Jump to content

User talk:Dorsetonian/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Catholic Laitinen Welcomes You!

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia! I am Catholic Laitinen, a veteran editor, reviewer, and rollbacker on the English Wikipedia. Below are some links that may be useful to you, and I strongly recommend you review them before making any major or controversial edits. If you have any questions, feel free to consult me at my talk page. Thanks for your contributions, best wishes, and I hope you decide to stay and edit Wikipedia regularly.

File:Welcome mat 2.jpg
Wipe your feet before entering!


~LL~ (talk) (requests) 16:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Grace digital

Haha, I was just doing that, but slightly more cautiously. Well done !! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was quite a severe trim of the article, but then it was almost wholly unreferenced spam. If you think I was a little too overzealous, please feel free to put stuff back. It's quite a surprise that article and the editor who worked on it went under the radar for so long. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Nonono, I'm not going to change a thing. I hate promotional marketingspeak like that. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

List of American police officers killed in the line of duty

Yeah I removed them from the list. Not really sure where they should go on that article though. Inexpiable (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

In the 2015 list they are listed there though. The whole article is a mess tbh.
(ec) Nor I - and some of the other years do indeed have them too. I haven't seen whether or where that decision was discussed and made, and whilst I'm all for consistency, that had clearly already failed. I only stumbled over the changes by chance and have no opinion either way as to whether the guidance (which is anyway odd in the visible text of the article) is appropriate. Dorsetonian (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please approve upcoming film When Obama Loved Osama

Don’t delete this page all are Article is correct Aliya Pr (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I cannot delete the page. I do not intend to comment on the AfD discussion. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Don’t Remove or Delete when obama loved Osama wikipedia page

Please consider our issue need help for this page when obama loved Osama wikipedia information required Aliya Pr (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The page has already been deleted.  Anchorvale T@lk | Contributions  01:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Joseph Bishop for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joseph Bishop is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Bishop until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

World Series additions

Hello and good evening. I was using retrosheet at the bottom of each World Series game I was adding to. Isnt that a sufficient and legitimate source? I am a big fan of old-time baseball and all the facts I entered were correct and accurate. I spent 2 hours doing the additions because there was no commentaries about the games. I was one keystroke away from completing the additions. Can you put them back and maybe we can come to a compromise of what I should do? They were all accurate additions and in good faith. Can you get back to me? Thank you and have a good evening.2601:581:8500:949C:202B:EA83:A2F:B14C (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe retrosheet is considered a reliable source, but the problem I have is that I cannot substantiate what you have written from it. As an example, in 1925 World Series you added "This game had the most controversial "out" in World Series history. Earl Smith hit a ball into the center field bleachers, which Rice fell into the bleachers attempting to catch it". I can't see anything in http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1925/B10100WS11925.htm which describes that event, let alone assert it to be the most controversial in world history. Similarly, in 1940 World Series I cannot find any reference to confirm "Newsom won easily", etc. Have I missed them? Dorsetonian (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. I have also used the The Macmillan Baseball Encyclopedia 1993 edition for a lot of those entries, I changed the wording a little bit,and that commentary was in that particular world series game commentary.I used the encyclopedia for basically all the additions I made today, Retrosheet very little.So I have to fess up, the Baseball Encyclopedia was my main source. I understand and get it.You have a great evening, and maybe I will modify certain additions that you point out to your satisfaction.Good night.2601:581:8500:949C:202B:EA83:A2F:B14C (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I would expect that to be a reliable source though I can't find any reference to it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball. If it is, I would still recommend that you check the guidelines on tone and, most significantly, ensure you include citations to the source you used. I don't have a particular interest or expertise in baseball - I came upon your edits when scanning all recent changes - so probably cannot advise beyond that. I'd suggest getting involved at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball if you plan to specialise in that subject area, and visiting the Teahouse and Help desk if you have more general questions. Dorsetonian (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited APL (programming language), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PPL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey

Sometimes its better to ask for the page to be protected than to ask for a block/checkuser of the ips that vandalize the page or add borderline dubious things to it. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I came to that conclusion as well - I subsequently did that also. The IPs are probably stale now anyway; I'll add a comment to the Sock report. Thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your tagging, and we may have a common problem.

