Open main menu

Feel free to drop me a note on this page. (Old discussions can be found here: Archive)


Big CardamumEdit

You have initiated an edit war on the Black cardamom page. You reverted a reference that is supported by a source. In indian cooking, both products and recipes the term 'big' cardamom is commonly used. Please use the talk page for this article, rather than reverting sourced content. If you think there should be more sources ask or source from Google [[[Special:Contributions/|]] (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)]

Out of curiosity...Edit

Have you ever considered making a run for adminship? We really need candidates who work in COI and anti-spam areas. Just thought I'd ask... GABgab 19:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

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)
That's unfortunate, but entirely understandable. Please let me know if you might change your mind :) GABgab 23:38, 9 October 2018 (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.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Spelling changesEdit

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)

Withania somniferaEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 19:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The changes you made to the article text were inconsistent with the references used to support that text. Deli nk (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Bars and Melody pageEdit


Can I please tell you that the information on the Charlie Lenehan part was true information until you changed it back. I’m telling you he lives in Cologne Germany not South Gloucestershire if you don’t believe me look it up on their Twitter Babinacox19 (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I restored the location. But I think the dating relationships need to have a reliable source to be included. Deli nk (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Deli nk".