User talk:DA1

Hello, DA1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle you should engage in talk page discussion of your edits. While I am sympathetic with many of the edits, you are the one who needs to explain and defend them. Otherwise if the other editor reverts them again and you revert them back you will technically be engaging in WP:Edit warring. So come on by. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 20:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i am engaging in the discussion in DR. I also have made my point that i will budge, and hence have no interest in edit warring. Thx. DA1 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the complaint that I called inevitable did indeed happen. After looking over your talk page, that discussion is incomplete without your input. Abel (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are musicians that aren't songwriters. And there are songwriters who aren't musicians. I just felt that it was wrong to combine the two skills with 'musician'.

We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Weeknd, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source directly related to the topic of the article that directly supports what is being cited. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Trilogy (The Weeknd album). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mister 16: Casino Life

added a link pointing to YG

Shot Caller

added a link pointing to Single

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an request for comment at the article's talk page. Next time, instead of engaging in an edit war and relying on over-long edit summaries to get your point across, take the time to use the talk page of the article whose content you are disputing: "If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war." (WP:DR) Dan56 (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to mediate the dispute, to avoid an edit war, on your very Talk Page. You neither addressed my effort, but proceeded to revert my edits again. May I remind you, you reverted me first and reverted me last. The idea that I'm closing to an edit war is quite a stretch on your part. DA1 (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The protocol for avoiding an edit war and settling a content dispute is by discussing the dispute at the article's talk page(WP:DR), not engaging in what would have become a back-and-forth between us at our respective talk pages and would have required us to regurgitate our arguments at the RfC at the article's talk page. This is my last message to your talk page. Please don't message me again. Dan56 (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I won't message you again this time. But to go back to your point, the best thing to do when it comes to a dispute with one user in particular is to message them first, and invite them to have a discussion/mediation. Rather then going straight to the article's Talk Page where my edit may sit around for hours or days before getting noticed by the specific individual who I would like to address. So I addressed you personally, but never received a reply. DA1 (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article AR-Ab (rapper) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AR-Ab 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/AR-Ab 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. Wgolf (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hit the undo button on accident and it undid your edit-but I did restore it. Wgolf (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yo can you tell me if my new article i wrote under the title of "Yungen (musician)" is good.Theslighteditor (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have YouTube or Hangouts or something?. I need to ask you a question which i cant ask on here Theslighteditor (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question about Wikipedia (kinda) but not a normal question so yeah um btw are you a standard user or an admin.Theslighteditor (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the French Montana page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Max B, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. 153.229.209.154 (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Max B, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. 153.205.171.57 (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I removed Young Los, Al Pac, Mak Mustard, Stack Bundles, and Hollywood Fergie, all of which are non-notable, from the infobox per Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts. I do not think they are significant and notable to Max B's career. I restored The Hood Internet and Isaiah Toothtaker, both of which are notable. 153.205.18.1 (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cool & Dre, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Game and Terror Squad. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DA1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 18th Street gang, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 04:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pertinence of restoring the Japanese title and website in EL is beyond me. Care to take a stab in condensing the bloated plot summary to its bare minimum, while you're at it? Bluesphere 06:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes during editing, i seem to have accidentally deleted the stuff in Work -- thanks for bringing it to attention; restored it all..Historiantheman (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DA1! I saw your comment at Requests for Page Protection regarding MENA. CambridgeBayWeather is correct that the article is not vandalized often enough to justify semi-protection. But what we can do, for an article like this that has a low-level but persistent problem with vandalism or unsourced material, is that we can add Pending Changes protection. That means that IPs can make edits, but the edits don't appear in the article - they don't "go live" - until they are approved or rejected by a Pending Changes reviewer. I will add PC protection to that page. And I have modified your user rights to make you a Pending Changes reviewer, so that you can review and accept or decline edits to that page. Please read the information below to inform yourself about this procedure. If you have any questions, you can ask me here; I will see it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am still a bit rusty on this, but calling Arianism a form non-Trinitarianism seems best for most purposes, since now days Trinitarianism has a fairly defined meaning that excludes Arianism. In the earliest days of Christianity the term "Trinity" was around, but not clearly defined (by modern standards), so that Arianism seemed to have called themselves Trinitarian, at least up until Nicaea. Then, terms like "Nicaean" and "non-Nicaean" are used (rather than "Trinitarian" and "non-Trinitarian") for for people/groups/ideas. (Even Nicaea did not yet define the Trinity.)

