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. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello — I noticed you created a number of short articles in the English Wikipedia based on (longer) articles from the Czech project. That's a great start, thank you! but those articles need reliable sources. Biographical articles about living people need at least one reliable source each, even for brand-new articles. See WP:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. Don't be surprised if you see “proposed for deletion” entries for each article that doesn't have a source, tagged by various other editors as they notice them. The one I noticed was Martin Stropnický, and a quick comparison with the Czech page showed me lots of sources there, so perhaps migrating some of those to the English side might be straightforward? Unician∇ 23:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Milan Chovanec. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Marcel Chládek. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Helena Válková. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Antonín Prachař. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Věra Jourová. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Richard Brabec. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fear of Music 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. Yaksar(let's chat) 05:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Stevenson (2nd nomination) 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. Legacypac (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks for your copyediting efforts at 2015–16 Spanish government formation#PSOE leadership crisis (September 2016). I note you that I'm now bringing most of the content into a specific article to elaborate on the PSOE crisis, since the other one should focuse most in those key events of the crisis that affect most to the government formation process (with more detail put within the PSOE crisis' own article). You can check that article to keep the copyediting effort there at leisure, as well as to keep yourself up to date with the most recent events within the crisis if you wish, as I'll be surely adding most of the new information there rather than in the government formation article. Cheers! Impru20 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, you only reverted a small edit (uncapitalization of Federal Committee/Federal Executive/CF/CEF and such. I've already reinstated the edit (without reverting your changes) + added a little more "interesting" info of today's events. Impru20 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom(talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that a month ago, you redirected Candy (Georgian band) to Georgia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2011. This appears to be in conflict with the interests of Objective 2 of WikiProject_Eurovision, stating that artists are entitled to have their own page as well as a page dedicated to their country's involvement in the contest for that year. Because Candy won the Junior Eurovision Song Contest, it seems that redirecting their page is unnecessary. I'd be keen to discuss the reasons for this redirect, and will gladly stand corrected if I have misunderstood your reasons for the removal of Candy's page. Nevertheless, thank you for your contributions.
Tuxipedia (Talk) 9:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Tuxipedia, I was simply clearing the merge backlog. The rationale for the merge was stated at Talk:Georgia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2011 by User:Wesley_Mouse, in reference to this AFD discussion. For what it's worth I completely agree with this consensus; if the artist in question has done nothing other than be their country's entry for Eurovision in a particular year, why not merge the articles to make it easier for the reader to find the information they want. For me it's not a question of a subject being "entitled" to an article - having a Wikipedia article is not a prize. The only thing we should focus on is the readers of the encyclopedia. Jdcooper (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Tuxipedia and Jdcooper: For what it is worth, Objective 2 of WikiProject_Eurovision predates the most recent changes to Wikipedia policies. Following this AFD discussion the criteria for stand-alone articles on Junior Eurovision participants changed, and now only the top 3 placed artists from any Junior Eurovision contest will qualify for an article in their own right, per criteria 9 of WP:MUSICBIO (which reads "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition."). If any junior participant fulfills other criterion of WP:MUSICBIO, then they may still qualify for an article. Objective 2 of Project Eurovision is so out-dated that a review of all the project's objectives is required. WesMouseTalk 13:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Wesley Mouse: For example, the following JESC participants in recent years still haven't had an article. These include Sergio (Spain 2003), Tom Morley (United Kingdom 2003), Cory Spedding (United Kingdom 2004), Antonio José (Spain 2005), Arevik (Armenia 2007), Sasha Lazin (Russia 2010), Liza Drozd (Russia 2010), Funkids (Georgia 2012), Compass Band (Armenia 2012), Michael Varosyan (Armenia 2015), Anahit Adamyan (Armenia 2016), Mary Vardanyan (Armenia 2016), and Fiamma Boccia (Italy 2016). 108.16.135.184 (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to create this - it's appreciated. It's now been reviewed and has had some improvement tags added. If you have the time, could you look it over and see if you can help address any of the issues raised in the tags? Thanks again for your hard work.
You put the template {{advert}}, but you haven't provided any reasons. If you feel there's an advertorial tone, please suggest improvements or be bold in editing, but as the main editor of this article I don't see any basis for that template. That's why I remove it and we can discuss it here.
