This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dl2000. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi ya D12000
I see you done some editing Philip O'connor. 3 months ago. I wondering if you any information on. The were abouts of any of his family were abouts im trying to find some of his family members. For my stepfather mick O'connor his older brother.
In the Wet Wet Wet page is redundant to have Soft Rock and Pop Rock in sequence, it would really complement the listing previously proposed Soft Rock, Adult Contemporary! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.92.52.183 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dl2000. Left some messages on the user 'paige' for the IP I'm using looking for and giving clarification.
Objection to your deletion of two sections of the article Jean-Marie Speich.
Thank you for your observations regarding the Bibliography of Archbishop Jean-Marie speech.
But I am reverting the article to my previous edit because:
1. The Episcopal genealogy of Archbishop Speich is a continuation of the episcopal genealogy of Pope Francis. Before you could have deleted this contribution, you could have inquired first from the contributor. This is the reason why we have talk pages in every usage page.
2. There was already a citation regarding the other diplomatic assignments of Mons. Speich,i.e., his official curriculum vitae. This contributor created the pertinent article and knows the subject very well, who supplied this contributor with the document cited. Before you could have deleted the section, you could have asked for supplementary reference materials to satisfy what you wish to contribute.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mahidevran Sultan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatma Sultan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You need to improve your explanations and and references for changes and additions you make to articles - see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE. Also changing film names to all-capitals is against normal Wikipedia practice (see MOS:CAPS). Dl2000 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Removed my content
Please may i know why u removed my content from railworks page . All the new content that i posted was genuine . Please talk to me before deleting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniketdianafury (talk • contribs) 13:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
For your kind information kadar khan was born in 1942 not 1935. Ive seen one of his video in which he was telling his actual date. If u want to see that video do let me know.
thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish.sharma199128 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Labour Youth Forum
DL2000,
The information posted in August which I reverted today is all good information. It is part of my long essay at the University of Malta. I know I lack the technicalities. Can you please lead me and assist me in arranging it. thanks.
Thank you for you comment, please not the person who added the tags was a sock, thus I removed them since no one else claims there is anything else wrong with the page. The user who undo the edits... he already listed as being a sock for the users who added them....--Crazyseiko (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that Fatma Sultan (daughter of Suleiman I) was not married to Mimar Sinan Aga, simply because if this was the case he would be called Damat Sinan Aga and he would probably be a Pasa actually and not an Aga, as all the men who got to marry a Sultana were called. She most probably died in infancy and was the daughter of Fulane. If her mother was Mahidevran, then she (Mahidevran) would not live in poverty after Mustafa's death, since she would still be connected to the dynasty. Mahidevran had just Mustafa and that's why she had to live like that after his death. If she had any other kids, she would be exiled but she would still be getting money from the palace's treasury. You told me not to change things if I would not provide any references, but you are not providing any valid references for Fatma Sultan either. And by valid I mean, information that is written in more than one sources and especially not internet blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.244.105 (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Give a notice before removing pages.
Hi.
You removed my page on I.D du Plessis. It seems you don't want original research on it. And why? So, what can I do to avoid having my pages removed.
Secondly, you said my article didn't seem neutral to you. Please explain this statement with specific reference to what you found 'not neutral'.
Thirdly, all the information in the article was valid and reliable. If you do not agree with that statement then please elaborate, and give examples from the text on what you found 'unreliable'.