One difference today is that non-Trinitarian groups are normally glad to tell you they are non-Trinitarian. tahc ^chat 20:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"calling Arianism a form non-Trinitarianism seems best for most purposes"

@Tahc: Yes, that's why I was hoping it be included in the non-Trinitarian section. I feel it's significant enough, and certainly doesn't contradict any of the information present on any of the articles and sources. DA1 (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the wording is rather open-ended now that you point it out. There's no doubt he converted to Islam (per all his post-fight interviews, etc.), but the name change is what I can't find anything reliable on. If a source is contemporary (i.e., within the past decade), I would strongly guess that the name "Malik Abdul Aziz" has been lifted from this Wikipedia article after all the years of it being added/removed/re-added. There is also this article from 1993, but it doesn't confirm whether the name change actually happened—only that he was planning on doing so. As for whether the original account is reliable, the quotes are from Tyson's lawyer Alan Dershowitz. Any suggestions on how we proceed? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Dershowitz either didn't have the full story at the time, or Tyson's circumstances changed after his release a few years later. I tried Googling with certain terms omitted in order to narrow down the regurgitated fluff; e.g., -wikipedia -facebook -youtube -forum -forums, but I'm still not getting much else besides the Dershowitz quote and subsequent dubious repetition. A primary source(s) from the man himself should definitely be our target now. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something more recent, from 2005, yet old enough to unlikely have been lifted from WP: [1]

[...] one of the welcoming speakers referred to Tyson by a Muslim name he adopted in the 1990s, Malik Abdul Aziz.

What do you think? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks clearcut to me. I've added it back to the lead with both sources. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Quilly (rapper) 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/Quilly (rapper) 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We were editing Rohingya people at the same time. I believe I saved all of your changes, but you might want to make sure. —Anomalocaris (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DA1: The only line I replaced was this grammatically incorrect sentence "Stripping the Rohingya population of their citizenship", which I rewrote as "and stripped the citizenship rights of the Rohingya". Mentioning the lack of voting rights is important. As this report suggests, 1 million people without voting rights is a notable issue.

I did remove the 8888 uprising, since it took place in 1988 and added a banned political party from 1992. The uprising can re-added though. But in terms of trimming the lede, you can cut down the HRW statement (8th century in the lede?) and the last four sentences of the last paragraph. Crimes against humanity would fall under genocide and ethnic cleansing mentioned in the first para.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, how big should the lede be for this article? --Fez Cap 12 (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fez Cap 12: I think the HRW statement is notable since it acknowledges contrary to the state, that the Indian subcontinent settlers date back to the 8th century. When the lead already states they've been stripped of their citizenship, that includes the right to vote. My main concern was the clutter because another user has already edited the lede multiple times before and complained about its size, but its fine that you added it.

The line about 8888 Uprising should be in the lead since it was the largest nationwide democracy movement, and the subsequent 1992 crackdown include the banning of the party you added. Which is why that party info should go to the body of the article. That party was not as major a point compared to 8888, and is also a sub-detail of the 1992 crackdown. The main issues is that if you put minute details in the lede which you cannot argue against its removal, it will be removed by another user sooner or later citing clutter/size. DA1 (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DA1: Can you review the article again? One user, Psychonot, keeps changing sentences regarding population in the lede. Are his changes appropriate? --Fez Cap 12 (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DA1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted this edit. I thought the original was unclear; putting all of them in one list while adding "Initially" and "Later" in front of just two entries leaves it ambiguous as to whether they apply just to those two or also others in the list. A single list that doesn't mention time would be less misleading IMO. Since you disagree, here's a different solution: split them into an "initial" list and a "later" list, like this:

(I'm assuming here that Tengrism and shamanism were "initial" while the others were all "later".) What do you think? Hairy Dude (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks fine Hairy Dude. I think it would also be nice to somehow convey the different Khanate's respective religions in the infobox, so readers can see it. I believe there's a lot of misunderstanding among laymen of "the Mongols" due to norms of certain eras or places being applied to all as a whole. But we'll figure that out later, this is good for time being. DA1 (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wondering why you removed the info ? Unibond (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first worldwide governing body of the sport. It lost credibility when it fell into the hands of the Nazis during World War II.

Unibond It was the only one listed with commentary, all the others were simply a list of regions and titles. Article should have some consistency. Furthermore, it seems to be POV or OR when it mentions "lost credibility". The main article mentions nothing of that sort, except that it was under Axis occupation and who started their own boxing organization (APPE) during that time period. DA1 (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KO :-) Unibond (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arsen Goulamirian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Feroz (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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before the WBA Super belt was created, the regular belt was an established world title. Since the creation of the super belt, the regular fell from it's status. This is not rewriting an established narrative. rewriting an established narrative would be claiming that the regular belt is still a world title. For example, if the regular belt is considered a true world title, then undisputed heavyweight champion will not be determined by the outcome of Anthony Joshua vs Deontay Wilder as Manuel Charr has the WBA regular belt. Furthermore, if the regular belt was considered a world title, then Lamont Peterson should not have had to vacate the belt to fight the current IBF welterweight champion Errol Spence and would instead be unifying the division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk • contribs) 22:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CaPslOcksBroKEn: Take this to the article Talk page of whatever it is you're talking about; and make sure it's not original research. If I may point out: The WBA considers their own belt a "world title"...it's why it's referred to colloquially, and not officially by the WBA themselves, as the "regular" belt because the Super is their new title separate from their standard world title. The issue of what belt is real or not, is entirely POV and not something Wikipedia takes a position on. DA1 (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will take it to the talk page. But in case you forgot, you were the one who was telling this to me on Gennady Golovkin's page. Secondly, The IBO considers its own belt a world title, yet none of it's champions show up on the Wikipedia page of current world boxing champions, so clearly Wikipedia has taken a position on which sanctioning bodies have legitimate world titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk • contribs) 04:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CaPslOcksBroKEn: That's because Wikipedia works by consensus, and that's what the Wikiproject Boxing agreed on based on mainstream acceptance. Personally, I have no problem with IBO being added to the list and would actually prefer it. DA1 (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how Oleksandr Usyk is the undisputed crusierweight champion of the world when Beibut Shumenov holds the WBA regular belt — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CaPslOcksBroKEn: Stop asking me about things I have nothing to do with editing. Ask the user who made the edits. I can't keep giving you explanations for other users. Start a discussion in Wikiproject Boxing. DA1 (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scream Queens (2015 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DVR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you refer to the king of Oussouye article before reverting someone's edit as vandalism. The article is a mess anyway with no clear citation about their religious belief. Islam among jola is nominal at best and most of their beliefs are syncretic with their traditional beliefs. Please stop trying to own articles. I am in the process of clearing this article up Linguisticgeek (talk)

@Linguisticgeek: Until you've citations to back up your assertions you shouldn't be making bold claims about their religion or lack thereof. Do so when you have citations. This isn't about ownership, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it relies on verifiability and your edit (the one I reverted) wasn't adding to that but merely increasing the unverifiability. Second of all, Oussouye is a single region in southwest Senegal. One religious leader therein does not represent the rest of the country and it's not even part of Gambia and Guinea-Bissau where the Jola also reside. This is WP:OR, and a really poor one at that. DA1 (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DUDE THIS WILL MAKE ME TIRED