—Guy PetersTalk • Contributions • Edit counter 10:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I will copyedit it later (I probably didn't have time when I added the tag) but in the meantime I suggest you read WP:PEACOCK - words like "legendary" "iconic" "famous" etc. are usually inappropriate tone for wikipedia articles and are more commonly found in adverts. That's why I added the tag. Jdcooper (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
San Sebastian Jazz Festival —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.200.118.218 (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Davey2010. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Dartford, 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. –Davey2010Talk 21:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Davey2010:, I didn't add any of the information you removed, I just put it in alphabetical order. Jdcooper (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, You reverted back to "the clean version" ie inserting all of the bus crap I removed, All non-ip edits were added back so you reverting back meant you just reinserted unsourced material, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I think the addition of the Bundsrat to the title is important for anyone looking for it. It's not easily evident where that information is. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The events are presented chronologically, the article is not particularly long, and the main information about the bill passing the Bundesrat is in the previous section. Jdcooper (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
There are 14 countries that neither have equal marriage nor do recognize foreign same-sex marriages. Of the 28 member states 1) B 2) DK 3) FIN 4) F 5) D (law passed and signed by president) 6) IRL 7) L 8) NL 9) P 10) ES 11) S 12) UK (borderline, because of NI) have equal marriage. Add to that 13) MT and 14) EST that do recognize ALL foreign marriages. 28-14=14. Not 18. --LiterallySimon (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Simon, yes, you are right, sorry, maths fail. However, there are eight further countries that recognise same-sex unions, but not marriage, would that ruling affect them? If yes, the number needs to be changed. If no, the text needs to reflect the fact that the ruling only covers the marriage. That aside, sorry again for the erroneous revert, I wasn't concentrating! Jdcooper (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Why did u revert my edit.. Manofsteel75 (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jdcooper! In the article Czech presidential election, 2018, you had replaced the sentence liberal internationalist running against authoritarianism and a national populist running against elitism by the sentence liberal internationalist running against a national populist, because of "less pov". What do you mean "less pov"?? The sentence was well sourced by web of BBC where it is exactly written: battle of ideas between populism and elitism, between authoritarianism and liberal democracy, between east and west. --Honzula (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Honzula. Basically I think the simpler sentence is clearer, but means the same thing. One is a liberal internationalist, one is a national populist, they are running against each other. I don't see what extra meaning is added by including the extra terms. And although the source is provided, our text basically stated that "Milos Zeman is authoritarian" on one hand, and "Jiri Drahos is elitist" on the other hand. I think we can avoid this uncertain and debateable area by leaving the simpler sentence. Jdcooper (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. The issue here I wanted to highlight is, that the source doesn't stress the contrast nationalism vs. internationalism and liberalism vs. populism, but the contrast populism vs. elitism and liberalism vs. authoritarianism. I just seems to me that the sentence liberal internationalist running against a national populist takes one "quality" here another "quality" there and puts them into contrast despite there was no contrast between them in the cited source.--Honzula (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I see what you mean re: the Rob Cameron article, but there are four sources cited for that sentence, and the first source describes exactly that contrast in the article title! Jdcooper (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I have always called it Danson Mansion, or just the mansion, but known its correct name was Danson House. The earlier editor probably calls it the mansion too, but just got a bit carried away with 'Danson Park Mansion'. That is the name on the image, so it may have been copied to the article. Yes, thanks for amending - I agree that Danson House should be the name on the article list. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Aye, fair enough Roger 8 Roger, I've nothing against the term! Just seems simpler to make everything align:) Jdcooper (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
hi - Claudia Webbe I notice you are edit warring to keep disputed data from a primary source in this blp, that is not really ok; please reconsider' the content value to readers and your insistant reasons for adding the data. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I note it has now been removed; which I support; please do not replace it without talkpage consensus; regards 12:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
There was no edit war. Sourced information was removed by an anonymous IP, which I restored. When Ms Webbe removed the information herself I suggested a compromise per WP:DOB, and asked for clarification from users more familiar with COI guidelines, which I received, and agree with. Please familiarise yourself with what an edit war actually is before you accuse me of this, and remember to assume good faith. Thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi JD,
I've scanned news reports (though not those in Romanian), and haven't found any evidence that Romania is implementing the EUCJ ruling. Slovakia, yes, or so they've said. Romania might try appealing, stonewalling, or only recognize that single couple -- AFAICT, we have no way of knowing. — kwami (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: Ok, fair enough. I changed the template to reflect the article about Romania and the celebratory tone of the coverage, but I agree with it not being included in the template for now. Some text to that effect should be added to Recognition of same-sex unions in Romania though, for consistency. Jdcooper (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The problem would be finding RSs for the added text. I'm only seeing an absence of evidence, not any evidence that the ruling isn't being followed.
