User talk:Wdchk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User talk information

Questions about the { {R from alternative language|la} }[edit]

Hi. I can see that you added { {R from alternative language|la} } to a couple of the redirects I made from nomina anatomica terms to anatomical articles, such as nodi lymphoidei brachiales. First of all: Thank you. Second: How importent are these tags, what is their function? I ask since I made 2000+ of these redirects. If these are importent these should be added and I should find a "semi-automated" way to do so. Third: Since you are the only one who ever added such a tag to my redirects I will ask you: Wouldn´t it be better is a seperate tag was made for medical synonyms since there are maybe 10000 more than I and others already made. If a separated tag was created it would allow wikidoc ect. and non-wiki sites/datebases (present and future) to pull these redirect directly (I think it would be easier). Again I am only asking you since you are the only one who added such tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakobSteenberg (talkcontribs) 22:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The purpose of the template is to place the redirect in a category. Some people, including me, think this is useful because it explains why the redirect exists, and this may not be obvious to other editors. I'm sure you could find editors who don't see the value in categorizing redirects, but in doing so I am following WP:RCAT: "There are ... maintenance categories specifically for redirects, and most should be in one of those." The redirect works perfectly well whether or not it is categorized. The categorization is for the benefit of editors, rather than readers.
This is an activity I don't spend a lot of time on; normally I add redirect category (Rcat) templates when editing the redirect for another reason. In the case of the anatomical terms you refer to, I categorized one of them while fixing a broken redirect. Then I saw a few others that started "nodi lymphoidei" so I thought I might as well categorize those too, in a spirit of improving the encyclopedia a bit at a time. Of the available existing Rcats, {{R from alternative language|la}} seemed to be the best fit, and the resulting Category:Redirects from Latin language terms an accurate description. I agree with you that a specific Rcat for medical synonyms might be useful in order to tell the whole story about the redirect. A medical synonym Rcat could be used in addition to the language Rcat. If we're to proceed with this idea, a next step could be to ask for comments at WikiProject Redirect.
You also make an interesting point about the number of redirects that could potentially be affected. I wondered how many there were! HotCat could help. It's also conceivable that a bot could be used to tag them. – Wdchk (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
First, thank you for taking the time to respond. Okay I haven´t seen that the "1a" language you added was Latin. In my first glance I saw it as a category for all redirects made on the basis of foreging languages (That German, Chinese, Latin and so on was in the same group).
I will try to bring the question of a "A medical synonym Rcat" on to both the "WikiProject Redirect"-community and to the "WikiProject Anatomy"-community.
In the mean time I will contenue with the redirect if I get the time (not likely). Then when the "medical synonym Rcat"-thing is resolved I will either add those or both the "medical synonym" and the "R from alternative language" depending on the outcome.
But using HotCat would take close to forever, and I think the job may be a bit tricky for a bot, but I know there are some browser-tools for such "fabric-jobs". I will have a look at it and one way or the other categories my redirects (but not my highest priority). Again, thanks for you comment and happy holydays if you are celebrating within the next couple of days. JakobSteenberg (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


Moved to User talk:عبد المؤمن#Template:Lang-x/doc: – Wdchk (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to add the interwiki for the widely used latin language template on the Arabic wikipedia, but that page is locked for editing. Yes it is a template (قالب) --عبد المؤمن (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

OH Yeon Seo news[edit]

Oh, my apologies, I'm sorta new to this so I didn't know how to put citations. haha. Here is where I got the news from.

