User talk:Swanny18

Hello, Swanny18, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Lelkesa 12:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Can't remember why I deleted the Three Graces date "2001/02" - it probably was an oversight on my part. Thanks for putting it back in with additional information.

Regarding the book ref you mentioned, it was added in a "Further Reading" section of this article, along with numerous other Liverpool-related articles, by an anonymous IP address over a short space of time. (See Special:Contributions/86.143.193.117). These were subsequently reverted elsewhere by others for the same reason. It was perceived as promotional spamming and was not a direct reference. Although it may well be relevant, this wasn't readily apparent. Perhaps this should be discussed on Talk:Pier Head or other related talk pages.

As far as Notes/Refs go, I've been lead to believe from Wikipedia guidelines that inline citations are preferrable (WP:CITE#HOW). That said, there are plenty of articles which follow this format (as mentioned in the Refs guidelines), or even: ==Notes== and ==Bibliography== subheadings under an umbrella ==References== heading. This is as long as the listed books support a significant amount of the material in the article. I don't have any objections - a reference in any style is better than nothing at all.

Sorry about the long-winded response. Glad you're also doing some 'cleaning up'. Cheers! Snowy 1973 (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the courtesy of notifying me of your changes. however, none are particularly correct. please refer to mos:dab for assistance in formatting and creating disambiguation pages. thanks. --emerson7 15:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i need only refer you to mos:dab with speciific attention to the use of the definite article. --emerson7 16:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please standby... --emerson7 16:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from Doncaster! 195.194.10.132 (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've been away for a year of non editing cause I was in Africa, so I've forgotten how to redirect pages and all that. That being said things are very very busy right now and as such I doubt I'll get around to this soon. thanks though TotallyTempo (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from top of page)
This is the only way i cna get a hold of you you are being unfair there is more evidnace of this man exsisatnace then there bring for jesus oyu let pepole put utter rubbish up on these pages but not the truth how dos this work and how is this fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montagu 1234 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply on User talk page)
Swanny18 (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good move. I agree that a week should be long enough to verify it or otherwise. Grutness...wha? 10:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost back to full health again now, thanks, though I've still got to watch my diet for a while. Doubt I'll evcer return to quite the activity levbel I had in the past on the bureaucratic side of Wikipedia, though (too stressful!) Grutness...wha? 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think photos attract readers and keep their eyes on the page. I wouldn't take out any nice ones. But adding the photo of the document is a nice idea.Historicist (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see that article's talk page for some (very major) problems cited. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I an astronomer? Do I belong to an Astronomical Society? Am I unfamiliar with the term or the concept? errrr....... other than the fact that I haul around some very big telescopes to my astronomical society's public outings..... does it mater? Being an expert on the subject does not matter when editing an article. And creating an article from your own knowledge of the subject is actually discouraged (please read WP:OR). The article in question should have clear references that I or any editor can check to see if it fits Wikipedia's criteria for an encyclopedic article. What do I have in mind? Making sure the article fits Wikipedia's criteria for an encyclopedic article (i.e. making sure it is not a bunch of BS off the top of someones head). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this comment[1]. If you are trying to make a case for a Wikipedia article based on the merit that "you" think it should exist, or that editing an articles to make it more encyclopedic is "having an axe to grind", then you have missed several Wikipedia guidelines and policy pages along the way. I would suggest starting with WP:ENC, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now edited to be like this: Chris Paciello. If still not OK, please improve or send to AfD. Fences&Windows 01:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like to ask you and a couple of other editors who might be interested in amateur astronomy technology to look at this article and tell me if I've achieved general notability guidelines WP:N as it is presently written. If it interests you I'd appreciate if you'd take a moment to look at it and if not, thanks for taking the time to read this note.Trilobitealive (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell you haven't tried to do anything except add a nag tag and wait for someone else to fix the problem. If you had actually done some work on the article and made a good faith effort to "work with me" on improving it rather than trolling with threats of deletion and nag tags you might get something more than sarcasm. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I visited the place for 2 days and know sod all about it - hence the brevity of my entry. It appears to have been removed now anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianiii (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Swanny18, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to ZMD: Zombies of Mass Destruction (film) has been removed. It was removed by EvilCouch with the following edit summary '(You don't prod an article because the plot summary is written badly. You certainly don't do it when a decent plot summary has already been written for it.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with EvilCouch before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