If this were under US law, all those countries would be included and would be green on the map. But, I have no idea if EU countries automatically follow CJ orders, or if they fudge, delay or otherwise try to weasel out of them. Since Romania sent the case to the CJ, I would think they'd have to follow the order, but I'd feel more comfortable if the govt were to acknowledge as much. Maybe not -- maybe Romania should be included, or maybe all remaining EU countries, but I think some discussion is needed to establish that. — kwami (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jdcooper, How are you? I don't think we have spoken before. I saw your edits on the [Rudolf Formis]] article. Its is not finished, by a long way, but it is excellent work and has improved the current article the article tremendously. I have this other article on hand, Hans Globke, which is a partial translation from German, and created by several editors, but mostly myself. I wonder if you have any time to look at it. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Scope creep: Cool, I will take a look now. The Rudolf Formis article is excellent by the way, very interesting story! If I understood the history correctly it was basically entirely your work, no? In which congratulations! Jdcooper (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Coolio. I will get a much needed clean. Most of the Rudolf Formis article was mines, except a couple of bits. I never realised it was so rough, although its not finished, there was major whoppers that you fixed, including missing text. scope_creep (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Adam, I did some cleanup on the page in the link. Usually if you want to make a draft into a normal article it has to get accepted by an admin (I don't know exactly how this process works). In this case I think they will say that there aren't enough independent sources - all the sources are from the organisation's website. I'm not really sure what else you want help with, but the main wikiproject is here. Good luck! Jdcooper (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Thx a lot o this means that u cant link it to different lngs or make categories and portals for it:/
Can u ask for helo to see how bcis i have so many pages that are missing in eng tgat i already translate it them with better sources AdamPrideTN (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I have 2 questions please
First Sophus Thalbitzer is about a straight ally doctor who like Evelyn Hooker helped to decriminalise homosexuality in Denmark
His categories are only LGBT history in Denmark
But i added the categories of sexual orientation and psychology and the one of sexual orientatiin and science just like those of Evelyn Hooker ones.
So should Evelyn Hooker be added to LGBT history in the US category
Should Evelyn hooker and dophus trablitzer both be added to the category of LGBT activists in the us and in denmark resoectively
Since that category contains a lot of LGBT allies and friends and scientists or what?
Second the page Lesbian Movement (Denmark) is in the category of LGBt history in denmark
It is an lgbt assiciation that is defunct now
Should it be put in LGBt assiciatii's in denmark category or what
Or be created in a new categor of defunct lgbt association in the denmark as i qaw this category with many associatiins
Or what
what do u think
Sorry for the bother again
This may sound stupid and unnecessary for some
But it is so impriving and improving believe me AdamPrideTN (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
reports that two anti-#LGBT bills, including a marriage ban bill, which passed the Senate last year, have still not advanced in the lower house
I see you reverted the comments regarding Alans relationship with his son Daniel. He currently does guest appearances on Boogaloo Radio with Glass Onion. I know he and Dan are back enjoying their father son roles, as Dan is a presenter and DJ on Boogaloo Radio and got his father the chance to guest on the show. If you are on Instagram, you will see that their relationship is now fine. Tomo1965 (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
That's fine, I believe you, but please find a source if you re-add the information. Jdcooper (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I have an image from the Instagram post regarding Boogaloo Radio and their relationship, I just am not sure how to edit the page and upload the image dated 27th July 2018. Tomo1965 (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Look, you obviously are better at editing and adding information than I am. If you actually research Alans relationship with Dan, (As they are both my friends) you will see that Alan and Dan are perfectly happy again in their roles as father and son. Please don't allow the page to carry misinformation, when a few minutes of checking would verify my claims. Look on Instagram @alanmcgee or @blaspheminginthedms. Tomo1965 (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi
Concerning Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas i saw that you edit that page before
I'm sure there are important updates needeed in the section future legislatiin as the national bill in Mexico and the important updates in the constutuition and referendum in Cuba and that they are discussing it in the new draft constitution in Venezuela either by the end of 2018 or 2019 according to sources I would refer ylu to all respective recognition or lgbt rights pages of the countries
Here are sources for Venezuela important update maybe you can added into its pages
Plus cuba president backing same sex marriage
Im new here and still learning so its better that the edit comes from you
Hi Adam, I will take a look tomorrow, you are right that those things should be included. You should definitely feel free to add them yourself though! Any changes that need to be made can be made afterwards, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit:) Jdcooper (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello sorry to bother you
Concerning LGBT rights in Israel
But i see you maybe you are jew or israeli or both
Me and this user are very interested in LGBT pages that some times we dont see eye to eye
Panda2018 0 (talk)
In this case he or she (panda) reverted an edit from me on that page concerning in the summary table about surrogacy for gay male couples and she tweaked it and changed
I said according to all laws and sources especially after june protest that commercial surrogacy is banned in israel and make marker no
He or she went on to edit it and put a lng that is not standard in the table about altruistic one that a court ruled its ok and changed marker and put yes (commercial is banned) as you can see in the page history if you kindly check
I dont wa't to get into an edit war with him or her
So i need a third native neutral point of view
And he or she doesnt respond to talk pages as i tried before
So sir or madam pkease kindly help and see what is the appropriate zdit for the surrogacy laws and marker in israel maybe you know better than me
Sorry again to bother you
Hope you check this as soon as you can
Thx AdamPrideTN (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Adam, the most important thing is that you (and panda) provide sources for the text you want to include. That usually solves any argument, but it's difficult for anyone to help unless you do. Jdcooper (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
On 26 December 1996, in a report in the Bangkok Post, the Rajabat Institute Council, the collective governing body of all of Thailand's colleges, declared that it would bar homosexuals from enrolling in any of its teacher training schools, the idea of Newly Appointed Deputy Education Minister Suraporn Danaitangtrakul.[1] The announcement was strongly criticised by human rights groups and many others, who urged the repeal of the policy. On 25 January 1997, Danaitangtrakul proposed that the Institute set new criteria to bar people with "improper personalities", but not specific groups such as homosexuals.