The removal of content was unfortunate, but there were too many problems with the added material. Specifically, there were no references added (see WP:V, WP:CITE), and what was added was sometimes opinionated e.g. the unattributed and opinionated phrase "Du Plessis is one of the most versatile and most prolific writers of Afrikaans literature" - maybe true, but this needed substantiation and clarification e.g. who considers Du Plessis versatlie and prolific, or what sources would indicate a general consensus for that? Note that editors may remove or alter material which lacks source support, see WP:BURDEN. Neutrality of content is covered in detail at WP:NPOV. Reliability of sources and original research are covered at WP:RS and WP:OR. Best thing to do is to take some time to read the policies and guidelines, however your more recent edits seem to be more neutral and have included a few sources, and seems much better with the policies and guidelines. Hope this clarifies things. Dl2000 (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Tin Can Cathedral
Hello, When you go into Mobile view in this article, and into Read in another language the Danish and the Spanish languages are missing. The link in Mobile view works fine the other way around, from the Danish and Spanish to all the others. If you get a chance would you be able to take a look at this? You've helped with this article before. Thank you. Nicola Mitchell (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a bug in how Wikidata is handling languages in mobile view. The language links seem to be set up correctly, as seen on the usual desktop view. This is not something that apparently cannot be fixed through normal editing, therefore I posted a discussion on the Wikidata project pages. Dl2000 (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I've seen your changes on Ramsey Nouah's page and as much as I appreciate your help and have already thanked you for that, I'd like to state the date of birth you keep updating is incorrect.
I work closely with Ramsey Nouah and we've already succeed in changing the date of birth on IMDB. Kindly allow my corrections of his actual date of birth.
Templates reverted Gramalow (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I modified an article about Esi Awuah by getting in some references and more content.
And you challenged it by saying the problem has not been solved. So how many citations are expected to be in an article. Gramalow (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lars Ernster may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
and warm smile" as seen by a friend, colleague, fellow-European and competitor E.C. Slater. In {Mitochondria and Microsomes (C.P. Lee, G. Schatz and G. Dallner, eds.) Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Erin Fleming may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
'''Erin Fleming''' (13 August 1941 – 15 April 2003<ref>{{cite web | work=United States Social Security Death
is buried in Hornings Mills Cemetery, Horning's Mills, Ontario, Canada.<ref>Erin Fleming profile], findagrave.com (Memorial# 102523857)</ref>
The changes are constructive but I couldn't get the links to work. Jenna Presley is back promoting her porn career both on her official Facebook and Twitter page. All the info on Wikipedia about her being a born again Christian is from May-Aug 2013 and is no longer her current position. Check it out yourself. Not really right portraying someone like that when they are not is it? It is old news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.222.194 (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Tzatziki page dont have enough information of this dish but Cacık page is have more information. For example etymology, variations etc. And also ne consensus about divided the pages as tzatziki and cacık. Please give more attention to discussion at Cacık page. --Denereri (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Point taken/my bad. Changes are restored. Seemed to have misread the changes due to the added link improvements. Dl2000 (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Vandalism warning for 90.201.155.179
I reviewed the information that you reverted and warned the user about, it is in fact accurate which makes your vandalism warning inappropriate. I haven't reverted your edit yet but thought you would like a heads up about the issue.--Daffydavid (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear Dl2000, thank you for your message regarding my updates to the Sappi Limited information (English). I am simply trying to update the information on the page since what is currently shown (after you've reverted my changes) is simply outdated and no longer true. The company structure and products being produced have changed and there is mention of people who have already retired. The acquisitions and closures are not nearly comprehensive and should rather be removed or someone needs to add a complete list. I fully appreciate Wikipedia's NPOV policy and it will be great if you could highlight in the information below what exactly is deemed unacceptable - it's basically updated information for what is already on the page?
Sappi Limited, originally incorporated as South African Pulp and Paper Industries Limited in 1936, is today a global pulp and paper company.[1]
Products and operation
Sappi's 10 mills in Europe and North America have the capacity to produce 4.7 million tonnes per year of fine paper, which includes coated fine paper, uncoated fine paper as well as coated and uncoated speciality paper (such as paper used in flexible packaging and release paper used in the manufacture of synthetic leather and decorative laminate products).[2]
Sappi North America also produces 330,000 tonnes per year of dissolving wood pulp (specialised cellulose), a product made from wood and which is sold to customers who use the product to manufacture a wide range of consumer products, such as clothing, cellophane wrap for sweets and flowers, pharmaceutical and household products, and make-up such as lipstick.
