Hello, welcome Djm-leighpark/Bigdelboy talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere. In the event of uncivil language (and hands up I am guilty of that) conversations may (or may not) be collapsed or manually archived earlier than would happen naturally with automatic archiving. Bah humbug love messages may be manually archived early … don't take it personally … its just what grumpy me does and such things are often the prelude to a totally unrelated all hell breaks loose bunfight. It's like on the rare occasion I ever got 9/10 for an English essay it would be followed by a series of 4/10 and 5/10.

Thank you!

Please feel free to contact me about contributions here or on the relevant item talk page as appropriate. Or to prod me here to go to the item talk page.

Irish steam locomotives.Edit

Hi. Im looking to see if anyone has any parts of Irish steam locomotives. Im only young but if i can get hold of some parts, i could potentially put them together in the future. Right now im just trying to get parts very cheap/ for free so if anybody knows of somebody trying to get rid of parts please tell me. :) Im looking for parts from 5ft 3" gauge engines. Im also wondering if anyone knows anything about a tender for gs&wr no. 36 (the engine in cork's kent station) if a tender can be constructed then the engine could potentially return to service some day. If anybody knows anything about abandoned broad gauge rail lines that are in the irish republic the please tell me :) Spud 607 (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest making contact with an official preservation or record organisation: e.g. Railway Preservation Society of Ireland or Irish Railway Record Society. But this is the wrong site for me to make such suggestions as it is WP:NOTAFORUM. Thankyou and I should have answered earlier. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Vidyut GoreEdit

  The Article Rescue Barnstar
Well done. Britishfinance (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
That BLP AfD almost killed my enthusiam for Wikipedia – much appreciate that you took it on to restore it. Britishfinance (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
indeed Good work DJM. Britishfinance The quality of AfD participation has been deteriorating. But there are always some folks like us who can see a notable article and turn it around. Feel free to ping me as well if you need a hand on any India/military/terrorism related article. --DBigXray 14:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

PROD of LitwareHREdit

Hi I gather from your removal of my PROD tag that you have an objection to the description of LitwareHR as a piece of fictitious software. This isn't my description, it's the description used in the article itself and in the sources. Mccapra (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup. It ain't fictitious. Its badly put but the software is not fictitious but its the use case is fictitious.12:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: ThePrint (November 4)Edit

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 
Hello, Djm-leighpark! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!Edit

  For doing some very good work and improving the article National Informatics Centre. DBigXray 14:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Appreciated. The quite frankly its more brutal and rough prose going in to re-bulk up the article than any sort of beautiful ... though I would nearly quote Dick Strawbridge how beautiful is THAT! looking at the shapes of the references and names appearing on the sources which would likely scare most from dragging it to AfC if they found it like that in the first place. (That's not the same as deep scrutiny). I'd always suggest peoples consider WP:THREE for those wishing to save articles and maybe checkout Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vidyut Kale for seeing hard scrutiny and the DRV on [[1]] as well. But quite frankly AfD/DRV is not what I cam to WP for, I come to do content and AfD/DRV detracts from that. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome. Glad you liked them. Between Beer and strawberry, I often choose the safer option as a wikilove  . A TLDR version of this fracas will be much appreciated. I could not agree more with your last line. In fact in the first few months/year of my editing, I considered AfD boring place where folks were arguing and doing less useful work when they could be working to improve the article. But overtime with experience things changed for me. I now consider AfD as an important part of the work here. I consider saving an article at AfD even more important than starting out something on my own, because I believe that by saving a notable article at AfD you are preserving the contribution of many editors (most of whom are IPs/ new editors). This in turn prevents them from getting discouraged after seeing something notable (in their opinion ) get deleted. So in a way you save their work, you saved some editors from leaving and that is a big contribution. Of course one has to draw a line and crap cant be kept to encourage noobs. I regularly patrol AfDs in hopes of saving article that folks are not interested into participating for whatever reasons cultural/social/linguistic/laziness etc etc. I regularly find pile on votes lacking substance and mimicking others on AfDs. And all these encourages me to participate more into the AfDs. I hope my thought encourages you as well. --DBigXray 17:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice work on LansweeperEdit

I think you made a good call on looking past the COI issues and recognizing the article's potential. Nice work on improving and rescuing the article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