On 16 September 1996, while in Jomtien Beach,His Excellency Mr.Sukavich Rangsitpol Education Minister spoke about Education for All ,therefore Suraporn Danaitangtrakul have never been approved.[2]
I strongly believe that, as a citizen of the world, any person has the right to learn and should be entitled to have access to education according to their competency and needs. It is essential that the government provide educational services that respond to the people's needs. Education, therefore, has to be organized in such a way that people from all walks of life can participate in educational activities at levels and times of their preference.
All sort of boundaries, be their gender, age, socio-economic status, physical or mental disabilities have to be eliminated. To achieve this, we have to distinctively promote continuing and lifelong education, the form of education which is responsive to individual needs and preferences. With educational facilities and a variety of educational programs available, people can make use of the learning centre as a place to acquire technical skills or knowledge adaptive to their work and daily life activities.
His Excellency Mr.Sukavich Rangsitpol Minister of Education Thailand (Jomtien 1990s)
[3]
I concerned that if you only put the deputy minister ‘s idea. It may seem to foreigners that Education in Thailand has discrimination.But Truth is I have never heard about it before.58.11.162.212 (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but the quote above doesn't seem to be directly relevant to Danaitangtrakul's proposal. For one thing, the speech by Rangsitpol was made before the proposal was announced. And secondly, although it certainly supports equality, it doesn't really mention LGBT rights specifically. I agree that it would be good to get some balance, but I don't think that's the right quote. Could you help find a source that describes a response to Danaitangtrakul's proposal specifically? Did Rangsitpol respond after he announced it? Jdcooper (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete Many Military History fact and of course include Lieutenant Colonel Thitiya Rangsitpol Thita Manitkulin Ministry of Defense #using reason faulty refs, etc?
The other 3 only concern the person in the future someone may come along and fix it.But
LGBT Rights in Thailand Education case is different.
Because if we have only Deputy Minister Idea without UNESCO RECORD of Minister of Education 3 Months Earlier ,it might misleading foreigner .
Moreover his speech was given to large group of international people ,l do not think he can change anything.He just said he strongly believe everyone has a right to learn and all sources of boundaries have to be eliminated be their gender ....
How can any politician turn around and approve an oppersite policy within 3 months?
In this time of military junta ,there are less tourists in Thailand already.As a Thai citizen, I think l should do something when I saw this.
And I think this person Seligne might get paid from Bad Thai Politician to do this .
I looking forward to your understanding58.11.162.212 (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I am sure Seligne is not getting paid, those edits are mainly following Wikipedia policies about style and formatting. As I suggested before, the best thing would be to find a source with more details about the response to the Deputy Minister's idea. It's good that you are interested in how Wikipedia covers your country, but the goal of Wikipedia is not to attract tourists to Thailand, the goal is to inform our readers as much as possible with high-quality information. Jdcooper (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that accurate and astute vote of confidence. If I had to make a judgement, I would say that this editor's contributions to WP-English are sub-standard in terms of relevance, grammar, formatting, cite style, etc. (Just as my edits would be in WP-Thai no doubt). In short, he is making the article worse and cannot see that as his ego is in the way. I will continue editing/reverting sub-standard edits regardless of who the editor is or his sensitivities. Keep up the good work! Best, Seligne (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
That proposal was against The Minister of Education Education at that time policy and is in English that is probably we had never heard about the incident.
Am l Thinking about using this information to confirm,how do you feel?58.11.162.212 (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
"Per WP:TPOC. Please maintain the record of discussion about the page."
Well, I said that would be the last time I would delete that comment of Roger 8 Roger's - and I am going to keep my word.