I probably did go over-the-top in my tagging of the "List of breakfast drinks", and I'm absolutely fine with your removal of the questionable ones.
But, take a look at what NorthAmerica1000 subsequently removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_breakfast_drinks&action=history
I've reverted back to your revision, - but I fear that NorthAmerica1000 might blow a gasket on it.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

As your tag additions were reverted it would probably have been better to start a discussion on the talk page rather than simply replace them. FWIW, I believe the lead is particularly bad and really does need rewriting, and clearly the lack of focus was a recurring complaint at the most recent AfD. If the tags get taken away again I would strongly advise against getting into an edit war about it. Indeed, if the article continues to bother you I would take it off your watchlist and move onto something more constructive. Northamerica1000's opinions are as valid as yours or mine and even though we have disagreed with them on this article I think it is far less a tragedy that a "bad" article is kept than a "good" article is deleted. In other words, in general Wikipedia should err on the side of inclusionism. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Iota

Why did you delete the iota(miota) head in disamguation of iota? Jitheshpnambiar (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Because it was deemed non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOTA (technology). Dorsetonian (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
It was just simple fact I was adding. Its all over the internet.No advertising or anything,then why? U TELL ME. Is IOTA_(MIOTA) not a type of cryptocurrency? and is it not based on DAG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jitheshpnambiar (talk • contribs) 12:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

My maps

You deleted all my maps, after when wiki accepted it. I opend for watching, what a problem. And you wrote "Remove meaningless chart". Who are you that you think it's meaningless chart? Do you know, that after "Remove meaningless chart" i can write a complaint? I will, required, If you won't stop LandRussia (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

yeah, lets talk with administrative of wikipedia. I will listen, what will they say LandRussia (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I posted an explanation on your talk page before you wrote this. As you deleted that, I am posting it back here. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The population maps you are adding are give no indication of where or when the data originated (see WP:V), nor do they explain what they mean. For example, in this chart, yellow apparently means "<70". <70 what? Dorsetonian (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dorsetonian. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dorsetonian. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please stop threatening and bullying

Please don't leave any more bullying threats on my talk page. See the history of the editor engaged in revenge editing before making any further abusive comments on my talk page. Thank you.50.254.145.83 (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Whatever your history with this editor, a copyvio is a copyvio and is never acceptable, nor is the series of personal attacks you are making in your edit summaries. Desist. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hello - I'm writing from an IP you left a message on. Apologies if this is the wrong place, but where can I report that this IP, specifically, is a public IP (it's from the Martin Luther King Jr. Library on the San Jose State University campus? I know several vandals have used this IP (judging from the new messages when I surf Wikipedia). Thanks for any help - 130.65.254.5 (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It's already highlighted in the yellow box at the head of the talk page. If you want to disassociate yourself from those vandals you could create an account; you can still be as anonymous as you wish to be. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matthew Rhys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Welsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Franz Klainsek

As you tagged the Franz Klainsek page for deletion per WP:CSD#G12 for copyright violations (and it was a mess), I thought you might want to participate in the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franz Klainsek discussion. – Athaenara ✉ 13:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I will look at it later. 17:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

RE:

The edit talk in London Independence was me. But it did not get any attention. So I rewrote it. Unfortunately I find the article to be very disconcerting and false because it shouldn't have the title of "London Independence" when there was never an official referendum taken place, nor has there been any desire to do so. This has been taken out of context purely because London overwhelmingly voted to remain as part of the EU. That does not mean it wants to secede. Whoever wrote this article needs to re-write it. No one has said that it would be "inevitable" as I noticed. There is simply no citation to back this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C823:9E00:C463:23F2:6B6F:58DC (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the talk page as it was. I have no real opinion on the validity of the page but if you feel your comments are not being seen you could place tags on the main page to direct people to the discussion page. See e.g. WP:DISPUTETAG, WP:CLEANUPTAG. Dorsetonian (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there any chance the title could be changed please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C823:9E00:CC55:DD44:7705:5F9A (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You can request this at WP:MOVEREQ. Dorsetonian (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C823:9E00:9014:1A96:5598:392D (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits for Michael Cremo / Vimanas