These two manufacturing regions represent 77% of group sales.
Sappi Southern Africa represents the remaining 23% of group sales (products for Southern Africa and export markets) and consists of three sub-divisions:
- Sappi Paper and Paper Packaging produces newsprint, coated and uncoated fine paper, office and business paper (stationery, printing and photocopying), security and speciality paper (passport and election ballot paper), containerboard (such as cardboard boxes used for exporting fruit) and packaging paper (such as shopping bags). The division operates five pulp and paper mills and has a production capacity of approximately one million tonnes of paper and 750,000 tonnes of pulp per year.
- Sappi Forests owns and manages commercial timber plantations of approximately 500,000 hectares.
- Sappi Specialised Cellulose produces approximately one million tonnes of dissolving wood pulp (specialised cellulose) per year from two mills.
Sappi Trading operates a network for the sale and distribution of products outside the main operating regions of North America, Europe and Southern Africa.
Headquartered in Johannesburg, South Africa[2] the company sells its products to merchants, converters, printers, publishers and other direct customers.
Look, I don't know where you're getting your idea that the date format being used for airdates for Canadian TV shows on Wikipedia (the American version, month-before-day) is "unusual", "disruptive", "difficult to understand" or "hard to read" as you claim on your warnings, but that format is the version more commonly being used for most of the Canadian TV shows on this site (which, by the way, is an American website, not a British one) because that version is the more easily understood one by most Canadian readers, and it's actually the British format you favor (day-before-month) that's the more unusual and disruptive version on those articles. Would you use the American dating system for the airdates for British TV shows?
Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the United States, this is month before day; for most others, it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.
In English-speaking Canada, that means the American dating system is the one more commonly used (and has been so on Wikipedia and in English-speaking Canadian media versus Francophone Canadian media, which more commonly uses the British system), so the American system should be the one that takes precedence for Canadian TV show articles (or, for that matter, for any non-Francophone Canadian article that uses a dating system).
And if you plan on pointing out (in defending your use of the British dating system for Canadian TV show articles) that Canada is not the United States, let me just say that Canada is not the United Kingdom either. Creativity-II (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Clearly a misreading of MOS;DATE. That last sentence of the quoted WP:STRONGNAT: Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently, means Canadian topics are expressly exempt from the "more common date format" (which is a debatable notion in any case), and this has long been the consensus (or lack thereof). Also your notions of English/Francophone distinctions are not supported from the MoS. And the "British system" is a misnomer - it is seen in other nations, at the UN, even in some cases in the US (e.g. military), and also contradicted by your reference to Francophone Canadian topics. Dl2000 (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to discuss this exact issue with you (on articles not related to Canadian subjects), but it seems that other people have beat me to it. WP:DATERET states that "the date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is a reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk." If you find an article that is using m/d/y format, please do not change the format to d/m/y without first discussing doing so and achieving consensus on that article's talk page.Ferox Seneca (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
And I'm not saying that "I don't like it": I'm saying that some proper research on the subject of editor retention was done, and it determined that one of the most effective ways of driving away a promising, good-faith, new editor is to revert his good-faith contribution and drop a non-personal user-warning template on his talk page. I don't particularly want to hand-type the same basic information over and over, and I assume that most people don't want to, either. However, we can take some small steps to make user warning templates look like they're just simple, personalized notes by removing unnecessary icons from the uw-1 templates, especially from uw-1 templates that are likely to be dropped on good-faith contributors, like {{uw-unsourced}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any list of unprotected pages that are exempt from WP:Be bold or that define consensus as "get written permission in advance". Are you? Shall we add user templates to that list? Or do you think it's possible that even these templates should be improved through the normal process of consensus-based editing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I do not appreciate being threatened especially when I haven't done anything wrong, I removed them genres as they were unsourced (read no original research amongst other guidelines), I kindly ask you to re-revert your self and source the, if you want to re add them (under BRD). Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to pay attention to any notes accompanying infobox genres before disregarding previous reverts from other editors. Otherwise it looked like a WP:GWAR. Something about WP:BRD... Dl2000 (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Dl2000: there are so many things wrong with what you did here. First, as a long term editor yourself you should know DTTR. Further, if you take a look into his contributions, you could see that he's not a vandal - that's pretty clear. Further, you bypassed WP:AGF and completely bypassed normal warnings and went straight for the jugular and issued a Level 3 warning. Don't try to bait people, please. Dusti*Let's talk!*19:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Took a further look at things. First, my bad, should have followed WP:DTTR although that is neither policy nor guideline. Anyway, the background was that The Resistance (album), @Lukejordan02 was previously reverted by other editors for unexplained genre changes [1][2], and could have saved much trouble had an edit summary been included here. The list of genres, with a comment cautioning against undiscussed genre changes, seemed to have been in place for some time e.g. 05 May 2013. And a look into @Lukejordan02's block log and 0RR situation also indicated ongoing concerns.