It was just announced official an hour ago, so i decided to help out and put it out on her wikipedia and her bfs. If you can help put it on citations that'll be good since I don't know how haha sorry. thanks for msging me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abui91 (talkcontribs) 03:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Is Mznuma. Thank you for pointing out.[edit]

It is Mznuma you contact. Thank you for pointing out.Was pointed out, I was correct.Thank you very much.--Mznuma (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Signpost Op-ed[edit]

Oops! Fixed; thanks for letting me know. Graham87 12:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

What you didn't like my edits on the LR page??? ;)[edit]

Such a shame.... I worked on those about 3 hours and you reversed them in a matter of seconds. I would have hoped you at least read over them to see the extent of the flaws in this page I was drawing attention to. Ah, no biggie... soon enough this page will be rendered irrelevant and it won't matter in the least to anyone that knows the least bit about the subject. Anywho, cheers.  :) Borealdreams (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I got your message.[edit]

Moved to User talk: got your message.: – Wdchk (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I believe there might have been a mistake. I do not edit Wiki pages. If it was edited, then it must have been by mistake. Could you please give me a link to the removed content? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Heytherebabcakes[edit]

The term "sexist" does not appear in the username policy. According to the policy, a username might not be permitted if it were "disruptive or offensive". While respecting Viriditas' opinion, honestly, I don't think many editors would find this username to be disruptive or offensive.

If a user perceived a user name as sexist, then that user name would fall under the category as offensive. If I were a woman, I might be offended that someone was using Wikipedia to refer to women as "baby cakes" in a manner intended to solicit sexual favors. I'm surprised you don't agree. Viriditas (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"Mosaic Law Covenant" is also standard, wiki links can have variations, and WP policy DOES NOT ALLOW reverting for "I don't like" reasons[edit]

Hello. The point that you and the IP are missing is that even though the "preferred" way is to use the exact wording of the article name in the wiki link, it's NOT a dogmatic rule, and a VARIATION in piping CAN be done also. And HAS been done many times, in many articles, with many article names, with no problem. So why raise such a weird fuss about a correct variation in the wiki link? It makes no real sense, and most editors don't get this way over something like this. And to always undo it is simply because of "I don't like" reasons. Meaning, technically, reverting what I did all the time has no actual WP justification. You're falling into the same uptight trap that the IP user has been. It does NOT matter really that the article name is "Mosaic Covenant" IF "Mosaic Law Covenant" is ALSO STANDARD USAGE AND ACCURATE...and arguably more clear, per context of paragraph. And to repeat, reverting that modification (accurate and correct) is against WP policy.

This is a WIKI. No one owns any article, and should not rudely and disrespectfully revert for "I don't like" reasons. Because there's no question that that's really what's up here.

There's no WP rule that says that all WP links have to be the exact wording as the WP article. Variations in link wording is done all the time, with no problem. Because also, it's your OPINION that "Mosaic Covenant" is "sufficient". Obviously, I'm saying it isn't, and so do other sources, that also have it worded as "Mosaic Law Covenant". I already stated the reasons, that PER PARAGRAPH and maybe extra clarity, why not? (And by the way, "Mosaic Covenant" is not necessarily the most widely used anyway, depending. In many reference works etc, the more precise "Mosaic Law Covenant" is used.) What "justification" do you or the IP have to rudely undo an accurate and correct and clearer thing like that? ZERO.

Because WP does allow variations in wiki link wordings, all the time. "Preferred" or not. Again, it's undoing something for "I don't like reasons". And sorry, that IS what this is, after all is said done, is. And that's against WP policy.

If "Mosaic Law Covenant" is A) correct, B) also "standard", and C) sourced...then technically you or the IP have no business dissing the modification edit or reverting it. Period. That's the point. I mean, if "consensus" (which can ALWAYS BE STILL WRONG AND UPTIGHT ANYWAY), ends up having it that way, then whatever. Months later I might still change it, because this is not that a big deal or change. It's TRIVIAL, overall. And no need to have this much of a fuss from that IP user (or you). But for now, if "consensus" uptightly has it that way, then I'll let it go. (Consensus is not always right, just cuz it's the majority in a given time. Also, it's not like 30 editors are on here speaking about this. It's just you and that IP who are saying this.) Gabby Merger (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This is related to a discussion about content at Council of Jerusalem. Just for the record, I have not reverted any edits to that article, rudely or otherwise. Other than that, I suggest we keep the content discussion in one place at the article's Talk page. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello...just in case you didn't see it yet, I responded back to you on article talk page... Please take a look. (You misunderstood some of what I said...etc). Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