The wording you reversed is not original research. Several Wikipedia articles centered on pseudoarchaeology cite these articles. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.78.193 (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pausing to discuss. In general my concerns are centred around WP:NPOV and WP:V. In some instances such as in David Hatcher Childress where "lost cities such as Atlantis" has been replaced with "pseudoarchaeological and pseudoscientific topics such as [[Atlantis]", it also feels far less illuminating. Clearly the places you have done this are in the area of non-mainstream, pseudo-scientific views, but that is already apparent, is it not? Dorsetonian (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I am going offline and will not object if, having read this, you disagree and revert my reversions. Obviously if others also revert you then it will be appropriate to go to the relevant talk pages and discuss. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscience wording

(Created a new section since it seems to be a slightly larger discussion than just the previously mentioned topics.)

Thanks for discussing as well. I don't believe the edits I've made really fall under "original research," as what I'm doing is tying together Wikipedia articles which often already refer to each other and to related articles. I've had edits like these on related pseudoarchaeology topics survive a lot of attention and vandalism over the last few months without the suggestion of original research coming up.

I'm also off, and don't intend to reverse your changes; if another editor comes along to look at those topics, they have both of our points of view to pick from. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.78.193 (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

List of rock and roll performers

I see you removed a large number of edits by an anonymous editor on the list of rock and roll performers. I think a lot of those entries were correctly removed, but a lot of them seemed valid too. Do you think you could go back and more selectively remove the ones you don't think are rock and roll performers? IronGargoyle (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the WP:BURDEN is on the person putting them there to establish that they belong. That editor has today put a load back and just reviewing the last one - Carly Simon - I see no improvement: no-one would associate her style with the genre described at Rock and roll. And yet the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame seems to have in it many artists (albeit not Carly Simon) that seem out of place too, so who knows any more? The term seems to be too vague (or, at least, too much abused) to be meaningful and the article is totally pointless as a result. I'm not sure I can, or want, to contribute to it any more. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Jay Foreman (businessman)

The content you removed seems to have reappeared. I've removed it again. PamD 17:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and for letting me know. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

UPS delivery vans in fact have no air conditioning.

Read on to see that they don't: https://www.google.com/search?q=ups+trucks+no+air+conditioning&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS851US853&oq=ups+trucks+no+air+conditioning&aqs=chrome..69i57.6460j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Several sources in that link say the same thing.

What else should I do to the United Parcel Service article to further reinforce that these trucks have no air conditioning?

And what is "soapboxing" anyway?

I'm messaging you here because the 3RR guideline that you posted says to bring the issue to one's talkpage in order to reach a solution that has consensus. --172.124.128.102 (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing. Re WP:SOAPBOXING: you are linking to an article about a petition, which can be interpreted as a means of promoting that petition. I removed the comment because of that, because I was not convinced it's that relevant an observation in an article about UPS the company, and because the claim was too sweeping - you referred to all delivery trucks of a company that operates worldwide, with a reference only to the US part of the operation. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Christian Life College for Deletion

Hello Dorsetonian,

I read through the message you left regarding a nomination for deletion. Although you did indicate that the page did not credibly indicate how it was generally accepted as notable, you did not provide a rationale as to why. It has unfortunately since been deleted. I would like to recreate this page but I would like to engage with your reasons first. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Joshuaabrego831 (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, Dorsetonion, see this discussion on how educational institutions are ineligible for criteria A7 deletion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7. Christian Life College, is an accredited institution in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaabrego831 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, you are right - I had forgotten the educational institution exemption. The speedy deletion was therefore invalid, but note that, per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable - articles about them still need to establish notability and yours, which as I recall made no claims of notability and which was only referenced with WP:PRIMARY sources, did not do so. Also, if you are the Joshua Abrego listed here you should also follow the processes at WP:COIEDIT (including: "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly"). Dorsetonian (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I have since created a draft and submitted it with pertinent modifications to demonstrate notability and secondary sources. Thank you for the suggestions in that regard. If your editorial responsibilities permit, it would be much appreciated if you could expedite a revision due to its unnecessary deletion.Joshuaabrego831 (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

