I prefer to keep conversations together and usually respond on my talk page, so please watch this page for my reply.
To leave a message on this page, please click here.
I got your message, thanks for letting me know. Also thank you for keeping an eye out on the Xiaomi page, such indian vandals are common place and those rotten people have nothing better to do than to try to ruin a good thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YipC (talk • contribs) 13:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- You're stepping close to a personal attack again, and your hostility to Indians is disturbing to me. Please see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith and consider them in your future edits. Sjö (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Minority languages of Montenegro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montenegrin (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.)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Why the undo?
Why the undo? Andy Capper was fired from Vice Media, this is fact. Why are you protecting him from the truth? I thought Wiki was supposed to be non-biased — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinoroar2665 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Cadbury's cream egg
I did not include a citation because I heard it directly from a former head of product development at Cadburys when she gave us a talk in college. It may not be a written reference, but if Wikipedia wants to take referencing seriously they need to stop allowing tabloids as references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fia777 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- The Daily Telegraph is not a tabloid, but even if it was the story has been widely reported  by other news media. Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia, which means that you can't add unsourced information that directly contradicts the sources in the article. What really would destroy Wikipedia's reputation is if we started to accept anything some unidentified person on the Internet adds with the only source being "I heard it" Sjö (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)