Hellmann’s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I put the template at the beginning because of a bug. —rybec 23:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and I understand your concern. Please see my response to your post at Template talk:R unprintworthy. – Wdchk (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update[edit]

Hey Wdchk. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Jung So-min[edit]

jung so min is also model and one of the beUtiful women in korea — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If Jung So-min is a model as well as an actress, for this to be included in the article you should cite a reliable, published source. As to being one of the most beautiful women in Korea: I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm just saying that by Wikipedia's standards that statement is an opinion, and we have to avoid stating opinions as facts. For more information, please refer to WP:No original research and WP:Neutral point of view. – Wdchk (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Malcolm Baker[edit]

You included a link in the see also section that suggested more information regarding the subject is included in that article. However, Baker's name is not in that article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


Please could you chechk the reference formatting on these 3 pages

Gibside Baronet Conyers

Cheers and thanks Mike 5th Earl Orkney — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi There, Please check references for - Gibside page and Family of Duchess of Cambridge page Thanks so much mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

could you please check page "conyers baronets" is it OK cheers Mike (again!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


At bugzilla:58316 I've made a proposal which, if implemented might make this page inaccessible.

Also, redirects of this sort are being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_9#.5Cx22Weird_Al.5Cx22_Yankovic. —rybec 23:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thomas John Barnardo[edit]

Done. here.
I am not at all familiar with vision-impaired accessibility on Wikipedia. If stuff like this is useful, perhaps bring it up on Wikipedia:Village pump? Useful policy could be made and special features in the Wikipedia software could be added to increase accessibility. Might also get involved in or setup a wp:wikiproject or wp:task force? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Luis Guillermo Solís Edits[edit]

Good edits on the Luis Guillermo Solís page. Thanks for cleaning it up and making it more professional. Mvblair (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You're welcome. – Wdchk (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for the additional copyediting, Wdchk. Not sure if you're interested, but the two new VPs elect of Costa Rica have pages that could stand a bit of reviewing: Helio Fallas and Ana Helena Chacón Echeverría. I tagged them as "new unreviewed articles." Maybe if you've got a free second...or a free couple of hours. Thanks again. Mvblair (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hannah Simone[edit]

RE:Description of Hannah Simone's father[edit]
Hello. When you reverted my revert of your edit, you suggested I refer to East India (disambiguation). Might I suggest you take a closer look at it yourself? Because it demonstrates that "East Indian" is actually more ambiguous than the correct use of "Indian". I have initiated a discussion at Talk:Hannah Simone to see if anyone else has an opinion, and of course you are welcome to respond to the points I made there. This is the discussion that I would have expected you to initiate, given that you made the initial change and I reverted with an explanation. You might wish to take a look at WP:BRD and WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC) – Preceding message originally posted at User talk:Beo34, copy/pasted here by User:Beo34 with reformatting.

Thanks for your message. I have written a response on the discussion page as to why East Indian (or even Asian Indian) would be a less ambiguous term than Indian, in North America. I did not immediately initiate a discussion, as I wrote an explanation for the revert in my revert. And with regards to taking a look at WP:BRD and WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, I am not interested in engaging in a edit war or in a hostile argument over the Internet, I made a revision because I believed that the previous term was more clear. Thanks – Beo34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand that you are not interested in an edit war or hostile argument. Neither am I. But, with respect, if you're saying you don't need to read those pages I linked to, your above comments demonstrate to me exactly why you should read them. The point is that you did start an edit war, even if it was not your intention, and I broke out of it by initiating a discussion. Edit summaries are a poor substitute for discussion, because the only way to have a dialogue by edit summary is – an edit war. Another editor might have reacted more harshly. I'm just trying to help you here. – Wdchk (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Excuse Me?[edit]