PUREVPNEdit

I think you are overreacting and discriminating users here. First of all, I found that article as a complete mess as it is clearly not a neutral encyclopedia article. Second, I found skillfully inserted negative info in all the sections and it was mostly based on one unreliable blog review. Third, in the Reception section, I found the advertising of the other VPNS: "PC Magazine's Max Eddy wrote, "PureVPN is not a bad service by any measure, but it's not the best."[6] He preferred competitor VPNs Private Internet Access, which "offers a spartan experience at an unbeatable price", and NordVPN, which "costs slightly more than average but packs excellent features into an excellent interface". How that information can be neutral and encyclopedic? I would better suggest to remove the page about PureVPN from Wikipedia than keep it like that. I hope you don't have COI here as it looks like you prevent cleaning the article by all means, and automatically accusing a person in COI without even looking the updates and changes made. I would like to bring it further to other editiors as you are clearly overreacting here.--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5 (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately the way you reacted hear I have to do something until a third party looks at it. You simply don't have the track record and have declined to go via [[WP:REQUESTEDIT]. I have to stand back from an edit war. Look up a dispute resolution you would like or feel free to us the help directions I supplied on your talk page. Thankyou. With all the nice things said on my talk page all day a problem was likely to occur. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not so experienced and I have no idea how even to do the [[WP:REQUESTEDIT]. Also, I thought that everyone one this planet has the right to edit Wikipedia in a constructive way (please, correct me, if I'm not right). Once again, I do not have COI and you only discourage new users from editing. My reaction is totally natural and all the reviewers are more than welcome to check my edits on the page. Have a great day.--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5 (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5 ... Given the amount of problem editing on PureVPN already and wandering straight in as an claimed inexperienced editor and reasonably presumably not reading all the policies and guidelines and engaging on perhaps very mild Wikipedia:Personal attacks on me and failing to continue discussions on the talk page. I am concerned the summary These edits have been done properly according the Wikipedia rules of neutrality of information. No advertising material was added is edging on not being compatible with not so experienced... Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Djm-leighpark! I explicitly confirm that I don't have any WP:COI with PureVPN or a competitor. I already confirmed it in the message above(in my Talk), so I'm surprised to see it again. I also surprised to see that you first put the COI tag on the page and then asked me about COI. I welcome all the constructive changes and I if you explain me how to edit or request to edit next time, I'd be glad to listen to the experienced user like you. Regarding your assumption on my experience. I did a few edits before on different pages and picked up some rules and experience but I still consider myself very inexperienced user. Let me know what rules of Wikipedia I breached by removing the biased information and blog reviews (which are not eligible to be cited on Wikipedia as far as I know). --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6CF1:B29B:6783:9CC5 (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC) ... Effectively have replied on users talk page and also handling a way forward on the Talk:PureVPN. I really knew my talk page was looking to good today to last! Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Kb03 and AfD of MB-LabEdit

Conversation collapsed due to uncivil language

As you might have lost interest in the AfD of Manuel Bastioni Lab, you might have stopped reading the AfD comments. I would like you to read my response to your neutral vote. At least my "p.s." section.

As someone else has said to you: "That BLP AfD almost killed my enthusiam for Wikipedia – much appreciate that you took it on to restore it."

You seem like a constructive contributor, who wants to improve wikipedia. Maybe you could look into this Kb03 user and do something about his behavior, bring this to the attention of others on Wikipedia or leave a comment, if I'm gravely misunderstanding his actions.

