User talk:Dalahäst

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Miscellaneous unsorted messages[edit]

Thanks Dalahast, your welcome is really appreciated. I love Wikipedia and I'd hate to break some rule and spoil things. I'll read the study you sent before I post any more. I am mostly posting figures and I'm really concerned I'll upset the page's look and feel. I'm trying not to stuff things, but I'm a newbie on a lot of levels. Cheers JohnMZoomNoodle77 (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I know it can be a bit daunting to try and remember all the policies and whatnot sometimes, but remember to be bold—if you make a mistake, someone will more than likely fix it and let you know. If you have any questions about editing, feel free to drop by the Teahouse, a forum for newer users to get help with editing Wikipedia.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 11:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi the Frittata is Croatian dish. Italy have their own variations.. but is originali Croatian dish

Sardam ahmad2000 (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC) thanks for your information

a little help please[edit]

I have been editing a page: but another user (who seems to have made their first edit to this page making very subjective claims - Fendahl1982) is removing my, referenced, additions. Do you have any advice on how to moderate this please? I am only using factual, referenced, edit points but am being accused on 'marketing' – which I am not. Sorry to bother you, I am an inexperienced contributor and keen to get this correct. thanks - thanks also for your kind welcome to Wikipedia!Batman1881 (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

While I wouldn't go as far as to say it looks like "marketing", your edit regarding the college's residential and educational facilities doesn't have a reference attached to it, which might have helped your cause had you included one. The entries for other educational institutions often include information about dormitories and the like, so I don't see why there would be a problem including this. As far as the page organization is concerned, I think it would make more sense to place your information under one or two separate headings ("Facilities" and "Courses", perhaps), rather than renaming the history section to include them, as they aren't really related to the history section.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 13:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thanks Dalahäst, this is helpful. I am keen not to get into some kind of mysterious argument with the other editor whose editor on 15 May looks like he is pursuing some kind of attack on the college by making allegations of redundancies etc. If I make another edit shall I include your user name in the Edit summary if I follow your advice? Will that help do you think? Sorry - I am new to WIkipedia so am anxious to get this right. Thank you. Batman1881 (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
It looks to me like he's just trying to clean the page up to be more concise and contain the most relevant details. Remember that not everything belongs on Wikipedia just by virtue of being true. Don't worry about quoting me or saying "X said I should do Y". Just be bold and make your edits. If another user reverts them, that's OK, and it makes a great starting point for a discussion about what to do next. You don't have to worry about starting a "mysterious argument". Try to work with the other editor(s) to determine the best way to include the information you want to add in the article.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 01:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Good article[edit]

I'll be here, I do not bother with the greetings and width Javad Ramezani please redirect me.--Mohafzanwikipedia (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Javad Shororab was tagged for deletion because according to Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria, it doesn't credibly indicate why Javad is significant enough to have a Wikipedia article. If you disagree with the tag, you can add a note explaining why on the article's talk page: simply go to the article and click the button that says "Contest this speedy deletion". Please don't just remove the notice, though; it is against the rules to remove the notice from articles that you created yourself.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 06:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I spoke with other users of the website and I confirmed Javad Ramezani shorab on YouTube and other sites.--Mohafzanwikipedia (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I explained to you, and R & B singers He locked his songs were downloaded on YouTube 1000000--Mohafzanwikipedia (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The content you placed on the talk page is about Justin Bieber. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with the subject of your article.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 06:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Javad Shororab Switch Javad Shorab.--Mohafzanwikipedia (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Harrow link you see my link.--Mohafzanwikipedia (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I just want you to create a warm Again twice I let you link.--Mohafzanwikipedia (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see links to let you view--Mohafzanwikipedia (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


birthday 1st of may —Preceding unsigned comment added by FarahB13 (talkcontribs) 19:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohafzanwikipedia (talkcontribs)

Re: Korean romanizations[edit]

Oh, okay, thanks! --ChoHyeri (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! But I'm just saving that for record, the page itself got deleted by the speedy deletion criteria. --Arceus3333 (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Tagging: Hindu Ghosi[edit]

Please allow the edit work to be completed. You found the article confusing due to intermediate edits made by other users. Let the work progress there. Still if you have any issues, you are most welcome on the talk page of the article. Please help. Thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 15:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit that caused me to notice the page while patrolling recent changes was the first edit to the page since 31 May. The {{inuse}} template was removed by a bot because the article wasn't actively being edited anymore, so I wasn't aware that it was still a work in progress. I see that it's back now, though; I wouldn't have tagged it had it still been there. dalahäst (let's talk!) 17:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your kind review of my humble request. I am thinking of removing dubious yet confusing sections from the article and progressively add only well sourced contents.--MahenSingha (Talk) 20:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


Please Dalhast do not change what I'm changing .Whatever I'm doing is absolutely correct. Thanks, Audi A7 Audi A7 (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Audi A7: Your edits to Archaeological Survey of India were reverted by me and by another user, first because the Archaeological Survey of India is clearly not the Archaeological Survey of Bangladesh, and second because you introduced awkward, grammatically-incorrect wording to the lead section. You're welcome to make constructive edits, of course, but vandalism and other kinds of unconstructive edits that don't improve Wikipedia will be removed pretty quickly. dalahäst (let's talk!) 07:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead section of Field (physics)[edit]