New message from Harsh 2580

Hello, Dorsetonian. You have new messages at Harsh 2580's talk page.
Message added 17:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Harsh (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Toruk – The First Flight

why dont you go remove all tour schedules for cirque du soleil if you insist to have a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cirquish (talk • contribs) 18:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Most of them appear to be unreferenced and should be removed. I dispute that, even if referenced, they serve any encyclopaedic value and am concerned that they are in fact being placed in articles as a form of advertising of upcoming events. The same goes for the descriptions of the shows and the acts, which seem to come straight from the company's own advertising. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Cirque du Soleil Tour Dates

Please leave the Cirque du Soleil show tour dates alone! I don't care if they are unsourced or not, but what you're doing is considered wrong towards the Cirque du Soleil community. Matthew250 (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you please explain why "the Cirque du Soleil community" would be exempt from WP:V, WP:COPYVIO and WP:SPAM? Dorsetonian (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

They are not exempt from any of those things you mentioned. But I do know that you are exempt to WP:VANDALISM, which is not a good thing that you are doing on this site. Matthew250 (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Removing unsourced content, blatant copyvios and spam is not vandalism. It was not acceptable for you to put them back in. Dorsetonian (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

McDaniel College

On my edit you reverted on McDaniels College, should the 'notable alumni' that were removed be there or not? Just asking. ∞southernkangaroo ∞ talk∞ 14:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Good question. IMO, having, or not having, an article is a good indicator of notability - but I can't dispute your reasoning "just cause they dont got a page for themselves dont mean theyre not notable". Indeed, WP:LISTBIO states Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. ... Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (my emphasis) - which is a far lower bar than having a standalone article. WP:SOURCELIST does require refs, however, and only one of the names was referenced (and I cannot access it in my region to validate it) - so if you put any of them back, I reckon you should probably make sure they are referenced at the same time. Dorsetonian (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Tati Westbrook — edits

I was about to add the Youtube buttons back to Tati’s page, but you beat me to it.

I don’t have a connection to her, but noticed some strange activity as I was searching about YouTubers in general.

How do we go about locking her page? It seems this is a necessary step because clearly people are vandalizing her page. I don’t have much experience yet in editing Wikipedia pages, so I’m not sure about the process. ScienceJohn99 (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You would need to ask an admin to protect the page; you can do that by following the instructions at WP:RPP - though it seems to me there is a very low level of disruption on that page and it is probably not necessary. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

removing disputed information about the origin of TI BASIC

the origins of TI BASIC (TI 99/4A) are in dispute. The TI-99 community has looked into it and interviewed the engineers involved in the creation of TI-BASIC. I am attempting to set the matter straight by 1st removing the disputed information that TI-BASIC was created by MS and add sources of interviews of the actual engineers of TI-BASIC who worked with TI at the time. the sources for the engineers are interviews made and posted on Atariage.com. the MS references are books. I have marked the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hloberg (talk • contribs) 21:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Removing unsourced content is fine; adding unsourced content, unreliably sourced content, or sourced content from which you draw your own conclusions isn't, and that's why several editors reverted what you were doing. In my opionion: you are right; the article needed cleaning up, but a Wikipedia article is not the place to start making a case for or against a particular viewpoint; Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which simply presents verifiable facts. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Northumbrian dialect page

Hello, Dorsetonian

What gives you the authority to dismiss the sources I am citing? I am a native Northumbrian myself who studies my native dialect, and I am citing literature which is very relevant to the page in question. It is downright insulting that you bestow yourself with such authority on a topic which you likely know very little about. I kindly suggest that you focus on the Dorset dialect page instead.

148.88.245.188 (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Virtually none of your content was sourced. The little bit that was cited a self-published book and a website about the dialect of Weardale. Wikipedia has strict rules about verifiability, which you are not following. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hostingraja speedy deletion

hi Dorsetonian (talk) saw you said that page doesnt deserve to be in wikipedia, take a look at these links a company with 19.1 million in revenues global business do you still feel this page is fit for deletion. i again say this is not meant for promotion, this is a give deserving chance to a page about a company that is a leading player. Hence i request you to please help restore this page. https://www.rfdtv.com/story/40973046/hostingraja-to-empower-58-million-small-businesses-in-india-in-creating-a-credible-online-presence https://www.zoominfo.com/c/hosting-raja/357469577 Joydeep ghosh (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

