User talk:Deli nk
Feel free to drop me a note on this page. (Old discussions can be found here: Archive)
Hi there, you recently removed an edit that I made to the ashwagandha page, in which I attempted to unbias study information from 'no evidence for any effect' to 'preliminary evidence, further studies needed'. As making a change like that has been discussed on the talk page through several contributors, I'm curious what's considered wrong with an edit like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyvca (talk • contribs) 19:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Out of curiosity...Edit
- Thanks for asking. Personally, I think I would be a fine level-headed administrator and I know I could contribute more effectively to Wikipedia if I were an admin. But I have no interest in subjecting myself to RFA. Deli nk (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Article [Food additive] improvementEdit
Hi Deli, thank you for the comment after my writing on article Food additive.Would you mind to give more specific suggestion regards the missing content and how to improve my paragraph to more clear? Your kind response is very appreciated and await. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:7500:446:34A0:D46D:677D:6396:AE0F (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!Edit
|The 2018 Cure Award|
|In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.|
Hello. In reply to the message you kindly left me regarding recent changes that I made (you didn't specify exactly what changes so I'm a little in the dark as to which specific changes you mean), you referred me to the Wikipedia MoS. I respectfully point out the following excerpts: "When either of two styles are [sic] acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." - which I interpret as saying, if an acceptable (as defined in the MoS) style has been used, it should be retained. Much of the MoS describes what is acceptable. In the interests of universality and commonality (in my interpretation), this guideline is given: "Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed". This in combination with the previous excerpt gives very clear guidance that where an original style has used a less widely distributed term, it is justified and acceptable to correct that term to the more widely distributed term. If you would like to let me know exactly which edit has raised this concern for you, we can have a potentially more constructive and detailed discussion. Thanks. - TienShan0 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)TienShan0
- The issue is that changing one language variation (such as American spelling) to another language variation (such as British spelling) can be problematic. The Wikipedia policy that I shared with you says that topics tied strongly to one region should use that region's spelling and if there isn't a strong connection to one region, the spelling already established in that article should be retained. Therefore, for example, when you changed the established spelling at drill bit from one language variation to another, and when you changed the spelling in masonite, an article about an American topic using American spelling, to use British spelling, then you are acting contrary to this policy. Other editors that have consistently violated this policy in the past, as you have been doing in most of your recent edits, have been blocked from editing. Deli nk (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Deli I did add what type of problem did you have with my comment, just curious to know what is wrong with?I wanted to add to turkish influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cataina994 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent corrections.
While you might be right it also wrong to automatically mark my contribution wrong. A relevant page we created for our public figure and monitoring has been reverted by you which serve us useless.
Please, I took your warning into consideration but I totally didn't agree you reverting our page.
We just "clashed" over this one - hopefully we have got it right now - there was a typo our dear friend corrected, as well as his "funny" stuff. Thanks for being there, anyway. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)