Most people just want to improve Wikipedia and Kb03 seem to be the exact opposite. They are the ones, who demoralize and drive off a bunch of people by rollbacking hard work (e.g. 356 rollbacks in just one day without any comment) or trying to delete articles left and right. --82.206.28.74 (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@82.206.28.74 ... Kb03 is a NPP and while I may disagree at times with some of their actions in general they so a good job sometimes under a lot of pressure. 'Tis better if you have a concern with their actions to raise on their talk page as they invite rather than pushing someone else out into the vanguard. In terms on the AfD it is merely of necessity that someone points out the article was improved since initial nomination addressing some/all of the concerns. Some good closers would clock that anyway. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, thank you for the kind comments. 82.206.28.74 If you have an issue with any of my edits just reach out on my talk page. I take criticism to heart and try to learn from my mistakes. Kb03 (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Kb03, I do not believe you. These 356 rollbacks in three and a half hours seem like you just enjoy to destroy other people's work and did NOT look at the individual changes. Let's say you rollback 50% on some todo-list (which is an extreme ratio), you spend less than 20 seconds on average per article to rollback... Must be a really quick clicker, reader and decider... Very believable...
About ten years ago, when I used to be an editor here, panels voiced their concerns about editors, who just run around reverting changes and new articles, which demoralizes and pushes off (especially new) users and removes good work, but even the most destructive editors at that time were not as extreme as you are.
Djm-leighpark, I tried to reason with these kind of people years ago and gave up. I don't know how the bureaucracy has changed, so I don't even know where to look on how to start an investigation (and hopefully deletion) of a user like Kb03, so I was hoping that you (as you seem to improve articles and oppose deletion) might be interested in stopping this behavior.
I understand that quality control is important and it's really good, when people stop vandalism. I do not oppose this role/function. But I do not believe this specific user is using his position with good intentions. --82.206.28.74 (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
p.s.: This Kb03 user doesn't even seem to look at the changes he is destroying and then just reverts a part of his deletion spree, when someone points out his flaws ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kb03#List_of_College_and_University_Agricultural_Engineering_Departments ). No wonder he can do this many edits! --82.206.28.74 (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@82.206.28.74 if you have evidence Kb03 is abusing e.g. rollbacker rights then they have already invited you to discuss it on their talk page. Alternatively raise at WP:TEAHOUSE. Or even go straight to WP:ANI to bring it to administers attention and to allow independent scrutiny and propose sanction. And if you evidence at ANI ping me the result here so I may comment or !vote as appropriate. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing to ANI. I'll try to look deeper into Kb03 and will try to make a case against him/her when I've gathered more evidence of excessive/inappropriate behavior.
Speaking of inappropriate. As you found it inappropriate how I reverted Kb03's AfD notice under the suspicion of vandalism I just want to note that every one of his/her incredibly big list of rollbacks is an implied accusation of vandalism. Except s/he doesn't even bother to state a reason. --82.206.31.87 (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Removal of an WP:AFD notice is vandalism by anyone but the closer is vandalism. Removal of a WP:PROD notice can be done by anyone for any reason; perhaps becausing it is raining outside their window. However WP:COMPETENCY show realise removing a PROD notice both removes the 7 day delete protection from an article and is likely to lead straight to a WP:AFD unless there is a reasonable attempt to correct the issue. A PROD also leads to a soft delete rather than a likely hard delete at WP:AFD. But perhaps curiously I see no evidence of Kb03's AFD notice being removed.

  1. 19:31, 24 October 2019‎ Tapo [2] : suggesting deletion :::: PRODed article due mainly to Notability concerns and maybe concerns about WP:SUSTAINED.
  2. 03:06, 25 October 2019‎ 82.206.28.66 Undid revision 922857585 by Tapo — Please refrain from vandalism. :::: This was in my opinion a valid dePROD but also an WP:UNCIVIL attack on Tapo In my opinion it left the article highly vulnerable to WP:AFD and removed the possibility of the article being improved under WP:PROD
  3. 03:46, 25 October 2019‎ Kb03 Undid revision 922911914 by 82.206.28.66 — not vandalism ( I'd argue this was unwise at it applied a 2nd PROD to the article. There may be an argument it was undoing a change that was vandalism but in my book once dePRODed that's it.)
  4. 08:21, 25 October 2019‎ Djm-leighpark dePROD (Reasoning: inc. possibly discontunation?) .. (added ref invalidating one source to refImprove :: This was me making it evident a dePROD had occurred, questioning the initial reasoning and adding a ref to improve)
  5. 16:29, 25 October 2019‎ MarnetteD Filled in 1 bare reference(s) with reFill (Regular Clean bare URLs doer (great guys) clearing a bare URL to a citation)
  6. 01:16, 28 October 2019‎ Kb03 Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ManuelbastioniLAB (Almost inevitable thought perhaps arguably WP:BEFORE inadequate ...)

Any admin seeing this will be noting how NOT to get an article rescued! 21:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's view on vandalism is:
On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.
Trying to delete valid knowledge is literally vandalism according to this.
So my mistake was stating the reason for my revert... As it is uncivil to tell people not to delete an entire article worth of knowledge. Gotcha.
And by stating the reason the valid revert of the PROD gets reverted. Now it's a dePROD, so it can be put into AFD to be hard deleted even faster. Gotcha.
But everything is absolutely fine, because I dared to say "vandalism" and it's so verboten that no one uses it. Except when I look at e.g. Fb03 recent edits and see exactly that:
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia [..]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sdohsoduhw&oldid=925684994
So the validity and appropriateness of an action is based on rules-lawyering the WP bureaucracy and using authority (which on WP, let's admit it, is just nepotism)
To sum up: Destruction of knowledge is good. Byzantine bureaucracy rules. Rampant authoritarianism based on nepotism.
I see Wikipedia has not improved over the last years. In fact it has gotten worse.
Now I hope this entire project becomes even more toxic. Up to a point when normal people don't want to contribute anymore and it becomes outdated, irrelevant and will be replaced by a competitor who will hopefully have a better solution against censoring, obsessive, opinionated people in power.
What a waste of time.
tl;dr: Fuck this shit. I hope Wikipedia dies. --82.206.31.87 (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: ThePrint (November 13)Edit

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Winged Blades of Godric was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: After a careful consideration of all available sourcing, I am not seeing any detailed coverage of its journalism other than trivial attributions.