Wikipedia entry currently reads that Martin Lewis is 'editor-in-chief' of moneysavingexpert.com and the website 'carries no advertisements'. These claims are contested.
For example, the Advertising Standards Authority regulates advertisements published by moneysavingexpert.com. It is contested therefore that the website carries no advertisements.
For accuracy and impartiality, should recent adjudications by the ASA against the website for misleading advertising be added? This could be in the section titled unauthorised business promotion. This section refers to a ruling in 2012 by Ofcom against GMTV for promoting moneysavingexpert which Ofcom said was a commercial website.
Martin Lewis, editor-in-chief, says that he controls what appears but the ASA when it rules against advertising content requires changes which are then complied with. In the most recent case, the ASA ruled that moneysavingexpert.com must not use a graphic of a telephone and the word 'phone' in headline claims when the offer it is advertising does not include phone calls. The website changed its promotion to a different graphic and the words line rentail instead of phone. It is therefore disputed whether an editor-in-chief or the advertising regulator controls what appears.
'MoneySavingExpert.com's Editor-in-Chief shall determine the design of the website together with any content, email, printed publications, reports, products, services, mobile applications and tools provided by the website from time to time ("MoneySavingExpert.com Content").' (From website's editorial code) http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/editorial-code
Thank you for updating bio for Martin Lewis. moneysavingexpert page might need similar updating as it says no advertising - '.....no advertisements,[3] independent, unbiased and journalistic in all its research and money-saving articles.[4]
hello, my nick here is Эвис.
I was editing Mumiy Troll page, as I'm the media-management for this popular Russian rock-band and I'm sure that all the information I fill in is correct. Could you please save the changes I've made? thanks Эвис (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm so sorry for the mistake. I tried to add some informations from the website of Giusto Manetti Battiloro. In the italian version page of Wikipedia, i didn't have problems, thanks to the visualeditor new system... Is it possible to "copy" the template from the italian version to the US version? And, if the answers is negative, is it possible to change the website addresse to the new one?
The article was updated to set the company website to its current English page. As for direct copying from the Italian page, your point is taken, but care should be taken not to disrupt such features as categories and templates whose structure may not exactly match between the English and Italian Wikipedias. Text which may be acceptable on the Italian page may need to be rewritten to ensure compliance with English versions of Wikipedia policies and practices such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:MOS. Translating and adapting material from other language Wikipedias is not banned, and can even be helpful, but such adaptation should be done carefully. Dl2000 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
You removed my edit to the Sarah Lambert page. It is a brief sub that I have added to citing references. I do not understand why the expanded reference on Sarah Lambert was removed. SHe is the creator of a hit tv show that is referenced and several other shows that also cross referenced on WIkipedia. If you could restore the expanded information I would appreciate it. Also, who are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missingcat (talk • contribs) 06:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Sarah Lambert
September 2014[edit]
Hello, I'm Dl2000. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Sarah Lambert without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Dl2000 (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Sarah Lambert. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm new to editing WIkipedia but wanted to expand the existing entry for Sarah Lambert. ALl information contained in the update was referenced so editors could check the facts. None of the information was promotional. Merely expands on the information already there. IF you can point out anything you believe to be promotional, I'd be interested to see what you can consider to be so. Also can you explain what I am expected to say in the reason for expanding the information within the existing entry? I'm editing and expanding the information available on this person.
