User talk:Jdcooper

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)

1) No one heard about Suraporn Danaitangtrakul's Idea in Thailand. https://www.google.com/search?q=lgbt%20rights%20in%20thailand%20heaven

2)This is what I found about

• Delete LGBT Rights page = Sukavich Rangsitpol quote on Education for All and Education Right in Thailand

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/860532010

This one I am concerned because my country is now promoting the LGBT Tourism.If you put the quotes back I would be appreciated.

• Delete Education in Thailand about Sukavich Rangsitpol #using the reason clean up ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/860126318

• Delete Political History about Lieutenant Colonel Thitiya Rangsitpol Thita Manitkul in Thai Rak Thai Party #using reason fix cite ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/859453292

• Delete Many Military History fact and of course include Lieutenant Colonel Thitiya Rangsitpol Thita Manitkulin Ministry of Defense #using reason faulty refs, etc?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/860678788

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)

• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-lgbt-idUSKBN15204Z?il=0

"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.

Bluebird207 (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

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.

Bluebird207 (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sorry to bother you But can you please fix some sources in the pages of Tommy Ahlers in the last paragraph concerning his personal life LGBT in Singapore in the section of devriminalsation effort part of legality of samesex activity Dealing with the court dates of the latest pending lawsuit Also can you please fix reference number 7 concerning pew research center in Template:Same-sex marriage opinion polls worldwide same one but number 4 in Template:Same-sex marriage opinion polls worldwide and errors in number 17 and 15 in Template:Same-sex adoption opinion polls Europe Sorry for the bother again Thank you AdamPrideTN (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alice Stevenson 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/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. — JFG ^talk 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)

https://ilga.org/state-sponsored-homophobia-report

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)

http://www.equalityontrial.com/2019/06/25/625-open-thread/#idc-container

https://mobile.twitter.com/lgbtmarriage

https://m.facebook.com/nelfa.aisbl/

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)

The article Marcel Chládek has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/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. doktorb _words^deeds 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_creep^Talk

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_creep^Talk 10:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gehan Rateb, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

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! Liz ^{Read! 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! Liz ^{Read! 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)

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_creep^Talk 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)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of regular mini-sections in Private Eye 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/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.

Dronebogus (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people and organisations frequently parodied by Private Eye (2nd 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 until the discussion has finished.

Dronebogus (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Recurring jokes in Private Eye 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/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.

Dronebogus (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye) 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/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.

Dronebogus (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harlette, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

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!

More information Views/Day, Quality ...

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
5		Green European Foundation (talk)	Add sources
128		Diamond-like carbon (talk)	Add sources
8		Nanoindenter (talk)	Add sources
8		Indentation plastometry (talk)	Add sources
20		Italian Socialist Party of Proletarian Unity (talk)	Add sources
290		OpenHarmony (talk)	Add sources
88		Social Democracy (Czech Republic) (talk)	Cleanup
499		Ball bearing (talk)	Cleanup
459		Community service (talk)	Cleanup
497		Civic Democratic Party (Czech Republic) (talk)	Expand
1,571		2024 European Parliament election (talk)	Expand
135		Salzgitter (talk)	Expand
16		Fox Point, Nova Scotia (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,553		Republika Srpska (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,147		Unitary parliamentary republic (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
658		Vocational education (talk)	Merge
209		Drinking straw (talk)	Merge
134		David Kozák (talk)	Merge
100		LGBT rights in Hong Kong (talk)	Wikify
128		European Green Party (talk)	Wikify
23		Laos and the World Bank (talk)	Wikify
3		Fiber pushout test (talk)	Orphan
26		India and The IMF (talk)	Orphan
3		Horacio LeDon (talk)	Orphan
7		Indentation size effect (talk)	Stub
8		Pornóapáti (talk)	Stub
9		2022 Czech Presidency of the Council of the European Union (talk)	Stub
23		Principles and Values (talk)	Stub
10		Meyer hardness test (talk)	Stub
7		Palacio de Deportes de Gijón (talk)	Stub

Close

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). ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 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. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 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. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. @Jdcooper... Can you rewriting and copy editing article pages RCTI, NTV7, Channel 8 (Singaporean TV channel), GMA Network, Radio Philippines Network and Aliw Channel 23, please....??? Because these articles may be need to fixing grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. Thanks and maraming salamat, po..... 2001:448A:1021:3855:112C:511D:68E2:1BFA (talk) 18:16, 5 September 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)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:ANI § Anon. IPs continuously adds maintenance tags without explaination. I think/hope that I pinged you already. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 17:09, 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:

https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/its-showtime-alltv/

https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/05/magandang-buhay-jeepney-tv-alltv/

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)