Why did you revert my edit on Nastia Liukin. That took me a long time and wasn't vandalism! You may enjoy pissballing around but personally I've got bigger fish to fry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theworldgymnast1 (talkcontribs) 19:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I never said it was vandalism. As I explained in my edit summary, you added an infobox to an article that already had one. Normally there is one infobox per article, in the top right-hand corner. If you need more reasons, I could also have said that you attempted to link to an image on another website. This doesn't work, as you would have known if you had previewed the page before saving your edit. Finally, the information you added about television appearances was trivial in the context of her overall career. So no, it wasn't vandalism, but I'm sorry to say it was not a useful addition to the article either. – Wdchk (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

From TyTyKKWIki[edit]

Thanks for the info — Preceding unsigned comment added by TyTyKKWIki (talkcontribs) 22:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


Please add moon mason pic on his article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwinmoethuo (talkcontribs) 04:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have a picture of Moon Mason that is appropriately licensed for Wikipedia. I'm quite surprised that you think I would have one. – Wdchk (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Jack Ross[edit]

When he visited Downton he stated to Carson that his relatives arrived in 1790 to England. Did i incorrectly hear this conversation? Sometime I do not understand British English so my apologies if I am incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckbilldanny (talkcontribs) 02:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I assume you're referring to Jack Ross, so I took the liberty of adding his name as a section heading above. I'm afraid I can't help you with the details of his conversation with Carson. However, I can point you to sources that state he is American, from Chicago: [1], [2]. Hope this helps. – Wdchk (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for citation, I misunderstood a conversation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckbilldanny (talkcontribs) 10:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for your corrections—they're much appreciated. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Bill Gates talk[edit]

FYI, I didn't delete the talk page comments, I archived them here [3], in the latest archive (#6). I have reverted your reversion. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't say that in your edit summary. Wdchk (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


You made a contribution on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/(14825)_Fieber-Beyer stating, "needs an explicitly defined reflist, else you get an automatically generated list of unnumbered refs with no heading, floating mysteriously at the bottom of WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 30)"". I am new to Wiki and am not clear to what this means. Would you please clarify it for me? Thank you. Also, I am not sure how to create a talk page for SKFB. Would you be able to assist/guide me through this? I have created one article stub so far and I'm a bit overwhelmed trying to get all the ducks in order. Your help would be very much appreciated. SKFB (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB

@SKFB: Thanks for your note, and I will certainly try to help if I can. First, your talk page has already been created by other editors posting to it. Here is the link, and you should also see a link at the top of each Wikipedia page, next to your username: Talk.
When you create references using <ref>...</ref>, you should also specify the location of a list of footnotes by placing a template such as {{reflist}} at the desired place on the page. (More information at Help:Footnotes.) If you were previously unaware of this, it is understandable that it would not have been brought to your attention by the system when you edited the discussion page WP:Articles for deletion/(14825) Fieber-Beyer. A recent update to the MediaWiki software introduced a feature whereby a list of references is automatically generated at the bottom of a page, in the absence of any markup indicating an explicit position and format, rather than generating an error message. In some circumstances this might be helpful, but the new feature does have some unintended consequences. One of these manifests itself when several pages are consolidated onto another page by translusion, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 30. Where several of the individual discussions did not specify a reflist, all of their references were listed together, unnumbered, and appeared to be associated with the discussion that happens to appear last on the page. You can see a discussion of this effect here.
The bottom line is, always use {{reflist}} on a page that contains references marked with <ref>...</ref>, as you will see by inspecting almost any Wikipedia article. (By the way, when I edited your post, I used a |group= parameter which is rather rare and you may or may not wish to pay attention to it – see the discussion linked previously.) Regards, Wdchk (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification regarding reflist generation.SKFB (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)SKFB