There were some problems with your edits which required reverting:
Your edit wiped out the existing formatting, templates and categories (WP:MOS, WP:CAT)
Some of the material you added did seem promotional in tone - see WP:NPOV
"who are you editing other people's entries?" - see WP:OWN; also your changes removed the entries of previous editors (see two points ago)
also, while IMDB is a prominent website for information on entertainers, we don't consider this a reliable source by itself; also we need to be cautious about policies such as WP:BLP
However, your goals to expand the article are positive, so I will look at what you were adding and try to fit some of the material back in with references.
Dear DL2000, the information I added was referenced correctly to Persian pages and news websites. I want to inform people about what happened in the Iranian cyberspace to that person. How else could I do it? Esmatly (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
27th Air Transport Group
I did it manually, so who knows if I really wound up reverting your edit to this page. At any rate, my opinion is that date formats within templates override a use dmy template for an entire page. I've got no WP:MOS authority for this, so I'm open to discusssion. I'm not going back to alter previous edits, but if you're right, I'll change my formatting in the future. Cheers! --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I believe you made an error here. This man has clearly stated that he was born in Kabul, Afghanistan, so there is no reason to remove such information from his article. Carefully read the sources that I've cited. As for your source (Siraj Wahab), he obviously came to Wikipedia on September 30, 2014, to get that false information (from this version) and then added it in his this article. You need to be aware that many news editors in Asia generally use Wikipedia as a source for their information.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
MOS:DATEUNIFY
Hey,
Regarding your edit on the Heavenly Creatures page. You wrote in your edit commit that it was done for MOS:DATEUNIFY, which is great and all, but considering there are 7 references in the article, 4 of which don't have a date and the other 3 were all different, I don't really see how MOS:DATEUNIFY was achieved. Seems a bit of a nitpicky edit which would have been a valid one if you also changed the rest of dates so there would actually be one type of date format.--Gonnym (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
References have been a thorny issue for some editors - in this case, it may be oversight, but probably more an approach which favours false negatives over false positives. Will take another look at that. Dl2000 (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Dl2000, I have removed the COI tag you added on Dilip Chalil article. There are no significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. I can't see any peacock terms or puffery. And I didn't found any related problem explained on the article's talk page. So, I removed that tag and encourage you to watchlist that article. Thanks, JimCarter09:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Use dmy dates tag
I saw that you restored the use dmy dates tag in Battle of Ettlingen that I had removed ("restore from template damage"). I read the template's documentation and now understand that this template is intended to be more or less permanent. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Language links
This user TIY is still adding language links to many articles, although you told him a couple of months ago here that it isn't necessary, as did others twice in 2013. Do you consider this is harmful in any way (apart from misuse of time) and should we try to stop this activity or let it carry on?: Noyster (talk), 20:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
We should probably revert or rollback such edits unless there is a valid reason to add an interwiki to an article (perhaps a rare exception case where Wikidata has a problem). Besides being pointless and wasteful, a redundant interwiki can cause article maintenance problems, particularly if the target page is moved, merged or deleted i.e. Wikidata can handle such changes, but there may not be a bot to update or correct manual interwikis.