You'll need to provide more specifics as to just what is confusing to you, if i'm to help clear things up for you. Thanks Crosleybendix (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Crosleybendix: Calling a field a "bookkeeping tool used to account for the interactions of physical quantities" reads like an attempt by a textbook to explain fields in dumbed-down, "relatable" terms. That is not a sound definition of a field, and instead leaves readers confused as to what a field really is. That 'definition' doesn't make any sense to me, and at least one other editor, who has also reverted your edits, seems to agree. Rather than unnecessarily complicating the article with attempts to be "relatable", why not keep the "quantity with a value for each point in space and time" definition, which is much clearer? There is a discussion about this on the talk page of the article, where I would encourage you to explain just what you find unsatisfactory about the current definition in the article. Edit warring by repeatedly inserting your own definition is not the way to get things done. dalahäst (let's talk!) 06:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

In re. external links at Advanced process control[edit]

Regarding the APC page, i am not sure why my link was not approapriate when you see the other 4 links. validate me that those links is not also promotional. Cpertpl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpertpl (talkcontribs) 07:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cpertpl: Thanks for drawing my attention to those. I removed three of them that don't really belong here; one of them was outright broken and didn't even lead to the intended page anymore. I noticed and removed yours while patrolling recent changes—essentially examining recent edits to check that they aren't vandalism, spam, and so on. Didn't think to check the others. dalahäst (let's talk!) 07:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Gull Dong[edit]

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I sent this to RfD. Since it's a redirect it doesn't really qualify as an A1 speedy and it's not exactly a re-creation of the deleted content via AfD, so I can't speedy it like that. From what I can see it doesn't look like Gull Dongs and Bully Kuttas are the same thing, but there isn't a lot out there and as such, I brought it to RfD just in case. I figured I'd let you know why I declined it. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: Ah, thanks for letting me know. The creator of the redirect seems to equate both names with the same breed of dog; I myself know nothing about Indian dog breeds and simply tagged the page after coming across it while patrolling new pages, as I couldn't tell what it was supposed to be about. dalahäst (let's talk!) 05:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No problem- I'm not overly familiar with the breeds either so I figured that someone at RfD might know something about this as well. It looks like this redirect was deleted as someone evading a block but this did bring up other issues with redirects to the same article, so yeah. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

please help[edit]

Hi there, im tryng to get y article ready to be moved and approved :) i fixed all was asked and if you can take a look, it will great! the article name is: Draft:E Square Young Engineers. thank you! Onlinejonathan (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Information icon Hello Dalahäst. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), or content (CSD A3), moments after they are created. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks.Adam9007 (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Heh, I forget to check creation times sometimes when I'm patrolling. It's easy to get a little trigger-happy after reverting lots of vandalism. Thanks for the heads-up. dalahäst (let's talk!) 23:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Re. High-pass filter[edit]

Hi Dalahast, i am kinda newbie to editing...but, attenuation means mimimizing the value, then will it not become wrong to say we minimize the lower than cutoff frequency signal and use it. not an expert ...just a doubt...thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shriniketh91 (talkcontribs) 20:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Shriniketh91: Hey there. That's true; attenuation refers to minimizing the signal strength—and the idea here is that the frequencies below the cutoff are the ones affected, while the ones above it are passed (left unchanged). If you replace attenuation with amplification, as you did in your edit, the effect is then the opposite of what's desired: the lower frequencies will actually become stronger rather than weaker. That would be somewhat like a low-pass filter, where frequencies above the cutoff are attenuated while those below it are passed. dalahäst (let's talk!) 20:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


I believe Random-5000 (talk · contribs) is the one you're looking for. I've been tagging his socks recently.[1] Frank8188 (talk · contribs) is a sock of Random-5000, and the categories should be merged. Doc talk 08:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Aye. I've been adding new reports to Frank8188 because that's the newest case, but there's a discussion on the SPI page where we seem to have reached a consensus to merge the two cases into Random-5000, the older of the two. This new case apparently arose from the tagging and blocking editors not making the connection from this case to the old one right away. More editors seem to be aware of the new one, so I'm adding them there until the merge happens. At this point, tagging them and filing them on SPI is partially to create a "paper trail" of sorts, such that it's easy to keep an eye on which accounts he's used and what editing patterns he has (as they have been changing somewhat, though there's always a bit of overlap to establish connections). I've been on top of rolling him back whenever I'm online, which seems to have drawn his attention—he left a message on my talk page at one point and recently created an account with a name that mentions me, hah. dalahäst (let's talk!) 09:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I've been tagging other socks (like this dink) to Random-5000, and they'll all get sorted out eventually. What a jerk! I just hate these LTA types. Thanks for keeping the faith. Doc talk 09:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Doc9871: Nobody likes them, but I do enjoy the challenge they present in terms of thwarting their plans. It was certainly a mistake on his part to declare that he has other accounts with no edits, as that led me to find all the others in the user creation log and make the batch report you saw earlier. I think User:Bongwarrior blocked just about all of them, though at least one remains unblocked. dalahäst (let's talk!) 10:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)