No worries. It was a pretty awful summary and the guidelines of the Wikipedia are pretty arcane. Have fun! EvilCouch (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not required to discuss noncontroversial edits on the talk page. Your revert of the Legion of Honor image back to your own low resolution image is self serving. Consensus is not required to change images of low quality. You are holding the artticle back with ownership issues that are innaopropriate for a Wikipedia editor. You may keep your article and I will merely creat a different one under a different title.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell! Caffiene withdrawal? Substantive reply here. Swanny18 (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own the El Cid article. Stop acting like you do.Ekwos (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Own it? I wish I could get away from it Swanny18 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made more "proposals". Feel free to weigh in. Note that three separate users have removed the current image (here, here, and here), each saying essentially the same thing about how bad it is. Only you have returned it each and every time. Whose being stubborn? Srnec (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And "stubborn" must be my middle name Swanny18 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because he made way too much sense. His essay "Do template the regulars," that didn't go over well with the ruling wikipediots one bit. But they couldn't officially block him, so they blocked him unofficially. Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm a little bit concerned about this series of edits of yours. [2]. The opening section now refers to a "cruiser", without previously mentiioning one. Also, your claim that the German cruiser squadron attempted to return to Germany after the outbreak of war is simply wrong - von Spee himself said "I cannot get home" - I can dig out a reference if you want one. I don't mean to put you off, but I'm not sure you've improved the article much. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(reply is here. Swanny18 (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Swanny, Thanks for getting in touch. I had decided to let the dust settle a while before rejoining the discussion as I was not sure if there might have been some historical WP:Ownership issues floating around. Your prompt was timely. As Kurt W himself might have done if faced with a temporary blockage, I have tried to offer a contribution to the discussion by pointing to already well-trodden path that may have been overlloked to try and get things pointing in the right direction!. Cheers Tmol42 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of Wallander, I wasn't planning to take part in the actual discussion, but with this edit you blanked the article Mankell's Wallander and apparently reverted the contents to where it came from. A blank article is never of any use whatsoever to our readers; the proper action is usually to create a redirect in those cases, which I now have done. I hope it was a mistake rather than a WP:POINT edit, but please do not blank any more articles even if you disagree with them. Tomas e (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Swanny, Neat work on sorting the various Wallander articles, well done! Tmol42 (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Swanny18 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the fixes you suggested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daily_Bruin#Notable_Daily_Bruin_alumni. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how I can fix the talk pages of the templates. It does not appear that the same code format is there as when I first posted the project boxes to the pages.Hoops gza (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. As for your question, I am not sure what you are asking me. If your question is whether I am a Neo-Nazi or support it in some capacity, then the answer is no. Nazism was essentially the embodiment of everything that is wrong with humanity. I am simply documenting history, particularly one of the most important and perhaps the most terrible events in history, The Holocaust. There are many reasons, most notably because it is not sufficiently documented, because it should belong to the public domain, because of the unique nature of many aspects of it, because I find it fascinating, and hopefully to help prevent such a thing from happening again.Hoops gza (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. The moving was already done, I believe by ErrantX (talk · contribs), before I arrived, in response to a request here; I just made sure the incoming links were pointing to the correct people. Numbering for these very old earldoms is a bit fraught (see this discussion spawned by the business), but in this case, the renumbering seems to have brought us in line with the ODNB, which seems like a good idea. Choess (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thanks! Swanny18 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swanny18, I sincerely appreciate questions like this as they force me to reflect on my WP philosophy and how that philosophy has manifested itself in individual WP processes. Your question, (and conclusion) about the lack of consensus around diacritics is astute. As a community, we don’t have a coherent, consistent policy around the use of diacritics in article titles. You’ve really asked me two questions—What is my RM closing rationale? and How should you proceed to attempt to better establish WP policy re diacritics? This first is easy to answer, the second I can only suggest.

When I close an RM, I first look for a clear consensus of support or opposition to the suggested move. If editors are opposing a move and their arguments have any basis in policy or guidelines, then their opposes tend to lead to a no consensus move. When it comes to article titles, status quo is a powerful argument. If the current article title is doing no harm to WP—ie. we aren’t calling dogs, cats—there must be a really sound policy argument for changing an existing title. Unfortunately, all that being said, our WP titling policies, guidelines and MOS are really inconsistent and almost impossible to interpret and apply across a wide variety of articles. (I’ve been pretty vocal about that at Holistic approach to article titles). It always seems to come down to local consensus on any given article without regard to any consistency in policy application.