In the edit summary for this edit you invoked MOS:DATEUNIFY; it looks like you changed all of the dates (including citation dates) from Month DD to DD Month. My two questions: (i) that guidance doesn't seem to justify changing all of the dates in an article but rather it suggests using an accepted format - like Month DD - consistently; (ii) does that guidance apply to citation text? I should clarify that I prefer DD Month YYYY, but I also prefer sticking to the meaning of the MOS. -- Scray (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The article became rather inconsistent with respect to citation styles, compared to what was in place earlier such as this late April 2013 version (things seemed to change a bit by this end-June 2013 version). Therefore it seemed more appropriate to clean things up to what had been established earlier. However, it probably seems a better priority to expand the citations even if their styles were not yet perfect. Dl2000 (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
No authentic source for Arambam to gross 130 crore
Hi,
The external link I added to the page Athlete's Foot has been removed.
It seems that it was removed only by looking at the anchor text of the link. I don't think that you took proper look at the site before deleting the link. Please take a look at the site and then let me know why do you think that site is not appropriate or it is not related to the page content.
The site can be found here http://howtogetridofathletesfoots.com/.
Will appreciate your response
91.73.70.95 (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Aleksandar
"chronic Asian overlink vandal"
Sounds interesting, do you have a bit more info about this person? That might help me being ruthless when solving articles with excessive disambiguation pages (where I see this behaviour more often). The Bannertalk00:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be a persistent, if somewhat low-frequency situation, but SPH MediaWorks Channel i was semi-prot in September for similar edits, and here's an earlier example. Other Singapore TV-related articles have been hit [3][4][5]. Mostly Singapore it seems, but there also seemed to be some overlinking happening for Thailand [6] and Malaysia [7], although apparently different IP range in those cases. These cases also often relate to Category:MediaCorp. A larger collection of diffs could be compiled if necessary, although it seemed a bit too low-level to launch a formal WP:LTA case. Hope this helps. Dl2000 (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
What I have seen was mainly about TV-stations in Indonesia, Malaysia and China. Same disruptive behaviour. I will keep an eye out for the guy. Seems a different one than the SPH-guy, but you never know. Thanks for the info. The Bannertalk03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
REFRENCES 2,3,4,5,6 ON YOUR ARTICLE MENTIONS NO WHERE THAT HE BHAI MANI SINGH WAS A RAJPUT SIKH. INSTEAD IF YOU CHECK ALL OF YOUR REFRENCES NO WHERE DOES IT SAYS THAT HE WAS A RAJPUT SIKH. ONLY RAJPUT SIKH WRITERS ARE WRITING BHAI MANI SINGH AS RAJPUT SIKH.
Hello. This page has been tagged for speedy deletion under the a3 criteria.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Best, --SecretName101 (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
kozaz records
Hello
please don't change my topic about label company with your opening. keep your opinion for yourself. how many topic do want I show u have got 2 source and nobody said anything like you?
I don't know what is your problem cause it is not sensible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persiangreat (talk • contribs) 01:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
You removed my addition about Michellie Jones because I didn't cite a reliable source. I indicated on my change that she teaches a cycling spin class. I attend the class so I'm a witness to this change. Is that reliable enough?Troydeancollins (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
thanks for revising my date formats to conform to Indian convention. We Americans sometimes forget our way is not the only way :-)
I do think, though, that the "over-quotation" tag should not be reinstated. I removed it precisely because I have edited the article extensively so that it no longer is so reliant on quotation. The "critical reception" section still has quotes, but in that context, the whole point is to see what people say about this artist. In any case, these quotes are MUCH more moderate in length. At the very least, the over-quotation tag needs to move to the section to which applies because it clearly doesn't apply to the entire article.