I still feel, however, that Roger 8 Roger contravened WP:TPG when he left that comment. "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." He was absolutely entitled to disagree with my edit to the article in question - but using the *very* negative word "distressing" to describe said edit, does that not make it a personal view and thus in contravention of WP:TPG when left on the article's talk page?
If he was *that* annoyed by my edit - which was made with the very best of intentions - then, IMHO, he should have expressed his annoyance on *my* talk page, *not* on the article's talk page. (He was addressing me directly, too, which would also have made more sense on my talk page than on the article's talk page.) AFAIK, the rules regarding personal views on article talk pages do not apply in their entirety on users' talk pages - and nor do the rules regarding when deletions can be made, and who can make them. I'd have still been pissed off at him describing my edit as "distressing", and I'd have still deleted it immediately - but no rules would have been broken, and hence this whole sorry mess would never have happened.
It *is* sad that this mess has come about simply because of the use of *one* word - which, though very negative, is not actually hateful or politically incorrect, like "n****r" and "c**t". And I regret that it has come about at all, let alone in this way. But I believe that it demonstrates the drawbacks of the written word - it *can* be very one-dimensional and, if used the wrong way, can be upsetting for others.
To me, the oddest thing about this dispute is that you appear to agree with each other on the actual edits made to the article. The second oddest thing is that "distressing" is not a particularly extreme term in any way, and not even really that negative. People have said a lot worse to me on Wikipedia. Frankly, I'm not sure why you are so upset. The conversation you were having seemed to be a substantive and ultimately productive one about the content/wording of the article, and that's why I believe it should be and stay on the talk page. Try to move on, is my recommendation. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! Jdcooper (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, I agreed with Roger 8 Roger on *one* thing - that, technically, Erith wasn't "absorbed" into Greater London in 1965, as that word implied that Greater London already existed.
As regards the word "distressing", however, I'm sorry to say that we're going to have to agree to disagree. To me, "distressing" has *always* come across as being a very negative word, and any actions and experiences that could justifiably be described as distressing are also very negative.
That is why I was so pissed off when Roger 8 Roger used this word to describe my edit - it implied that my edit was very negative and upsetting, when it was intended to be neither. And it wasn't a gung-ho edit, either - I pored over each word, made use of the "Show Preview" button and gave what I thought was an adequate description, as I do with almost all of my edits.
I myself have disagreed with many edits over the years, and I have expressed my disagreement on the corresponding talk pages whenever I have felt the need to (either the talk pages of the articles in question, or the talk pages of the users responsible for these edits). But I have seldom, if ever, made explicit use of adjectives of any kind to describe these edits. Usually when I express my disagreement, I concentrate on trying to get my points across as clearly and politely as possible, without saying things that might (unintentionally) confuse or upset others. (I *have* let my guard down on several occasions, however.) If I *do* have adjectives to describe an edit I'm disagreeing with, I usually keep them to myself.
As I said, the written word *can* be very one-dimensional, and trouble may arise if it's not used carefully when the situation calls for it. And with the very, *very* greatest of respect, I don't think Roger 8 Roger understood that when he expressed his disagreement with my edit to the Erith article.
But I guess I *should* move on now, as you recommend.
Hi
Sorry to bother you
But can you please fix some sources in the pages of Nichi Vendola and Rosario Crocetta based on their italian wiki versions
And Jerónimo Saavedra based on its spanish wiki version
please
Sorry for the bother again
Thank you AdamPrideTN (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Stevenson (3rd nomination) 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. — JFGtalk 18:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey, i saw that you corrected my edit, so thank you for help on Recognition of same-sex unions in Romania. Even though I admit I have committed some grammar errors, your correction has change the sense of my editing and what the Constitutional Court decision was about. So I am about to mark some things about it as I am also a law student: (1) in Romanian law system, the law isn't applied only textual, but the judge has to find what the legislator wanted to say with that law, what was his true will. (2)The decisions of the Constitutional Court are general and biding for all inferior courts. (3) The article 48, which I cited, was titled "Familia" and was about family, marriage isn't defined in Romanian Constitution directly. (4) Same-sex unions are currently limited by Constitution in the way that there won't be any recognition of same-sex marriage in Romania until they change the Constitutional, which is a very complicated process. I hape you reedit the segment taking in consideration all these things. Thanks!
Regards!