manage your wikipedia addiciton and impulses

You left an unwarranted subjective message on my talk page. Do not post anyhow. Post if there is a violation. cite specific policy with specific passage. Since there are equal and opposite policies for every thing, cite counter and recounter to justify. Do not waste your and others time. Thank you for your efforts at wikipedia. treat IPs with respect. Manager and curb you addiction and illogical impulses. Trying to get counters up, unfairly? Good luck with your attempts to be ADMIN, you have not earned it yet and my vote is NO if you behave this way. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to frame this and pin it on my wall. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dorsetonian - undoing my changes to the 'New Political Centre - Girchi' page

Hi Dorsetonian,

I've noticed that you keep undoing my updates for the Girchi political page. The first time was for a lack of citations - which I provided. The second time was for 'political bias'. I have read through the article and I do not agree. I would appreciate it if you would highlight specific sections that you deem to be politically biased so that I may review them, as opposed to undoing the whole article, which I have put a considerable amount of work into it.

As a side note - I'd like to thank you for your moderation work - it is an important job and it is clear you do it diligently.

Many thanks,

Spencer — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpencerWhiskard (talk • contribs) 18:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for engaging. Your latest edit summary simply said you had simply undone my change but in fact I see now that you have done rather more than that. I apologise - in the belief that the content was going back exactly as it was (unreferenced and non-neutral) I did not re-examine what you had done. I still haven't, and I haven't the time to do so now so I make no comment on the new text, but my reversion should not stand until I do. I will self-revert in the meantime. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Reference is not OR

Hey! I hope you are well. My additions to an article were recently removed due to being labelled as OR, but this is not the case. The reference link given is a link to the cia.gov website and links to the pdf of the cited text. Please let me now if there are remaining problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nascar19 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


Removal of my edit

Hi, I have been trying to update the information on Adam Handling's wikipedia page. The information I am uploading is purely factual but keeps getting removed for being promotional. Is there any tips you can provide me as to how to make the information suitable for wikipedia?

Thank you Amale1209 (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately it was not purely factual. Phrases such as "the dishes served at Frog by Adam Handling showcase Adam’s talent for combining technical savvy with the freshest seasonal produce and exciting flavour pairings" have no place in an encyclopaedia. Please see WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV, and if you have a connection with the subject, WP:COI and WP:PAID. Dorsetonian (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: December 2019 (Canada's National Ballet School edits)

Post was not intended to promote business, but to update significant historical gaps in the page and provide a more accurate summary of the organization's focus and activities. Is there not a process to edit language that seems promotional, without removing all of the updated content? The page as it stands features a great deal of information that is no longer relevant or accurate, which was addressed in the update. 2001:569:BC22:9000:7D72:2733:2812:D2A1 (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ioannina

I'm sorry, it's inadvertent. I didn't even notice it. 85.11.171.206 (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No harm done; thanks for clarifying. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Ninjago

Hello and thanks for notifying me about the three-revert rule. I will be more careful while editing, however, someone has been undoing my edits that I have citated with an official source. I have tried to talk to them in their talk page but they keep reverting my edits, even though they are citated. They also citated their own edits with weak and barely-relevant links. Since I am new to the platform I am not really experienced on how I should handle these situations. Is there anything I can do? Perhaps an admin can check the sources to see if they are valid or not? Thanks in advance. BilIsHadToDoItToEm (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have commented at Talk:Ninjago (TV series). Dorsetonian (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! I left a comment back at Talk:Ninjago (TV series), you can read it if you like. I'll be reverting the changes on the page for one last time and then I'll be glad to discuss about the matter with anyone on the talk page. BilIsHadToDoItToEm (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I have commented at Talk:Ninjago (TV series) again, reverted you, and warned you again for edit warring. Dorsetonian (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment

You keep editing my towns Wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.5.107 (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Question

What do you mean?? gado gado — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.215.152.194 (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You removed a hatnote and maintenance tag. The hatnote served a purpose, and the maintenance tag (additional citations required) still applies: the main section is unsourced, the remaining ones very poorly so. Dorsetonian (talk)

Brexit

Well, no one expects the EU Parliament to veto the Withdrawal Agreement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominiqueque (talk • contribs) 17:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No, indeed. But that does not make it absolutely certain, yet your statement presumed it was. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Great Sankey High School

I would like to ask why you removed the two sections “Uniform” and “Timetable” and the new information on the “Extensions” section. The information that I added is completely true and you reverting these edits makes the information on the page not true as Wikipedia is here to help people get information.