Overquotation tag was removed - any remaining concerns could be raised on the article talk page. However, edit summaries should be used when making significant edits such as resolving tagged issues. Thanks for this, likewise Merry Christmas & Happy New Year. Dl2000 (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Your advice (about edit summaries as well as using the article talk page) is well taken! I also see that I didn't sign my message here.... all this sloppy rookie behavior, shame on me :-) Thanks! Curious georgianna (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Dl2000, I had replied to your posts at INB, but had forgotten to sign my comment because of which you may not have been pinged. Let me know what you think. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aam Aadmi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Common man. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Dl2000. Looking at your talk page, I see that others have addressed you regarding MOS:DATEUNIFY. I'm stopping by your talk page because of this and this edit you made to the Clitoris article. In the first edit, you cited MOS:DATEUNIFY and changed "May 6 to May 12" to "6 May to 12 May." But WP:ENGVAR states that we should be consistent with date formatting; the "from 6 May to 12 May" bit contrasts the "In May 2013" bit in that same paragraph. You also changed the date style for the references to British format, but I prefer American format because I am American and grew up on that style. And in the second edit, you bypassed a redirect, but WP:NOTBROKEN generally advises against bypassing redirects. All that stated, thank you for the quotation fixes with your first edit. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
1) For the Day-Month and Month-Year example you gave, that change is consistent (it would be Month-Day and Month-Year that would be contradictory style here); 2) the formatting seemed to be established 8 years ago [8], thus assumed references had drifted from what was established; 3) the article has no particular nationality, so changing to American formatting would not be justified (i.e. no WP:STRONGNAT issue); 4) however, WP:NOTBROKEN is noted, and perhaps better to restrict to double redirects or to fix links errors - sometimes popups is too useful. Dl2000 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I look at it this way: "In May 2013" is American formatting; "6 May to 12 May" is British formatting. That is why I pointed to WP:ENGVAR; I pointed to it not only because of its first section but also because of the subsections shown there, such as Consistency within articles. So I am also aware of WP:STRONGNAT. The Clitoris article was very poor eight years ago. I don't think that WP:CITEVAR calls for me to defer to the citation style that you pointed to in the link from eight years ago, before I brought the article to WP:Good article status. WP:CITEVAR speaks of WP:Consensus and "the first major contributor." A WP:Good article review is a WP:Consensus process, and I would not call that editor "the first major contributor." He cleaned up reference matters and cut some text. This link shows all of his edits to the article. While he was the first to add an accepted WP:Citation style to the article, he was not the first to add references to the article. The major contributors of the article can be, or are supposed to be, seen with this link; I currently cannot see anything with that link (took a long time to load and then turned up as a blank page). And this link shows my edits to the article. Changing the article to British formatting when I, as the main contributor of the article, am not British and and do not use British spelling or British citation style except to maintain article consistency is a problem because I then have to go out of my way to use a format that I am not used to using. If you feel that we should discuss what citation style to use for the article because of the aforementioned edit from eight years ago, then I am open to discussing that matter at the article talk page. For now, I changed the article to this (followup edit here). Flyer22 (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
And how would "In May 2013" be rendered in non-American formatting? "In 2013 May"? Per WP:BADDATEFORMAT, it would be expressed as "May 2013" in all cases, ergo there was no contradiction as you are trying to claim. However, will leave the article alone for now and see how other editors view the MoS application here. Dl2000 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
That type of formatting ("In 2013 May" or "2013 May") may be against Wikipedia formatting and what some grammar experts state, but I've seen it on Wikipedia, which is perhaps one reason that WP:BADDATEFORMAT exists, and I don't think such formatting was added by American (United States) editors in any of those cases. Since I'm not sure of a lot of things concerning British grammar/formatting, or the grammar/formatting of other nationalities, I figured that you would state that "In 2013 May" is not a British thing. I was going by what I've seen and read in that case. Significantly reading up on the grammar/formatting of other nationalities is one of the things I've neglected to do in my life (I am likely to rectify that at some point); my user page notes that grammar is perhaps my weakest area. Either way, the article is fine concerning the format I've changed it back to. And as the diff-links I pointed to at the end of my "05:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)" post above show, I've made the date formatting consistent in another area as well -- by removing the dash format. Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you do anything against this person? She vandalizes (example at all the similar pages (Miss World and Miss Universe 1951-2015), her name is Riza1234, had at least 3 sockpuppets (all blocked), but now, evidently, took the new IP and is continuing to vandalize--Unikalinho (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