Hello, you are an anon so it's difficult to discuss. If you see this message I recommend registering for a user account because it's then easier to discuss with you. So most of the edits I make are related to grammar and readability. Articles like the one we are discussing are mostly edited by (in this case) Romanians and I just want to help the article read like English. If any of my edits have changed the sense of what you meant, I'm sorry. The best way to address it is either a) try and change my errors back, then we can somehow arrive at a good compromise.. or b) the better option, open a discussion at Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Romania, because that way any other interested editors can also follow the conversation. Happy editing! Jdcooper (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi the latest 2019 ilga report is very important and highly big and informative Many lgbt country pages in africa asia and (even americas) need to be updated urhently Take ur time and check and hope u can update the countries Some unapdated even from 2011
There is also the blog erasing 76 Like this just write the name of country and erasing 76 in google like that
Also there is The U.S. Department of State's 2019 Human Rights Report
I would do it happily but i'm focusing much on the translating English LGBT content pages into Arabic all the time and can't much
Thx good luck (no pressure of course, just a suggestion) AdamPrideTN (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Are one of the best sites woth sources that provides daily updates about lgbt rights (some that go unedited for weeks)
I would advice you to check them from time to time for updates
I would do what i can happily but i'm focusing much on the translating English LGBT content pages into Arabic all the time and can't much
Thx good luck (no pressure of course, just a suggestion) AdamPrideTN (talk) 08:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for merging Theory Eatery per the AfD consensus. I had intended to do this but it slipped my mind. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
No problem, I find merges calming! Jdcooper (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I saw your comment in the edit summary that you are unfamiliar with rules about reliable and unreliable sources. For a quick list of unreliable sources, you can click on my username. For the rules, you can start at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Vmavanti (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for being unclear, I meant I was unfamiliar with the supposed rule you were citing. Many, many websites can be said to "promote" the subject they are describing, yet they are sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Jdcooper (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
That's not really how things work here. Stick to reliable sources. It's fairly obvious when a site is promoting. The term is clear, not ambiguous, according to the rules of Wikipedia. About Reverbnation I will have to ask someone, but I'm fairly sure you should avoid it. Vmavanti (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, what exactly is "not how things work here"? Innumerable pages about all kinds of artists use their bios on music websites as sources. You recently brought that article to AfD so it is clear you don't think the subject is notable, but I don't see how this situation is any different to any of the other articles about music artists. Jdcooper (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
When I said "not how things work here", I was responding to your comment that seems to say an unreliable source is okay to use as long as one is borrowing only the facts. That's not my understanding. It's important to keep in mind where music bios come from and who writes them with what intent. Regarding the AfD, I have no feelings about the subject. "Not notable" doesn't mean necessarily mean "unimportant". "Not notable" means, among other things, there aren't enough sources to write an article of substance. One reason I proposed the Afd was I had difficulty finding English sources for this article. Maybe you had the same problem. About Reverbnation one might ask, Is this an impartial, third party source which can reliably impart the facts? Or is it a web site to promote? One might click on the "About" section as a first step in investigation. "Since 2006, ReverbNation has helped millions of emerging artists build their careers." Good for them. I'm not here to build careers. I'm here to collect facts. "ReverbNation's mission puts Artists First." Good for them. My goal is to collect facts. That's a first step. Other steps in investigation involving asking other people, looking at what sort of material you have used for the article, and checking the list of sources at Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Vmavanti (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
"...that seems to say an unreliable source is okay to use as long as one is borrowing only the facts." That's not what I said. You said it was an unreliable source. I don't see why it should be considered an unreliable source. Though they don't establish notability, there are many cases where self-published sources are used to corroborate information (university websites, school websites, artist websites etc.) But remove it if it makes you happy. Jdcooper (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't remove it. My happiness doesn't depend on Wikipedia. I agree that factual material from self-published sources can be used sometimes. Vmavanti (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
On Nikolay Krasnov - From 1922 he lived and worked in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and was a key figure in the architectural development of Belgrade. Sadkσ(talk is cheap) 10:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Sadko, yup I'm aware of that. I still don't see how that makes him Yugoslav though.. It doesn't mention anywhere that he received citizenship. Jdcooper (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
All of the white Russians were granted a citizenship. Aksing for a sources for such a thing (no man can live for 15 or more years in a country without one) seems funny to me. Any other reason to not call Krasnov Yugoslav>? Sadkσ(talk is cheap) 17:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
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/dated}} 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. Otr500 (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I’m David.
After taking your comments into account, I removed any words/expression that might be considered biased towards making Samsung SDS look better and reverted to language that is as neutral as possible. I am having trouble understanding your recent remark regarding the tone of the services section. I focused on giving as bare bones of a description of the company’s major services as possible so it doesn’t feel like ad. Could you please let me know you rationale/standard for grading what is considered an advert? I noticed other IT companies list their products and services without being considered an advert so I am curious as to why that is.
