User talk:Daringsmith

You can write here to talk to me directly.

Refs

Please read WP:MEDRS. Primary sources from the 80s are not suitable. Generally we try for the last 10 years. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me regarding this. I'll take care of this for my future edits/references.Daringsmith (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello man, what purpose does having 2500 essay on fotball player about something that could be summed in 20 words? This is not Guardian article looking for bombastic, shocking information about people but informative page about someone's achievements and state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.157.89.29 (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You can first discuss such things with other editors before completely removing information on their talk page. Daringsmith (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Having one incident taking half of the page is overkill. The incident is not even imporant in the player's career. Its not like they killed someone and that changed their life. 185.188.190.137 (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Resident (company), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Coast (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) 07:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Daringsmith! You created a thread called Spam edits by an IP at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sleep, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Ridiculous you would use this ref as a WP:MEDRS-reliable source. Please be more careful about choosing sources. Also, your edit was reckless in syntax. Why bother at all? Zefr (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Urdu reverts

Hi 👋,

My edits have been undone for the second on “Urdu”, May I ask why they have been undone because I feel my edits are justified?

Taimoor Taimoorahmed11 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the reverts by User:Daringsmith and User:Accesscrawl on the Urdu article. User:Taimoorahmed11, you removed the statement that says "approximately 99% of Urdu verbs have their roots in Sanskrit and Prakrit" and have also inserted a fringe statistic sourced to an unreliable reference. This is the third time you have done so, which means that you could be reported to WP:AN3. The statement that you removed was supported by two citations, contradicting your edit summary. The first reference titled "Urdu’s origin", published in Dawn states: "Urdu nouns and adjective can have a variety of origins, such as Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Pushtu and even Portuguese, but ninety-nine per cent of Urdu verbs have their roots in Sanskrit/Prakrit." The second reference published by the PTI for the Ministry of External Affairs states: "All verbs in Urdu are of Sanskrit origin. According to lexicographers, only about 25 percent words in Urdu diction have Persian or Arabic origin." You deleted all of this and replaced it with the dubious statistic "other reports suggest that around 60% of Urdu vocabulary derived from the Persian language" (the source you added for this claim is unverifiable and unreliable). Moreover, it also contradicts three authoritative sources which are published in academic presses that categorize Persian loanwords in Urdu as comprising 25%. "Lineages of the Present: Ideology and Politics in Contemporary South Asia" (authored by Aijaz Ahmad and published by Verso Books) states:

“ On this there are far more reliable statistics than those on population. Farhang-e-Asafiya is by general agreement the most reliable Urdu dictionary. It was compiled in the late nineteenth century by an Indian scholar little exposed to British or Orientalist scholarship. The lexicographer in question, Syed Ahmed Dehlavi, had no desire to sunder Urdu's relationship with Farsi, as is evident even from the title of his dictionary. He estimates that roughly 75 per cent of the total stock of 55,000 Urdu words that he compiled in his dictionary are derived from Sanskrit and Prakrit, and that the entire stock of the base words of the language, without exception, are derived from these sources. What distinguishes Urdu from a great many other Indian languauges ... is that it draws almost a quarter of its vocabulary from language communities to the west of India, such as Farsi, Turkish, and Tajik. Most of the little it takes from Arabic has not come directly but through Farsi. ”

"Hindu Pasts: Women, Religion, Histories" (authored by Vasudha Dalmia and published by SUNY Press) says the same:

“ Syed Ahmad 'had no desire to sunder Urdu's relationship with Farsi, as is evident from the title of his dictionary. He estimates that roughly 75 per cent of the total stock of 55.000 Urdu words that he compiled in his dictionary are derived from Sanskrit and Prakrit, and that the entire stock of the base words of the language, without exception, are from these sources' (2000: 112-13). As Ahmad points out, Syed Ahmad, as a member of Delhi's aristocratic elite, had a clear bias towards Persian and Arabic. His estimate of the percentage of Prakitic words in Urdu should therefore be considered more conservative than not. The actual proportion of Prakitic words in everyday language would clearly be much higher. ”

"Studies in Contrastive Analysis" (authored by Iqtidar Husain Khan and published by Aligarh Muslim University) corroborates this fact:

“ It is estimated that almost 25% of the Urdu vocabulary consists of words which are of Persian and Arabic origin. ”

The PTI citation buttresses this claim too. It doesn't even make sense that your claim would be correct, with Urdu being unintelligible with Persian and Urdu being in the Indo-Aryan language family, not the Iranian language family. This dubious WP:FRINGE statistic (which is probably driven by nationalism) should therefore be removed as WP:UNDUE, in view of the solid 25% statistic that scholars provide in books published by academic publishers on this. I would encourage you to revert your edit before this escalates. Anupam^Talk 00:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with everything User:Anupam has outlined above. The source that you, User:Taimoorahmed11, are trying to add is undue, given that scholarly sources reflect a 25% contribution from Persian/Arabic in the Urdu language. Additionally, you have been warned not to remove a reliably sourced statement about 99-100% of Urdu verb forms being from Sanskrit/Prakrit.Daringsmith (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I apologise for the disruption. I did not mean to cause a chaos. I genuinely didn’t find the “ninety-nine” % for some reason despite reading over it twice. Had I realised it was there, I wouldn’t have made the edit in the first place taimoorahmed11

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) 00:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Company logo Resident Company.svg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SpotMe logo.svg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nectar Sleep

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Nectar Sleep, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resident (company). (See section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "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 deleted 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. TAXIDICAE💰 18:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Resident Home

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Resident Home, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resident (company). (See section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "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 deleted 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. TAXIDICAE💰 18:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Amerisleep

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Amerisleep, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "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 deleted 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. TAXIDICAE💰 18:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Amerisleep

Your article is here, where you can work on it. Please don't move articles out of your sandbox into article space without first getting them reviewed by more experienced editors. Deb (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amerisleep (May 9)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reasons left by DGG were: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: pure advertising

DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Daringsmith! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Amerisleep

Hello, Daringsmith. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Amerisleep, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Amerisleep

Hello, Daringsmith. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Amerisleep".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of SnapEx for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SnapEx 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/SnapEx until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

DMySon (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of HollaEx Kit

The article HollaEx Kit has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to meet our notability standards - sourcing I could find does not amount to significant coverage in independent sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. firefly ( t · c ) 10:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of HollaEx Kit for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HollaEx Kit 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/HollaEx Kit until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

firefly ( t · c ) 12:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

One of your Rollbacks

Can you take some time to explain this edit of yours? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

First impression of the edit was sneaky vandalism. So, I've reverted the edits--Daringsmith (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, just to let you know. They were good faith edits, and if you are not sure if the edits are vandalism or not, then just skip it. Its not that you have to revert each and every vandalism that you find. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 02:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Usually, I don't revert good faith edits but I'll take care of this next time. Thanks for your comment. --Daringsmith (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Hello, I'm Melecie. I noticed that you recently removed content from Imre Vallyon without adequately 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; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your 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. 💜  melecie  talk - 09:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fabin Rasheed (June 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Missvain were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fabin Rasheed and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Fabin Rasheed, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Missvain (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

February 2024

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Spicy (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)