............ PLEASE NOTE ...........
Deletion and reference tags.
If I add a tag to your page requesting deletion, or references,
PLEASE DO NOT START A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE DELETION HERE.
Please follow the instructions on the tag, and put the required info into the deletion discussion, or on the article's talk page.
It makes much more sense to keep discussions with the article, rather than having readers follow it across several users' talk pages.
- 1 Rainbowdashdude2
- 2 People who disappeared mysteriously
- 3 Deleting others Talk Page Comments, Jeremy Kewley
- 4 Talkback
- 5 Jalan Street
- 6 Global account
- 7 Cairns (CANS or KENS, not CARE-NZ)
- 8 KrisFlyer
- 9 Rollback
- 10 RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations
- 11 Oak Island
- 12 Arminius
- 13 List of people who disappeared mysteriously
- 14 Jermzc
Hello Dmol, I would like some advice please? Two(?) editors are going through the list on People who disappeared mysteriously adding the wording "Disappearance of". I have reverted several times, as the title of the article already states this and the links to the names are valid. It is not too important as only the names appear in the article and I have no intention of edit warring, but these edits do seem unnecessary. Would be grateful for your input. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
==Clue Bot NC== Oops wrong button that I used above. But same question. Does your being an environmentalist mean you oppose hunting? Serious question thanks.Clue Bot NC (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you explain why you deleted the Steven Newing addition despite me providing you with a link to an article from Norfolk police? I suppose your one of these serial deleters who have to fiddle about nitpicking because you have nothing better to do and would rather your own self aggrandizement got in the way of the truth about Steven Newing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquaplain (talk • contribs) 16:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleting others Talk Page Comments, Jeremy Kewley
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Jeremy_Kewley, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Although like you I question the legitimacy of the comment it oughtn't to be removed unilaterally with no comment left. SPACKlick (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Let's look at the policy then shall we?
- Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection - There was clearly objection, he reinstated it.
- If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by ~ ~]" - No such note was left.
- Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:...Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. - So policy says this action is controversial and other methods should be used.
- Your action was clearly against policy. It is not permissible to remove material just because you are offended by the use of the word "cunt". SPACKlick (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed the addition of Jalan Street to the List of tautological place names because there is no evidence that Jalan is an Indonesian word in this case, since Indonesian is not widely spoken in Australia. It can be just a coincidence that this word means street in that language. For instance, it can have this name after a person called Jalan (I have a friend called Calle, which is street in Spanish). Maybe this was not clear in my short comment to my edition but, unless we know for certain that the street gets its name from the Indonesian word, it is not a tautological name.--Gorpik (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dmol! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Cairns (CANS or KENS, not CARE-NZ)
Hi, I noticed you half-way reverted my splitting of content from Singapore Airlines to KrisFlyer. You removed the content from KrisFlyer without re-adding it at [[Singapore Airlines. That's not very tactful. The reason the article was split is because the Singapore Airlines article (as of 2015, not 2007 when the AFD was made) is too full for content on KrisFlyer. The decision made then was based on the articles as they were on that date, and the KrisFlyer article as of that date was different than the recent split which you decided to undo. Please be more careful in the future, and if you believe the articles should be re-merged, start a discussion on the talk-page. Thank you.Hendrick 99 (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations
There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I reverted your edit where you changed "none of which were" to "none of which was". My understanding is that the meaning of that sentence is "none of them were successful" or "all of them were unsuccessful". From looking at grammar and etymology sources, it also appears that none is not a modern contraction for "not/no one" but rather from the Old English "nan" and there is a lot of discussion in sources about the word being singular or plural...so maybe both of us are right *and* wrong?! Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
After having a well sourced (though red-linked) entry I added to List of people who disappeared mysteriously reverted, I am trying to find where there is a real discussion and consensus on this issue. I really can't see that there is, as when you tried to restart the discussion on 31 August 2011 at Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously#Notability criteria., only yourself and one other editor commented. If I am wrong, please point me to it if possible.
My edit, and attempts to discuss it, seems to have caused some 'consternation' at Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously#Update. Another opinion would be nice, regards, 220 of Borg 11:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the reference from the Daily Mail relating to AirAsia, which this editor has repeatedly added, is a valid reference and the editor's statement is correct. you will note that he does not state that AirAsia is unsafe; he states that AirAsia is reported to be unsafe, which is clearly true. He has certainly been edit-warring, and edit-warring when correct is still a blockable offence, but I would welcome your view as to whether there has been an over-reaction here. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)