CAN I REMOVE IT?Esaïe Prickett (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)ESAIEEsaïe Prickett (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I undid your edits on the CNN article. Both CNN and HBO are subscription services, as you have to pay money to have them in your television offer. The difference is centred on CNN being a basic-tier channel, which can be acquired by just getting the basic channel package from your telly provider. However, HBO is a high-tier network, meaning that you have to pay an additional fee other than your subscription telly service. They are the same, after all, as «basic cable and satellite» are just another way to call low-tier pay television networks. Hope you understood, cheers. --Bankster (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bankster: I'm very much aware that HBO is a subscription or "pay" channel, but I didn't edit HBO, I edited CNN to say "cable television". Where do we disagree, are you saying CNN isn't basic cable? And either way, basic and pay both fall under "cable television" so I'm confused about where the error is you're saying. DA1 (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used HBO as an example, as there is a present misconception of not considering pay television channels as subscription services when they are indeed the same. Nowadays, the distribution of TV networks is not limited to cable and satellite, as now there are IPTV providers using IP protocols to deliver channel data, there are OTT platforms distributing the channel via the internet, there are even pay television services based on VHF and UHF terrestrial frequencies (encrypted terrestrial television). Hence, it is not really convenient to label these kind of networks on only two ways of delivering them. --Bankster (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bankster: The article 'pay television' is heavily original research (although so is 'basic cable'), but I think you're being needlessly broad here. If we edit the lede as to accommodate IPTV then every "television series" would need to be edited to say "television and web series" when that is not standard practice. All TV programs are available online and can be found on various streaming sites. DA1 (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IPTV refers to distributing TV channels via a closed IP protocol connected to a database and decoded by a DVR, not necessarily using the internet. What you mean is the over-the-top media services or OTT for short, which are based on mobile apps and streaming websites, basically. I'd be looking to improve both articles you mentioned, as it is evident they need further citations. --Bankster (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DA1. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DA1. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DA1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Nick Moyes (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Hi DA1, I believe the bolding should be removed from 'South Pacific Mini Games' in the second paragraph. Former names don't have to be bolded - I look at Democratic Republic of the Congo article, for example, and there is no bold mention of 'Zaire'. However if it was of prime importance and to be mentioned in bold, it should be included in the opening sentence. Happy to discuss further if you want to question the approach. Thanks -- Ham105 (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ham105: Hi. It doesn't have to be in the opening sentence; see visual example in WP:ALTNAME, and BOLDSYN stated "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles...are placed in bold". MOS:BOLD states the same and that it applies even if it is not the first sentence.

There's a slight difference between that (DRC) and this: The "South Pacific Mini Games" was and is the name of the editions pre-2009 which are covered by the current article. It should be bolded for people searching for the past event, and also to highlight that alternative title. As for Zaire, that has it's own distinct article Zaire that is being linked; per MOS:BOLDAVOID, piped links shouldn't be bolded in the an opening sentence. Granted it was the second sentence, but (like my above examples) I've noticed it is still standard practice not to bold; see Persian language's treatment of Tajiki and Dari which are being linked. –DA1 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take the point on Zaire. Let's get a solution. From the Manual of Style, the first sentence is preferred (bold text is mine):

1. The section for BOLDSYN is "Format of the first sentence".
2. The visual example cation in ALTNAME says "This page gives advice on the contents of the first sentence".
3. ALTNAME itself states that "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph".
4. The South Pacific Mini Games case is further down from the top in the second paragraph. If significant enough to be bold then it should be worked into the opening sentence, or at least the first para.