Now, where to go from here. How should you proceed to try and sort out the use of diacritics in article titles in WP. Well, first, understand there are no, third party, neutral arbitrators at WP. We are all editors, and even admins are editors with opinions. Admins perform duties within the bounds of individual WP processes and essentially only assess local consensus on any issue. To bring the issue of diacritics to the fore and potentially arrive at a resolution I would suggest an WP:RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles. Draft the RFC in your user space. Be very specific as to the question you are asking. Leave no doubt as to what the issue is. If you ask a vague question, you’ll get vague, useless responses. If you want the policy to be a certain way, be clear about it. By drafting the RFC in your user space you can seek the advice of others before going live. Remember, real policy change comes very slowly within the WP community. Even, if as I believe our WP title policy, is completely dysfunctional, it will be a long time before we see substantive change. Patience within the WP policy realm is a virtue. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited John Erskine, 23rd Earl of Mar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jacobite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need an explanation? WP:ALASKA at present has 1,600 stubs. This doesn't include the hundreds more which weren't tagged for the project for whatever reason. Most of these articles exist because of the ease of and/or lack of copyright restrictions on available source material, not necessarily because a need existed. In the specific case of these four articles, coverage of Alaska state government appears to follow an importance order more applicable to the structure of Wikipedia than to the structure of the government itself. If the issue really is a lack of explanation on the talk page, there's very few of us pursuing this specific issue, with probably more work to do than time to do it. Therefore, it's likely I'm going to miss talk page discussions in order to make sufficient progress. Most of these articles will continue to languish as stubs that no one gives a shit about until someone does something. What you did amounts to just trying to make the problem go away.RadioKAOS (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Underground city, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dark Ages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 17:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remedied by a kind soul in October. Swanny18 (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2012 (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.

Smiley's People (TV miniseries) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Hopkins, Michael Byrne, Kenneth McMillan and Simon Langton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done (mostly; K McMillan is a redlink, best left). Swanny18 (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inspector Montalbano (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ragusa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Swanny18 (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was wrong. P.S.: I am always sitting on the couch with a cup of tea.:) --46.244.251.47 (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could check Adam Price (screenwriter), it sounds VERY wrong. --46.244.251.47 (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be resolved, now. Swanny18 (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Isaac Asimov's Golden Years of Science Fiction anthology series, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 00:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Swanny18 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander Gordon, 2nd Duke of Gordon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cock o' the North. 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) 09:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intended. Swanny18 (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Strange Case of Peter the Lett, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Marais and Lett. 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) 08:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done (Lett fixed 23rd Aug, Marais fixed by another 22nd) Swanny18 (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping to seek sources. Note that if the subject's article does not source his/her relation to Prescot, it needs to be added either to that article or to Prescot. For example, Jeanette Powell's article does not source anything about Prescot. We'll see what happens. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:52, 17 November 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) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"and even if not you will be better off for the attempt." Is that a threat or something ? So Wikipedia allows people to bully somebody else or just your machoism ? Pranabnaik (talk)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Softly, as in a Morning Sunrise, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ray Alexander. 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) 15:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Count of Monte Cristo (1964 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Hammond. 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) 09:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, 6 July. Swanny18 (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Prisoner of Birth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Godfather. 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) 09:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed on 25 July by niceguyedc (thanks!) Swanny18 (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Swanny18, I am researching William FitzOsbern and I want to speak to experts on the subject. What can you tell me about him being Earl of Wessex please? Yours aye, Roddy.--Preceding comment added by Rod Oliphant (talk • contribs) 13:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, to save going round in circles, I've proposed a non-conflicting title for your new article. If it isn't exactly right, you can move it to something you find more suitable, or I can do so for you if you aren't sure of the procedure. "Dazzle ship" however was and is not available - you reused it from an existing correct redirect, so you knew it was already in use, and could easily have checked why it was redirected. I hope this solution is satisfactory to everyone. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Black Book (Rebus) 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/The Black Book (Rebus) 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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Újpest (disambiguation) 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/Újpest (disambiguation) 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.

User:Swanny18, I am a new page reviewer. As such, I properly categorized and patrolled The City And The City (TV series). You are not permitted to leave rude messages on my talk paage when I'm just doing my job per WP:CIVIL. You may also wish to brush up on WP:OWN. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 15 minute guideline is with respect to tagging an article for deletion, not making constructive improvements to the article. Categorizing an article is not considered "trashing someone's work". Since you don't seem to understand how article categorization works, I'll patrol the article at a later time. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 21:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Anupam^Talk 21:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crancelin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaplet (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) 09:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed already (on 8 June) by Narky Blert (thank you!) Swanny18 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Swanny18 (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Swanny18 You made two serious accusations on my talk page. I have replied to you and am still waiting for your comments on this. It would be appreciated. I aim for your full satisfaction. Many thanks! PPEMES (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, on 12 January. Swanny18 (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jesper Christensen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Noer (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) 07:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Swanny18 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (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) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the article Thomas Hope Troubridge. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done (in October 2021) by a kindly passer-by. My thanks, Swanny18 (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2022 (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) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ichabod Crane (colonel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eli.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]