Just to note that I've blocked him for another personal attack. His response (now deleted) was typical. Don't think he'll be here long. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Several unblock requests later (getting worse and worse) he was indefinitely blocked and his talk page access removed. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"{{orphaned non-free revisions}} needs a timestamp"[edit]

You used this edit summary elsewhere. A timestamp is actually not required. If no timestamp is given, {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} (the timestamp of the latest edit) is used instead. However, it is better to have a timestamp as {{orphaned non-free revisions}} without a timestamp resets the timer if someone edits the file again. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your note. Yes, I noticed that the template displays a date in the message to administrators that it adds to the file description page, even when no timestamp is stated explicitly. However, lack of a timestamp causes the file to be placed in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions with invalid timestamp, which is where I came across several files. The instructions on that category page state: "Please correct the time-stamp. This category should be kept empty at all times." The other problem with no timestamp is that the file fails to show up in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old after the 7 days have elapsed. I appreciate your comments, as this is a template and categories I haven't looked at before, and I think we're agreed that a timestamp is desirable. Anyway, while I was there I thought I would have a go at cleaning up the maintenance category. Wdchk (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, they do show up in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old after seven days (otherwise they would not be in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions in the first place). --Stefan2 (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
No, that was not my experience. I found File:Black Eye (album).jpg in the "invalid timestamp" category, and it was not in the "7 days old" cat, even though 7 days had elapsed since it was tagged. When I added the correct timestamp, the file immediately popped up in the "7 days old" cat, and was subsequently dealt with by an admin. This is what led me to conclude that defaulting to {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} was useful in providing a date for the message box, but still not a full replacement for a correct timestamp. (Of course, this issue does not arise if editors tag files with {{subst:orfurrev}}, as instructed in the documentation.) Wdchk (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Was the "7 days old" category mentioned in the page footer? If a category is changed automatically because of an age restriction, then the footer is automatically changed to reflect this, but it may take some time until the file shows up on the new category page. This is unrelated to whether the template has a date parameter or not but depends on category caching in the Mediawiki software. If you find that a category listing hasn't been updated for some time, then you can force an update by either editing the file information page (as you did), or by purging the page with the "forcelinkupdate" parameter. To purge a page with the "forcelinkupdate" parameter, you can use for example Special:ApiSandbox, or use a program such as CURL. You could for example try this with File:A Kitty Bobo Show concept art.jpg, which is in the "7 days old" category according to the footer but not according to the category listing. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Fee tail[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Fee tail, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Julia Suzuki for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Julia Suzuki 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/Julia Suzuki 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. Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


Could you please self-revert? You're in violation of the BRD cycle, here. This clause was just added by another user, and yet you're saying that I need to establish a consensus to remove it? That's not how this works- if anything, the other user needs to establish a consensus to add it. In any case, regardless of whether the advice is good (I don't know- to repeat, I still have no idea what you are saying) the sentence literally doesn't make sense. "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have either an article on the subject, or a redirect to a section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see WP:NOPAGE)." Do not remove a redlink unless a redirect? What does that mean? Unless it is a redirect? Unless it could be a redirect? What is being said here? (I've replied on the redlink talk page, and that's where the conversation should continue- I'm here to request a self-revert.) Josh Milburn (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I've looked again- I may be reading what you've written wrongly (so maybe I should redact my suggestion that it doesn't make sense...), but I'm still not really clear on what's being claimed. (And I stand by my point about this only being added a few days ago!) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
My interpretation was that the point about an article section being a valid target for a red link was already in the guideline, per this edit summary. And if I might say so, when you removed Flyer22's text, you didn't say anything then about it being a recent addition. Your stated concern was clarity, so I was trying to help make it clearer (and maybe failed). I suggest we allow the discussion to play out at WT:Red link#Clarification of 'likelihood'. I have considered self-reverting, but honestly I think that would just create further confusion at this point. Thanks. Wdchk (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