-- Ham105 (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ham105: You should read MOS:BOLD. This is getting tedious. DA1 (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith is better, along with the edits arising from it. Thanks. -- Ham105 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic debates don't need to be dragged out this long, and pointing that out isn't going against AGF. It's just gently stating the obvious. DA1 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I took care of your move requests at WP:RM/TR, but just want to let you know, in case you don't already, that you can move pages over redirects yourself, as long as the redirect points back to the article you're moving and doesn't have any additional edits from after the move. Station1 (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahl-i Hadith and Ahl al-Hadith are different things besides no theology in islam that is for christian theolgy but divinity in islam161.253.75.216 (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theology means the study of religion of the divine. I don't see how you consider that word explicitly "Christian" but not "divinity" itself. You should try to get consensus for editing the template if others agree with your wording. DA1 (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a note that in the context of WP:RMT, a request for revering an undiscussed move usually implies that the move in question was performed in the last couple of days (or weeks, if the article is an obscure one). If an article has been at a stable title for several years, it's probably best to go for an WP:RM discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mac Cheese The Appetizer.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not require people to make accounts, I chose not to make an account. It's not like most names are real or people with accounts always follow the rules either. Wikipedia asks us to take editors on good faith I try to do that too. I think you are showing an over-abundance of caution by excluding Scott Mendelson because he is with Forbes, he's been a recognizable critic for years with FilmThreat and other publications, admittedly he tends to focus more on Box Offices details than film reviews but he does both. (I generally pick critics from Metacritic to avoid claims they aren't notable but maybe I didn't this time, I'm not seeing Mendelson listed there now.)

I added the reviews to the Stuber (film) article, two positive reviews and two negative reviews. Ultimately it not the critic specifically that I am concerned about but the deleting of a review without replacing or expanding the article that is the problem.

By deleting a critic without replacing it or adding more review I think you've unbalanced the reviews and put WP:UNDUE weight on the negative reviews, considering Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic both give mixed scores. I encourage you to replace the review you deleted with one or more reviews. -- 109.78.229.145 (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@109.78.229.145: Wikipedia does not oblige one to add content either. If a content is objectionable we may choose to simply remove the content in question. That does not mean I don't want a substitute; my issue was only with what I removed, not it's more-reliable equivalents. There have been two users who pointed out the unreliability of Forbes Contributors versus one (yourself) that was for it. DA1 (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be blamed or for the next guy to delete even more reviews because of undue weight on the negative reviews. Respectfully the removal of the Forbes reference was you both times, but you provided meaningful edit summaries, I disagreed and thought the particular author might be worth the benefit of the doubt, but we disagreed. I see your point and I've learned to be more skeptical of Forbes. Sometimes it just feels like you have to make an edit twice to let people know you did it on purpose. Improving the article is the important point, so I might add other critics instead but since you were clearly acting in good faith I thought it was worth explaining myself a bit further.

The other edits and to the Box Office section were reverted by you and another user but I made slightly different edits each time. At first I tried to clarify by adding more, then I tried to clarify by removing the detail that did not seem relevant. I have tried to make my reasoning clearer on the article talk page if you want to respond there I will check for responses, but I wont be commenting on your personal page after this. Thanks for your time. -- 109.78.229.145 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@109.78.229.145: If you read the edit summary a few below my first one [2], you'll notice someone admonished Forbes Contributor links as well, it just happened to be a different instance in the same article. DA1 (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bureta Faraimo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American Samoan (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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why did you add the update tag to this page? Cheers Chopper Dave (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chopper Dave, the article seemed very bare bones. No history or development details in the body, and the PS4 mention in lede was in the future possible tense but March has come and gone. DA1 (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Raid 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rendezvous (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DA1! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Expertise Review: Anti-Defamation League, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Doma TV