Thank you for reading and if this was a mistake, that is fine!

(BhadBhabie123 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC))

Because the (current) times of breaks and so on is trivial and encyclopaedic. Incidentally, the "reference" you subsequently added was nothing of the sort. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I am truly sorry that you have to get angry with me, but incidentally the information that you are adding is wrong. The references I have added are correct, and if you are so much to think that what I have written is wrong, you should take time out of your day to call the school up yourself to find out the true information. Stop trying to engage in an edit war with me BhadBhabie123 (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh. AND the reference that I added was related to the information that I wrote down. If you would like I can quote what the reference said if you couldn’t read it, BhadBhabie123 (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

“Consultation on the length of the school day at Great Sankey” - this means that they will be talking about the timetable and how long the school day is at great sankey high school. “Proposed changes to the structure of the school day at Great Sankey” - this means they are giving ideas on changing the timetable of Great Sankey High School. “Lengthen the school day by 15 minutes, with school starting at 8.25am and then finishing at 2.40” - this means that the school day is going to be 15 minutes longer, and it will finish later.

ALL of this true information was said in my description and none of what I wrote was fake. Please do not accuse me of lying and using words like incidentally, implying that I am being untruthful as the matter of the fact is you are the one who is being arrogant and making the Wikipedia page misleading. BhadBhabie123 (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not angry. I have not added any information, only removed that which I challenged. Your reference - as you said - showed only that the timetable was being discussed; it did not confirm anything. And even if it did, it is trivial and does not belong here. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Quick question

Hey, I noticed you've put up User:EyeCSM for admin action against vandalism. As I was looking into his case as well, I added subsequent warnings when I reverted his edits. Is this OK or should I only leave one even if the vandalism continues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodCrossing (talk • contribs) 23:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to add them, but there's not really any point now. They have reached the maximum level of warnings, are clearly only here to cause mischief, and will be blocked very shortly when an admin responds to the report. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

college of business city university ranking, program info are not up to date. similar schools wiki are up to date

Please allow factual info update on college of business, city universtiy - such as ranking, programmes. this is inline with update info that appears in business schools in general. for example, HKUST business school (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HKUST_Business_School) are very up to date thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.188.21 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

You were blocked, as CollegeofbusinessCityU, for making promotional edits. Your subsequent editing of College of Business, City University of Hong Kong and here is disallowed. Dorsetonian (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Personal atack (cousin)

Was not a personal attack, just a correction about bad practices. The comment was very constructive. Sometimes there are things people can learn from other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.8.4 (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Conor Mccreedy Page

Hi Dorsetonian

Please can you be more specific on what parts of the page do not conform to Wiki requirements:

a) A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (February 2020) b) This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (March 2020)

Can i be noted that when creating a Wiki page surely the person has to have some interest or connection to the person or object they are writing about otherwise why would they bother. It's like saying that people shouldn't accept the Bible because it was written by Jesus' friends. I understand there is a thin line on this subject but surely people interested in an artist want to view the artists work, posting his latest pieces is promotional but also the reason a person would view the page and is the whole reason for Wikipedia. If the latest piece by Banksy was posted would you also say that was self promotional. It seems that because the artist doesn't have the same level of noteriaty you see it as self promotional. Putting up this banner is your subjective opinion and i don't see what gives you that authority. I look forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiersE75 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

There is interest which is merely intellectual and there's interest where there is something at stake. Wikipedia would like contributions from the former not the latter, and the reasons are well explained at WP:COI.
A dispassionate and encyclopaedic article - which this should be - does not contain phrases such as "Mccreedy’s paintings evoke places between the real and the imaginary". This article is a promotional piece and needs significant rework; the tags are there to alert other editors of that concern so that it may may be fixed, and they should not be removed before it is.
Your analogy with the bible completely misses the point. An encyclopaedia should contain only verifiable facts from reliable sources which are independent of the subject. That does not mean that things which are not that have no place in the world. Such things can even be written about here if they are notable - but only objectively. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Great Offices of State