Hi @Jdcooper, just a quick message to discuss your edit of the description of Volt Europa. Of course, I understand your point about Volt Europa being "European federalist". However, this breaks the consistency of all similar organisations that are described as "European political party" or "European political alliance" (as relevant). We could write "European federalist European political alliance" but I really think this is redundant and, at any rate, there is no other real type of federalism that is pushed by European entities than European federalism. Finally, Volt's position (European federalism) is made clear in the lede. I therefore propose to revert your edit based on these reasons. Julius Schwarz (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Julius Schwarz:, thanks for the message. I understand the point, but is the fixed word order of "European political alliance" so key here? By describing them as a "European federalist political alliance", to me that contains the connotation of both "European political alliance" and "European federalist". Whereas simply "Federalist" misses their central purpose: not pro-Federalism in general, but European federalist specifically. Jdcooper (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I would indeed make the opposite case. I think it is more relevant to specify here that they are a "European political alliance" as this is a thing unto itself and is consistent with many other descriptions. I personally think that the "European federalist" is clear in "federalist" when mentioning European entities (such as European political alliances). Like I said, we could have "European federalist European political alliance" but that feels clunky and needlessly cumbersome. Julius Schwarz (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough! Ultimately it's a minor semantic issue, not even visible in the article text, so I'm happy to cede to your arguments! Cheers, and thanks for the constructive engagement! Jdcooper (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

My pleasure. And my apologies if it feels like I am nitpicking :) Have a good week-end! Julius Schwarz (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your recent addition at Oshwah's talk page (section Disruptive overtagging). As you can see from his contributions log Oshwah has been inactive for past two weeks, so if the problem is urgent you may want to seek help from other admins. --CiaPan (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC) (Fixed a typo. --CiaPan (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC))

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025
	Hello Jdcooper , warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!. scope_creepTalk 12:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Scope creep:, and same to you! Jdcooper (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! I saw your contributions that you left a comment on my archived user talk page (User talk:Clariniie/2024). You should remove the redirect on the new one (User talk:Clariniie) and start a comment there instead. By the way, thanks for your help on cleaning up such articles too!

Unfortunately, as you may know, a lot of articles related to subjects outside English-speaking world are poorly-written. I'm not actually an expert translator. I use Google Translate to copy-paste the translated text to, of course, rewrite in my words. When it comes to countries that don't use Latin alphabet, I usually make sure to remove or Romanize non-Latin scripts except in Titles for the sake of comprehension. This is why I've been cleaning not only politician articles, but other industries like sports. I feel like this work is endless! Most important, we have to see if the person receives significant coverage in near future. It's definitely okay to have an opinion but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for being bold as punk. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Bearian:, if anyone wants to try to justify keeping a whole bunch of random unsourced data, I'm all ears! Jdcooper (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thania Paffenholz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Pioneer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Malek Shafi'i, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pamir.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Jdcooper! I accidentally broke the template on Přísaha and don't know how to fix it. Can you please help me? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Clariniie:, I couldn't work out exactly what you did either, so I just restored the previous infobox. You'll just have to do that bit again :) Jdcooper (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Patryk Jaki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European Conservatives and Reformists.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter Heywood (artist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Fe.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Fleisher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High School of Music and Art.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Showmax, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rage (film) and Red Ink.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cassidy (musician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rob Thomas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Hunt (editor) 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/Richard Hunt (editor) 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.

Grnrchst (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

If unsourced contents are discouraged on Wikipedia, why do some articles still have those? Back then, I removed them on Hana Zagorová article, but someone reverted it. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Clariniie: I think sometimes it's a balancing act. That article you mentioned is indeed very poorly sourced, but Zagorova is a major cultural figure in the Czech Republic, so probably improving the sources is a better way forward than just removing it all. The user who reverted your edits seemed to disagree with the lack of discussion beforehand. But you haven't done anything wrong. Per WP:BRD, the best thing to do now would be to open a talk page discussion about why the article is so poorly sourced, and what should be done about it. Jdcooper (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for making this less crappy. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, who approved and why did you marged page Young Populars to KDU-ČSL party? What is the reason for this? Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@ThecentreCZ: there was no reason for it to be a separate article. The parent article is not very long, and the spin-off was very short and very poorly sourced, and fits in the parent article as a three-sentence section, as you can see from the current KDU-ČSL article. If you can find significant coverage of the youth wing that justifies a separate article, please go ahead. Jdcooper (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Article contained 5 references, and was of 3,899 bytes of size.