Also, I would greatly appreciate it if you can edit what you see as an advert rather than simply revert to the previous version of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David, KHJ (talk • contribs) 09:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello David, thanks for your message. What makes it an advert is the tone. Phrases like "Samsung SDS offers solutions..." are advertising language, and we are trying to use encyclopaedia language. "Samsung SDS provides services..." is a bit more neutral. Check WP:PUFFERY and WP:EPSTYLE for more information. Jdcooper (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Paddy Kirk. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.WikiFlame50 (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll try to be subtle here JD. An editor you may have encountered at Chatham and Amersham is one I have encountered recently and I do wonder if they have the enthusiasm but not the skillset, if I could put it like that. One to watch. doktorbwordsdeeds 23:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Jdcooper: I wonder if your up for doing a full end to end copyedit on the Hans Globke. I don't anybody has ran through from end to end. Not that I remember anyway;if you could? It hasn't had one. It always had work done to it, all the time since it started, but no real copyedit as such. scope_creepTalk
Hi @Scope creep:, I seem to remember doing one before, and it has been on my watchlist since then, but sure, I would be happy to have another go. I will take a look tomorrow. Jdcooper (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I had a look last night on the version history but couldn't see much. That is ideal. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 10:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gehan Rateb until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering why that sounded so familiar--this is why. I don't know if you have that, but if you have to cull so much cruft, you get worn out a bit, which is probably I left it in such a pitiable state. Thanks for working on it. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Drmies: - These kinds of articles are my speciality, of sorts, I find them quite satisfying to take a chainsaw to. But occasionally they are indeed too much and I lose the will to live! Jdcooper (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hang in there, my friend; you're doing the lord's work. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, quick note, pretty sure the "plot summary" tag for the article on John Gall's book "Systemantics" is not appropriate for a non-fiction book. 0x69494411 16:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Jdcooper,
In the future, should you PROD any articles, I'd appreciate it if you could do two things. First, leave a descriptive edit summary, like "Proposing article for deletion" or even just "PROD". This is because if the PROD tag is removed and the page gets tagged again in the future, admins have to be able to see that it has already been tagged before. The way this is seen is by scanning the edit summaries in the page history. So, while leaving an informative edit summary is always a good idea, it's especially important when proposing an article for deletion through PRODs.
Second, please leave a notification on the talk page for the page creator any time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/CFD/MFD/TFD/etc.). You can write out the notice yourself or this is done most easily by making use of the Twinkle editing tool. Just set up your Twinkle Preferences so the "Notify page creator" box is checked and then Twinkle will post these notices for you (and also leave a useful edit summary, too!). It's a very handy tool if you tag a lot of pages for deletion or tag an article for other reasons. It does the work so you don't have to track down a lot of templates yourself.
Thank you for all of your contributions! LizRead!Talk! 20:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I do see you left a "Propose deletion" edit summary for David Brazier so thank you for that! LizRead!Talk! 20:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Liz, thanks for the message. Apologies for missing out the edit summary, I usually do this, my bad for the oversight. And thanks for the explanation of Twinkle, I have often seen it being used but couldn't work out what it was, I shall investigate. Re: the notification, does this apply even if the article creator is obviously the subject of the article? As this often appears to be the case.. Jdcooper (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
Great work. Hugomanki (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Jdcooper: I was wondering if your up to doing a copyedit on the several sections that have been updated. Any help is appreciated. scope_creepTalk 13:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Why is information about research at the university considered promotional information? For example, they are normally listed here: https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vysok%C3%A1_%C5%A1kola_NEWTON. Thanks for the reply Shazam45 (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Shazam45 Mainly because of the tone it was written in ("prestigious", "wide range" etc) and because it was primary sourced (eg. to the university website, or links to the articles themselves from academic journal websites, rather than independent secondary sources about the university). The combined effect was that the section sounded like a series of boasts about the university and how amazing it is (ie. a prospectus) rather than an encyclopedia article. There is some useful information about writing about universities here, but in the case of your edits, the sourcing and high-level of detail was as much the problem as the tone.
also, regarding the "notable" alumni, in general the threshold for inclusion on such lists is that a subject has their own wikipedia article. ambassadors, for example, are not inherently notable, and being the grandchild of a notable person does not make them notable. Hope this helps! Jdcooper (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of regular mini-sections in Private Eye 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.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people and organisations frequently parodied by Private Eye is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes in Private Eye 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye) 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.
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Syspro, which you proposed for deletion. As it was previously deprodded, it is technically not eligible.. Instead, I have started a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syspro, which you may comment on. I have explained my reasons for doing so there. Thanks! Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David G Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elmore.