As such, a failure of WP:NCORP as well as WP:GNG.

WBGconverse 13:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I regard amount of time you have held this locked from edit as unhelpful to say the least and seems to be made only when the article was likely to be brought to WP:DRV. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Cool. WBGconverse 13:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:ThePrint has a new commentEdit

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission at Draft:ThePrint: I'm going to accept this. Articles on newspapers are nowadays very liberally accepted at AfD, so this deserves a community decision. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: ThePrint has been acceptedEdit

ThePrint, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

adviceEdit

It's almost certain that this article will be listed at AfD, and I think it has only a 60% chance of passing.The technical criterion for accept afd s is that they are mor likely than not to be accepted, so this technically qualifies. However, I and essentially all current reviewers usually work to a higher standard--when giving new reviewers advice, i say to aim at least for 75%. Myself, I seem to run a better than 99%--only 3or 3 of my several hundred acceptances have every been deleted (perhaps because I normally fix them up a little, after I accept them.)

My general view has ben that AfC is a rough screen only, and there is no point quarreling about accepting or rejecting an article. If it might reasonably pass, and the contributor is willing to take the chance, let the community decide. It'a not that the community always decides correctly, but it's our fundamental principle of operation. No individual editior should impose their will on the community--to the extent that admins have a power to act, its because they are trusted to know when there is something so obvious that the community would surely do it. Accepting of articles is a little special that way, and I'm generally in favor of giving any good faith contributor a chance--the ones we can be safe in deleting is the downright advertising, like the original versions of this article.

Please ping me if this goes to AfD, because I will need to comment to justify my accepting the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frederick Attock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer grantedEdit

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Mz7 (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hold your horses!Edit

I couldn't even get my books about the Western Desert Campaign out to improve the article British capture of Tobruk before you slapped a speedy delete on it. I find that hostile and unproductive. This was the missing article in the series of the four great battles of Operation Compass. Until now this battle was a section in the article about the siege that happened later that year, but with reversed roles. I will work on the article now, but next time, when an editor with 13 years of wiki work creates a new article, give him some time to expand/edit/reference. Thank you. noclador (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

An editor with 13 years experience should likely know not to leave a summary when deleting content and when putting the some of same content up at a different article in mainspace that that is a problem. Of course you may actually be able to prove you created the content that was duplicated ... but it looked like an attempt to copy without attribution by my viewpoint. You may complain at WP:ANI if you wish. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Edgeworthstown, really?Edit

Your change of section Header from "Name" to "Toponymy" as a "better section name than name". Your estimate of what proportion of readers are likely to understand what toponymy means? They certainly don't include Microcsoft spellchecker :) Sarah777 (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair challenge. Well I speaking from a dude in Chi today and he was in Dún Laoghaire for a bit and methinks if the Toponymy is good enough for there it should be good enough for the Monstrim scholars. Now we goes official the guidance I uses is Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements (which is not valid there) or Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure which is and says: Etymology methinks. Which @Wikimandia has said previously is wrong. And I don't argue with Sarah777. While the original reference is [3] one really needs [4] for the full background. This like a CIE 121 Class vs IE 22000 Class when the wight gets sort. So there we have it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@@Sarah777 and Wikimandia: I've actually read Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure#Etymology rather than pointing people at it. As it says ..."may be titled as Etymology (most common), Toponymy, or Name (least common)" under challenge and reflection I've determined to revert to "Name" at Edgeworthstown as pre-existed on the article. (I'm successful at Dingo-dollar challenge questions so I'll skip the estimation guess .... probably because I could risk putting my foot in it!) Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The correct term is toponymy. Look up the word if you are unfamiliar with it. This is after all an encyclopedia and it is here to gain knowledge. Or do a simple search on place names and you will see this word in the title of books. Toponymy is not a weird or big word and it's even fewer syllables than etymology. МандичкаYO 😜 22:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Discussion too big and too important for the dystopia of my talk page ... taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure#Etymology or toponymy or name as I believe that is the right place for discussion to be had. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
This isn't an issue of any concern to me, btw - I'm happy that we are expanding the vocabulary of the masses! I was basing my "analysis" on the humble assumption that if I had to google the word then most readers would not understand it. 😜
Didn't mean to clutter your page! Sarah777 (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@Sarah777: That's what its here for! It auto-archives after a while anyway .... but I was so sorry lose User talk:Djm-leighpark/Archives/2018 1#Car user and Daily Mail only reader? from it! Back to this debare felt it was actually reasonably placed somewhere more central so I know how to sort Ballysadare; and I wish I could prove it was a clerk typo at the Midland Great Western Railway who originated one of the spellings! Thanks! Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019Edit