Here you have other examples of articles of youth organizations of which majority of mother parties articles are even shorter than this party and are fine:

• Law and Justice Youth Forum 2 references and 2,126 bytes of size
• BPF Youth 2 references and 1,139 bytes of size
• ADRenalin (Luxembourg) 3 references and 3,666 bytes of size
• Conservative Future Scotland 3 references and 2,497 bytes of size
• Young SVP 1 reference 1,489 bytes of size
• Young Christian Democrats (Lithuania) 1 reference and 1,856 bytes of size
• Youth Organisation of New Democracy 2 references and 2,886 bytes of size
• Movement of Young Socialists 3 references and 1,637 bytes of size
• Estonian Reform Party Youth 3 references and 2,523 bytes of size
• Mladi liberali Crne Gore 3 references and 3,693 bytes of size
• Radikal Ungdom 2 references and 3,640 bytes of size
• Youth Organisation Freedom and Democracy 2 references and 2,243 bytes of size
• Federation of Green Youth and Students 3 references and 2,052 bytes of size
• Polish Young Greens 3 references and 2,972 bytes of size

Why there was no discussion before merging of the article and why these articles and many others are fine? I ask to restore, thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I would merge all of those into their respective parent articles. Jdcooper (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, the five "references" on the Young Populars article were all links to their website. That is not independent, reliable, significant coverage in secondary sources. Jdcooper (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

You definitely shoudn't marge any of these respective articles. These other pages are mostly also linking only to the website. I don't think its for you to do merging the pages, none of these pages are for merge. You should now start to improving the pages by other sources, not ravage them. Thank you ThecentreCZ (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not "ravaging" them to make them easier for readers to find and use. If they are only sourced by links to their own websites, maybe they are not notable enough for standalone articles? You can read WP:GNG if you need to understand Wikipedia policies more clearly. Jdcooper (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I know WP:GNG, whats why I am initiating you to go to enlarge the articles and find more independent references for them when you have enough time for merging them. I disagree that such organizations are more comfortable to distinguish for readers merged in the articles. If you have doubts of any article for merging, which is sometimes suitable, proper way to go it to incorporate merging discussion template, not to merge articles without discussion. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I've added all of those ranges to an edit filter. Let me know if anything slips through. Thanks for your help! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: They're at it again with a new IP address: User:180.252.61.205 (Artificial hair integrations, Strip programming, Blooper et al.) Jdcooper (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, do you use copy-edit tools to improve Wikipedia articles? If you do, I need it to summarize episodes myself on another wiki, because I don't want my articles to contain AI-generated sentences. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Clariniie: nope, I don't use any tools, just manually. Jdcooper (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Hobbs Ltd, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Jdcooper, I want to clarify you about this topic. Yes, Romani are not descendants of modern Indian but both of them came from Indian continent and share common ancestry. I am not here to do edit war or something else. But I am just editing the "See also" for navigation reason and for broader research on both Indian, Doma and Romani and also in context of Non-Resident Indian. I have not malicious reason to do this edit. I did this edit in the context of Contributions of Indians to the Achaemenid Empire Please forgive me, if you thought I did it for malicious reason. Primohare (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Regarding , User:Deansmith750 definitely did not do it right. But your attempt does not look correct either. The banner-shell is inside the archiver config block. DMacks (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

• Hi @DMacks:, thanks for bringing it to my attention! I tried again, is this better? Jdcooper (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nuclear Death discography 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/Nuclear Death discography 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.

Nighfidelity (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I tried, multiple times, to initiate a conversation with you about Brno. To no avail. It's obvious to me that you would rather engage in a back-and-forth edit warring. That's not very constructive. Please respond. Thanks.Surfingslovak (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

If it is a simple case of one word, or a principle that can easily be demonstrated by linking to the appropriate wiki guideline, then an edit summary should suffice. If it's something that genuinely needs to be discussed, we can use the talk page, as I literally just did with Vasulka kitchen. Thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Jdcooper! Other editors may not watch your talk page, so it may be helpful for them to use the {{Reply to}} template—or some of its redirects, like {{Re}} or {{Ping}}—to send a notification when you respond. Please remember to sign your comment when pinging other users, otherwise the notification will not be sent. --CiaPan (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Deanna Summers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Domino Records.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Together Boston, a link pointing to the disambiguation page was Michael Walshadded.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iranian oil bourse, a link pointing to the disambiguation page IME was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Association for Children of Alcoholics (United Kingdom), a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Stafford was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Love All the People 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/Love All the People 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.

HalJor (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you please justify the 'tone' tag on the page, and include suggestions on how to improve the article. Fancruft and WP:NOT suggests notability, which I argue there is plenty of - article is well referenced. So I'm stumped as to where the issue lies. Soybean46 (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Tone article references a 'hook' but notability is a very complex field to navigate for some, like myself. I'm not suggesting here that I do not understand Wikipedia's notability, or tone, instead, I am looking for constructive justification for the tag, and suggestions on how to improve, in your opinion. Soybean46 (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Soybean46: the article seems to me to contain a lot of promotional language, eg received immediate attention in various dance clubs and quickly gained support, or After months of writing, refining, and perfecting, the hugely anticipated album Group Therapy was released to widespread critical acclaim on 6 June 2011.. It needs a thorough copyedit to read like a wikipedia article, not a history of the band you might read on their website. I've added it to my to-do list and I'll do a rewrite when I can! Jdcooper (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)