added links pointing to Doma and Domo

TV Doma

added links pointing to Doma and Domo

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DA1, thank you for participating in the article of Anxhela Peristeri. I honestly appreciate your work and I want to let you know that I'm focusing on to bring the article to a GA status therefore please invest your time in other articles which deserve more attention than this one. Thank you and good luck!--Lorik17 (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iaof2017: I appreciate your contributions too, but I also want to contribute. I've been thinking about some stylization inconsistencies or disputes that are present in articles related to Albanians, Kosovans and their populations elsewhere, and want to form a MOS consensus so that every article can have some consistent identifying markers particularly when it comes to their lede and early life. We can continue this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albania where it's more appropriate. DA1 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've been doing some maintenance category cleanout and noticed that you added the {{Expert needed}} template to Gravity Games, but you didn't specify a WikiProject category. Not specifying a category makes the template unhelpful, and adds it to the useless Category:Articles needing unspecified expert attention. Additionally, it's crucial to add a reason= parameter, or it will probably be removed because nobody can tell what the problem is. I added a category for you, but please supply parameters when using that template in the future (i.e. {{expert needed|Politics|ex2=Economics|ex3=Finance & Investment|reason=These GDP figures look like they might be miscalculated}}. Cheers! jp×g 23:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Dew Tour. jp×g 23:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Rammbock: Berlin Undead, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're copying content from the IMDb into Wikipedia without even bothering to source it. This is wrong two levels – citing your sources is not optional, and the IMDb is not even a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I am actively editing the article, it is a work in progress. Every statement shall be cited. And no I don't wantonly copy things from IMDB that is a false assumption. DA1 (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Rammbock: Berlin Undead, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where you're getting this world premiere on 19 January from. If you add it again, I'm going to ask an uninvolved administrator to block you. this source does not say anything about 19 January. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I am completely baffled by what you're accusing me of. Have you even compared the edits? I literally did not state the premiere date as "19 January." Where are you getting this from? It said "January 2010" because that's the source I found. You are looking at older edits, instead of comparing later edits that were perfectly well-sourced. I know you're an admin, but I'll be honest, I think your edits are more disruptive here, no offense. DA1 (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Himeanole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CGI.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings DA1. Please see the comment left for you at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Invalid request. The system apparently failed to send you this notification so I am posting it for you here. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sean Bean, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critics' Choice Award.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DA1. I saw you’re a member of WikiProject Hip Hop. I created a draft article for music executive Elliot Grainge from 10K Projects - are you able to take a look and give me feedback?I work for Elliot, which I understand is a conflict of interest according to Wikipedia policy, so was hoping to get the assistance of an independent editor. The draft article is here: [3] Thanks. Musicfan100 (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chris Pine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Just My Luck.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Youth_World_Boxing_Championships&action=history

Hello. Can you this ?

Youth and Junior World Boxing Championships

This article should be divided into the following two articles:

IBA Youth World Boxing Championships or IBA World Youth Boxing Championships

IBA Junior World Boxing Championships or IBA World Junior Boxing Championships — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allasau (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Allasau: Hi. The current article is short enough that it can fit both categories in it and doesn't warrant a WP:SPINOUT. Most importantly, since 2018 the two categories have been consistently held as part of a single event in the respective host country. DA1 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DA1! First of all, I need to say sorry about reverting your edit without explaining reason. Here I provide my reasons about reverting your edit.

I revert your edit in T1 League because I align the writing style as Chinese page. And I revert your edit in 2021–22 T1 League regular season because the logo you added is not representing 2021–22 T1 League regular season.

Hope that you can remember my explanation about reverting your edit. Thanks! 安狄 (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC) @安狄: If the logo does not represent the inaugural season, you need to state what logo that is. And English Wikipedia isn't a direct translation of Chinese Wikipedia. Not only are the guidelines are different, but editors of all WP languages should be able to edit and expand information without being restricted by the shortcomings of the other. DA1 (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Azerbaijani Air Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commander of the Air Force.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chad Michael Murray, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CMT.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect The Power (Snap! song has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13 § The Power (Snap! song until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited By any means necessary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Foreman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Old Right (United States has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Old Right (United States until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Sudan (region has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Sudan (region until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Pompadour (hairstyle has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Pompadour (hairstyle until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mara Brock Akil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seventeen (magazine).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Easter egg (media has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Easter egg (media until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DA1. Thank you for your work on Ali Siddiq: It's Bigger Than These Bars. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mac & Cheese 2 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/Mac & Cheese 2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Sharamoscar (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northwest Caucasian languages has been nominated for merging with Template:North Caucasian languages. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited TV Azteca Guate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guatemalan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]