@Unikalinho: Not much I can do directly, the IP doesn't seem to have been active for a few days, but will try to watch for further shenanigans on the Miss World articles. Active IPs should be warned (WP:UTM) and admins can be requested to block as necessary. IPs are somewhat more difficult to block through SPI (which you've apparently been doing), but chronic cases over many weeks could be raised at WP:LTA (but LTA apparently requires a significant amount of research). Dl2000 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Why are you going through placing British date templates on historically-established articles? I have a few on my watchlist from previous contributions. I am now winding-down on Wikipedia with only a few small changes envisaged, but what format do you personally require? What's the rationale here, for mixing date format? Surely follow the previous history? Am I missing something? Please explain.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Which articles and what mixing of date format are you referring to? [citation needed] There is no personal requirement, but is there a guideline issue you need clarification for? Dl2000 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
There are two general rules: date formats in each article should be homogeneous (except for quotations); British articles take dmy format. I quickly went down some articles on your work list, and they are mostly British, so are likely to be dmy. -- Ohc ¡digame!23:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ohconfucius:I've just tried to save and nearly lost the message below due to the message above being posted! Many of these British articles were originated by Americans, so the above rationale - "likely to be dmy" - does not necessarily apply!
Original message. A scan through your contributions dated 6 January shows innumerable minor edits where top templates have been added to existing articles, many of which are long-standing, what you show in the edit summary as (en-GB) - English date and spelling formats. I have a few on my watchlist, motorcycle racer articles I have been involved with.
Why have you added all these templates retrospectively - date=January 2015 - when the articles are several years old and use another date format, either American or European?
The only guidance I need is what to follow if I should expand the articles. As stated I am winding-down the time I spend on Wikipedia but I am still checking the watchlist. This is just a random example, [[Use dmy dates|date=January 2015}}, [[Use British English|date=January 2015}} when existing references are formatted as Retrieved 2007-11-10 and retrieved 2011-12-05.
I hope this explains the uncertainty of how I interpret these changes - why and what are you trying to achieve? Or has there been some policy change dictating these large-scale changes? I can't imagine why all these have been added manually, irrespective of conflicts with past date formats. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Ohconfucius:. @Rocknrollmancer: - regarding your example of Charles Wright (speedway rider), there were no recent changes in dates or language, just an identification of what would be the existing and/or expected format in the body. The numeric reference access formats were left alone, given that this is another debate (basically, these can differ from the body provided they are in ISO format). Per MOS:TIES, {{Use British English}} and similar conventions would be expected for a strongly or entirely UK subject such as Wright, regardless of the nationality of editors involved. Hope this explains that edit more clearly. Dl2000 (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
For information, it is basically the Britishness of the subject which determines whether the article should adopt dmy format irrespective of who started it. It is because WP:TIES trumps WP:RETAIN. American articles, except for modern US military, ought to be uniformly mdy. Only in the case of non-native English-speaking nations does the date format follow that given originally by the first significant contributor. I hope that helps. -- Ohc ¡digame!02:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Giovanni Cendramini
(When I typed the following in a few minutes ago, I forgot to give it a section header. Reading down your talk page now, I see that it is on a similar topic to the immediately preceding section, so I am making it a level-3 subsection of that one.)
— that I removed last night because it was irrelevant. Only two dates in the article include month and day, and they're both already dmy; the other dates are just years.
@Thnidu: as mentioned in the documentation in {{use dmy dates}}, it does not work like a typical cleanup request tag, therefore it should not be removed even after the article is in full conformance as you've noted. Hope this better explains the reinstatement. Dl2000 (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Dame Edna Treatment may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