Hi Dorsetonian, just letting you know that I have undone an edit you made on Great Offices of State regarding Boris Johnson, just as the topic is still under discussion at Talk: Great Offices of State. Leave your opinion there by all means! Nt1192 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have responded on the talk page. Dorsetonian (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Jeff Clemmons

Where in the rules does it say an article has to be written for someone listed as an alumni? Tell me. Show me. That individual was listed for a decade before you and others keep removing him. 23.31.129.3 (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The list of people in the "Notable Alumni" section are, by definition, notable (note that WP:WPSCH/AG#OS links to the same notability guidance). In your edit summary you asserted he has written two books, a screenplay and was nominated for an Emmy Award for "Rich's Remembered; not to mention, the one site listed here for him was from a Reinhardt press release which could suggest he is notable, but the lack of an article means that has not been tested. Writing the article will establish that. See also WP:WTAF. Dorsetonian (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
He wasn't originally redlisted, to the point you had me "see also." He was listed, but not with a useless redlink. I will created an article for him to stop this back and forth. I do not agree with your assessment that a stand alone article must be created. There are numerous examples on Wiki where such articles do not exist. 23.31.129.3 (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Trechistus and Trechimorphus

I see you've reverted my edits on these because the location is not in the reference. It's true that the location is not listed in the Catalogue of Life genus, but Australia is under "Distributions" in each of the species for both these genera. Trechimorphus Trechistus

Ron Cahute

Ron Cahute passed away. Could you please revert the edits? StickyPeaches (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Your text was not referenced, and presented a different birthdate than the one already there (albeit also unreferenced). Dorsetonian (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Information icon Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. PotassiumLover72 talk 07:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Benjamin Mendy. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. PotassiumLover72 talk 08:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I swear, its your fault. You are trying to stop me from getting my rollback request accepted. Please stop. Or you may be blocked from editing. PotassiumLover72 talk 08:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
You are the one edit warring, yet you warned me for it. Earlier, you warned a user against vandalism when it appeared not to be vandalism, and when I asked why you templated me to assume good faith. Clearly most of your edits are good, yet these are very problematic. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
You are the one who is edit warring as you violated the 3RR. PotassiumLover72 talk 08:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Would you care to demonstrate where? Dorsetonian (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
at the article, Benjamin Mendy PotassiumLover72 talk 08:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Here is the proof. PotassiumLover72 talk 08:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Yet the history of that page shows that I have not violated 3RR and it is you who is edit warring. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
You started it first. You randomly appeared out of nowhere and striked 3 edits. PotassiumLover72 talk 09:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PotassiumLover72 talk 08:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey. I had fun editing wikipedia. You may or may not remember me soon because I had a battle with something that I may cause a drama. Don't worry, I'll be back soon. PotassiumLover72 talk 12:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Dorsetonian. Yes, I'm sure by my name you can see who I am, but before telling an admins I would like to say some things.

Dorse, I know that I have sockpuppeted, and my previous account will probably be my last. I know on my MrDavr, I accept 100% I was a disruptive disgrace to Wikipedia, I accept that now, but my past self would not have.

So I sockpuppeted on the Mazda CX-7 and Skoda Yeti, just in the hope my edits wouldn't be reverted, unknowingly that sockpuppeting was even a rule.

Then, I started making more accounts, getting banned, sockpuppeted again, and got banned, and the cycle was continuous (and I thought the ban was permanent, not only a couple of months long, which is the main reason I had created the accounts).

From the ArchipelagoOcean account, it was the time I realised my edits were disruptive, so I tried changing it up.

I personally think my edits progressively started getting better as I continously made accounts, and personally thought I hadn't socked, my edits would have stayed the same. Yes, I am just an Australian 14yo teenager.

FYI, This is not an unblock request, but I would also like to see what @Mr.choppers and @Andra Febrian have thought about this.

Once again, I probably wouldn't have sockpuppted if I had knew that sockpuppeting was a thing, and wouldn't have continued if I had knew the ban wasn't permanent.