How is it that Diamond Cut Productions is not a notable entity?[edit]

Diamond Cut Productions, Inc has been a record label for over 20 years now. It has a catalog of roughly 15 CDs as can be seen at our website located at It can also be found on wiki if you search "Diamond Cut Productions". Please contact us at

We don't get your ongoing omissions of our record label on the wiki list. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Craig Maier / President / Diamond Cut Productions, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your message. I noticed that the company was showing up in the list as a red link, because it had been added as "Diamond Cut Productions, Inc." and there is no article under that exact name. I'm sorry I did not notice the Diamond Cut Productions article, but it did not show up in the search results when searching for the name ending in "Inc." I have added the article back to the list under its correct name, and also created a redirect from the longer name so that a search will work better in future. That should take care of it.
By the way, while your interest in Wikipedia is most welcome, it's important to be aware of Wikipedia's position on conflict of interest if you wish to be involved with articles related to your company. A useful starting point would be to read the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Thanks. Wdchk (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightning Rod Photo[edit]

Hi, I wanted to explain my edit of the Lightning Rod article. The photo I added is of a piece that is technically both a lightning rod and a weathervane. I have received permission to use it here through the Permissions--Wikipedia Commons/ Stephen Philbrick [E-mail Ticket#: 2015053110008861]. You will note that the image is now licensed for use. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithvane (talkcontribs) 00:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm Sorry (by User:CrisBalboa)[edit]

I'm sorry, it is just that I don't like redirect pages. If the page redirects about a person from the group, it redirects to the person's group page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrisBalboa (talkcontribs) 13:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The page Oh Ha-young was converted to a redirect as a result of a community discussion. The point under discussion was whether individual group members had established notability independent of the group, in accordance with the guideline WP:MUSICBIO. I'm afraid your personal opinion about redirects carries no weight in such a discussion. You might also find it useful to read WP:Redirect for more information about the use of redirects. Wdchk (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Clan Duncan[edit]

I noted your comment on the article talk page, regarding the mass edits, reverts and replacements of the edits, by the same editor, making the checking of them difficult. I myself have been frustrated by this editors persistence in re-uploading copyright images that admins are deleting. See this admins ( RHowarth talk page section) for further info. Having spent some time going through his mini edits it seem that the article page now resembled a blatant text copyvio of :- . I wondered if you would care to check it and see if you concur with my findings. Richard Harvey (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have been watching those same images and I had seen the thread on RHowarth's talk page. Here's a diff of the article since Angelo542 started editing: Clan Duncan diff. I see what you mean about passages being the same as that Clan Duncan History web page, e.g. "Other early accounts of the name ...", "When Duncan I took the Scottish throne ...". But you know what, it looks like those passages were already there. Reverting Angelo542 won't remove them. (So we have another issue: did someone else introduce a copyvio previously, or did the web page copy Wikipedia, or did both copy an original source ...?) Despite Angelo542's lack of explanation, I can see some changes that might actually be improvement. And then there's the big question, which is essentially a content dispute: he has removed content and sources he says are questionable without providing evidence for the removal. I think this needs to play out more on the article talk page. Unfortunately due to real world I can't contribute to that immediately, but if you wish to do so, maybe something I have written here may help. Wdchk (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noted your comments elsewhere about his Commons upload. Hopefully the deletion of it and his current editing block will make him sit up and realise he can be excluded indefinitely if required. I have added some extra info to the messages on his Talk Page. Though his childish comments about complaining to Prince Philip and the Lord Lyon has me believing he is not quite who or what he claims to be. Richard Harvey (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

gong yoo[edit]

Hi, could you add more information about gong yoo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Presumably you asked because I made some technical corrections to the Gong Yoo article. Thank you for the suggestion, but I don't have any information to add to this article. If you have some information and you can demonstrate that it came from a reliable source, you might consider contributing yourself. You could refer to the information page Contributing to Wikipedia. Wdchk (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)