  Please do not add or change content, as you did at SunPCi, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Introducing contents that do not satisfy reliable source criteria, which was very recently added. Special:Diff/931018948 Graywalls (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SunPCi. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Special:Diff/930865468. Accusation that my AfD was "frivolous or vexatious" Even though nomination followed a citing related issue, I observed the article had general notability issues. Graywalls (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Whatever. Please take me to WP:ANI they who love to waste others contrbutions.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Eiretrains, December 2019Edit

Hi Djm-leighpark,

Thank you for posting a message on my talk page. I added an external link from Eiretrains to numerous pages of railway stations, because it was already included on pages such as Maynooth, Leixlip Louisa Bridge, Leixlip Confey, and even Pearse before I did any editing. I thought it was harmless but if Eiretrains is not a suitable external link according to the guidelines, then maybe it should be removed from these pages. Thank you. Scaramanga731 (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

G. NanjundanEdit

Hello. Regarding the change in the talk page for this person: If the sources reporting his death are reliable (for the sake of argument), the problem I see with using WP:BDP is that we know the subject of the article is deceased; wouldn't it be better to put a blpo=y in the banner shell and mark the living parameter in the WP Bio tag as no to more accurately reflect the situation? Otherwise it looks like the person is still living when he isn't; I think the same would be true of Carolyn Konheim who died in November 2019. If I'm on the wrong track, please let me know. Thank you for your consideration. --FeanorStar7 (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I am strongly minded it is not appropriate to have anything. A question for a noticeboard perhaps .... to be raised at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons perhaps? ( I currently don't have time at least for some hours ....). Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Another reason I meant to mention is that the talk page shows up in the following category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Biography_articles_without_living_parameter ; this has the following sentence as part of the explanation: "A person known to be dead should be explicitly marked as such." This is why I made the suggestion above. Thank you.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@FeanorStar7 In essenence, after having got space to look at it, I agree with you. Thankyou for your challenge and have set the appropriate parameters on the article take page. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I also saw your comment on the noticeboard. I still think the living parameter for the actual WP Biography tag itself should be living=no since we know the person is dead; the blpo=yes in the banner shell I agree with... I hope this is clear--FeanorStar7 (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that was what it was my intention to say. If you had asked me I would have claimed with some betting odds I have put living=no. In fact my fingers seem to have done/left living=yes. I have put this to living=no and hopefully will avoid more WP:TROUTs. Thankyou again for most appropriately challenging me. thankyou. 19:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archivedEdit

 

Hi Djm-leighpark! You created a thread called COI Editing possible issue at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


Yes bot. It is done. Thankyou bot. May you be endowed with many blessingings. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

WOWCubeEdit

Hello. Regarding one of latest discussions: it was decided to draftify and to salt WOWCube article until it is possible to move it to mainspace. I would like to move any possible drafts of that article to my personal sandbox so I could rework it in the future before the moment comes. However, I can't find any drafts. Could you assist me? Thanks forward. Mark Ekimov (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Closer, WP:REFUND or if confused WP:TEAHOUSE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

MuscovyEdit

Meat a tough from the old drake you doppleganging puppet? No quack but heavy breathing when excited.86.175.238.154 (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for COI GuidanceEdit

Hi,

You posted comments on this page -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Data_Ladder

I am new to Wikipedia writing. I feel that the COI issues can be repaired. I'm going to edit the content again to ensure it is completely objective while ensuring all COI templates are applied correctly. Would that work?

Is there anything else I need to do?

Appreciate the help!

Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by FarahKim (talkcontribs) 08:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You (as per many in marketing) have a fundamental "camel through the eye of a needle difficulty" insofar as marketing attempts to show something in its best light whereas Wikipeida strives to article neutrality. I will voluntarily repeat my repeat my suggestions to goto the WP:TEAHOUSE and use Wikipedia:Edit requests & Template:Request edit. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Stop Funding Fake NewsEdit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Stop Funding Fake News requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. eπ/💬 21:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

? Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)