jason Z., or for an organizational author |author=Subcommittee for the Investigation of Feline Incidents, or for a mononymic individual |author=Pliny the Elder. But these parameters are never for repeating the publisher or work name, nor for words like "staff". An article using "Month D[D], YYYY" date format would call for |date=August 28, 2020|access-date=October 28, 2023. If the article has a clearly established date format, this is usually noted at the top with either {{Use DMY dates}} or {{Use MDY dates}}. If the article is veering back and forth between date formats, then a consistent one can and should be imposed (per MOS:DATEVAR) and one of those templates put at the top of the article (but we do not normalize to YYYY-MM-DD format, which is not normal human writing).

Finally, if you are using some software tools to auto-generate citations, please be aware that they do not magically produce perfect output, and you may need to manually adjust what they put into which parameters to make sense and agree with the rest of the article's formatting before saving your changes.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I didn't read the rules of that! I'll go fix it if you haven't, thanks! DaisyThePug (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Hello again! You must refrain from your repeated attempts at censorship like this one. Please do not do anything like that ever again! SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: you have given me the opportunity to list this final warning here not to do this again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I personally think it is a better idea to keep information about the institution in the article, not the current figurehead, though others may disagree. Again, sorry! DaisyThePug (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I you read what you'd like to remove, you'd see, in this case, that the reputation of the Swedish monarchy (as per three good sources) has been seriously tarnished by the current monarch and his overweening, practically omnipotent court in recent years. It ain't pretty, and it's getting worse. Keep watch! Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

true lol, though the heir is a good deal better DaisyThePug (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the behavior of the court has considerably weakened the standing of the entire family. One of the queen's nephews, who has long lived with them, has now been caught in the purchase of prostitutional services and the court is trying hard to cover it up. It is all over the papers now, plus a new book. Like I say: keep watch! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I noticed you removed a previous edit I made to the Stockholm article. If I may, when I first edited those sections I used very little sentence variety and it makes the reading rather clunky (in my opinion). Just noting that I would rather try to fix that, given that it is my fault. DaisyThePug (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your edits are not minor

Hi DaisyThePug! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Actually, I noticed you always mark your edits as minor. Please stop doing that. Bishonen | tålk 10:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ...

anti-equestrian? The horse has a prominent image at the top of the article, and "Scandinavian" rose-paitning can hardly be called a particularly Swedish artform. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Scandinavian" - as in Swedish, Norwegian and Danish. Should be on the other articles on Norway & Denmark as well. That said, I shouldn't have removed the part on Dalecarlian Horse. My apologies. DaisyThePug (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]