Thanks for your messages. I have now merged Operational BIM into the main Building information modeling article and applied a redirect. Paul W (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Nice one @Paul W: and great work on the parent article too! Happy editing! Jdcooper (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Jdcooper, thank you for your recent edits to the George Bain (academic) page. I have inserted some additional references and removed the tag relating to disclosure of payment as I have now added the paid disclosure to my user page and flagged it up in a recent edit summary,
I’m a newbie to Wikipedia, although I have been a professional copy editor for many years. George Bain engaged me to edit his autobiography last summer. While doing this I realised ‘his’ previous Wikipedia page contained several factual errors and that there were also significant omissions in relation to his career. In the interests of accuracy, I made several substantial corrections to this page some months ago. Since then, the page had remained relatively untouched until I posted a help query, after which the tags appeared. My help query related to the side bar. I’ve been unable to insert a reference to Bain’s role as Director of the Industrial Relations Research Unit at the University of Warwick, which is a major omission. Is this something you can help with?
As several references have now been added, can the tags referring to citations now be removed? Also, I’m not sure how to address the tag stating that the page reads like a résumé. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks and best wishes. Ashanza5 (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Ashanza5: thanks for adding the references! The more we have, the better. Unfortunately I don't think any of the issues indicated by the tags have been fully addressed.. there is still a lot of unsourced information in the article, and several of the sources listed are primary sources. The article also still needs work on the tone (that's where the resume issue comes in.. it reads like a promotional summary of his achievements and positions, rather than an encyclopedia article). Jdcooper (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Jdcooper and thanks for your reply. I'd be grateful if you could advise on how the tone can be changed, or maybe give me an example, as I'm a novice when it comes to Wikipedia. I'll see if I can find more sources. Thanks again. Ashanza5 (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Jdcooper, thanks for removing the tag relating to Wikipedia’s quality standards. I’m still trying to find additional references for this page. I was wondering, however, about the tag referring to paid contributions and stating that the article may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia’s content policies, particularly neutral point of view. In line with Wikipedia’s policies, I have disclosed that I was paid for my edits, which were made to correct significant factual errors and substantial omissions on the previous page, and to remove a derogatory comment about George Bain's predecessor at Queen’s University. The tag says that it may require a cleanup and no-one has yet demonstrated that it does. If, however, you could give me examples of where the content on the page may be perceived as not neutral, I’d be grateful, and I will address these. Many thanks and best wishes Ashanza5 (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Ashanza5: as I understand it, the paid contributions tag is there for the information of the reader, so they can bear this in mind while reading the article. It's not necessarily there in response to any specific non-neutral content, but the fact itself that the contributions were paid. Jdcooper (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I left a note in the talk page of Recognition of same sex unions in Europe about the current duplication of the Czech same sex marriage law. What is your opinion on the matter? Touyats (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harlette until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom(talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
What I meant was even after my edits, there still seems to be a lot of reference mistakes, especially unnecessary capitalization per MOS:ALLCAPS and missing language parameters in non-English sources (e.g. "cs" in Czech ones). ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
@Clariniie:, yup, I understand, I've seen you've been doing a good job fixing that on a lot of Czech politics articles. Just that I would use the [citation style] template for articles where the citations are a complete mess, eg when you can't tell what reference supports what text. I think just some missing language parameters is a small problem and doesn't need a template like this. Keep up the good work!:) Jdcooper (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
My completion depends on page length of the corresponding CZ Wikipedia article. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks... You might not know this, but my life has been hectic with family issues and trips recently... In that case, my completion depends on page length of the corresponding CZ Wikipedia article. I usually do it within less than one hour, but it may take longer as long as I'm active. Honestly, I think I've done a lot so much that I kinda lost motivation on what to expand next! But hey... I'll take a look of other articles with identical content (e.g. those that require expansion or improvement) or may add them to my watchlist instead. I'm also planning to create new pages as soon as I found enough things that meet GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I added some content and citations to this article and removed the proposed deletion tag that you had placed on it. I was very bold, very intentional. If you still feel she fails notability, please go to WP:AfD. Thank you for your understanding. Bearian (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
@Bearian:, looks a lot better now with some sources at least. Thanks for the attention to the article! Jdcooper (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! I am aware that a couple of the sources are blogs, and one is an interview, but there are at least three good sources. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello, sir @Jdcooper, sir @JRGuevarra, sir @Myrealnamm and sir @AstrooKai.... Do you know that several programs from ABS-CBN such as Magandang Buhay and It's Showtime are finally and officially comeback to the original frequencies because it also air on ALLTV...??? And there is the reliable sources for this:
Thanks..... 36.69.22.86 (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please let me know how this concerns us? This news has been around for months now. Do you need help on something? AstrooKai (Talk) 08:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
User:36.69.22.86, I have no idea what you are asking for, but can you please stop adding multiple irrelevant maintenance tags to every article you read? You have been asked many, many times to stop, and it is incredibly annoying. Jdcooper (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
Hello, I'm Davey2010. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Dartford, 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. –Davey2010Talk 21:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