-- MrDavrSock, or MrDavr (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure where he should bring this up. User:MrDavrSock, be aware that if you are given a probationary account (if that's even a thing) you'd be under close scrutiny and I cannot promise it would be unlimited fun. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  11:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Can I know your thoughts though? MrDavrSock (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
MrDavr - I am not sure exactly what you are asking for, or what you want me to give my thoughts on. I am not an administrator so I cannot unblock you, and as you are banned (not just blocked) I think you may face some hurdles. You might want to read WP:SO. Given that your many socks have claimed to be all sorts of different people, I have very little confidence you've been entirely forthright here either. Dorsetonian (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Edits re: Cultural Terms Around Ethnicity

Within the UK, as can be seen from a number of reliable sources, non-white is considered a rude term to use. Further, as previously cited, Rishi Sunak is not the first "non-white" Prime Minister. I am unsure why it is more important to you to use culturally & factually incorrect language, instead of the language that Mr Sunak actually identifies by. Dormouser (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You said that Rishi Sunak was not the first non-white Prime Minister on account of the fact that Disraeli was Jewish and thus "non white". This assertion that Jewish and white are mutually exclusive is, I would suggest, contentious - but what you or I think is largely irrelevant; what Wikipedia writes is only what is already published in reliable sources. Whilst I can find many sources that state that Disraeli was the first British Prime Minister from an ethnic minority, I can find none that say he was the first non-white - and I can find many sources that support the assertion that it was Sunak who was the first non-white Prime Minister. The place to discuss this is not here but on the talk page of the article itself, where more people can offer their opinion. If consensus is not reached that way, WP:RFC is a way if bringing in more people, and should lead to a formal closure one way or another. Dorsetonian (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

iPhone 15 Speed Deletion

Why do you want to delete iPhone 15 am 2th 2 languages got added in wikipedia

am i am making my artivle but wth, why you want speed deletion, cuz im mad of you!!!!! TonyJrVSG (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Because you copy and pasted from Draft:iPhone 15, which is where the page history is. Now the page histories are completely screwed up and someone is going to have to spend time fixing it all. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Kkkkkkkkkkk 2600:1017:B12D:B1E7:7865:E858:2F0D:A0D3 (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Reversion of Maya context on Jiva article

Hi,


I noticed you just reverted my contribution on the jiva article. I added the information about maya to the article to provide readers with some background context and I think the information should stay in the article.


Diff link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jiva&diff=1186377025&oldid=1186376756


Thanks,

Starlights99 (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is, what you wrote is completely incomprehensible: Also described as a divine illusion, maya keeps jivas bound by the world through attachment of the senses, trapping it in the cycle births and deaths. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
The concept of maya and its influence on a jiva is common across many philosophies, so I'm not sure what you find incomprehensible about the statement. Please could you explain?
Thanks,
Starlights99 (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I have read this over and over, and it makes no sense to me whatsoever. What does keeping jivas "bound by the world" mean? Bound to what? How does the world bind anything? What does "attachment of the senses" mean? Again - attachment to what? And how are senses attached to anything? What are "cycle births" - or is there simply a word missing here? Assuming so - what is "the" (as opposed to "a") "cycle [of] births and deaths"? What is "it" which is trapped? - the only possible match that is singular is "maya" yet the subject is "jivas", a plural. To me, this is just an incoherent collection of apparently random words, though many of them do seem to match the existing text The jiva is defined as a distinct, individual soul, i.e., a finite sentient being. Jivas are bound by maya, which hides their true self, which is characterized by eternal existence, consciousness and bliss. There are an infinite number of jivas. They are extremely subtle, indivisible, unpierceable, ageless and immortal. While residing within the heart, a jiva pervades the entire body by its capacity to know (gnānshakti), making it animate. It is the form of knowledge (gnānswarūp) as well as the knower (gnātā). The jiva is the performer of virtuous and immoral actions (karmas) and experiences the fruits of these actions. It has been eternally bound by maya; as a result, it roams within the cycle of birth and death. Birth is when a jiva acquires a new body, and death is when it departs from its body. Just as one abandons one's old clothes and wears new ones, the jiva renounces its old body and acquires a new one - are you duplicating part of that? Dorsetonian (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dorsetonian/Archive_1&oldid=1258453658"