User talk:Pdcook/Archive 7

Disregard! I think there was just an error involving my old IP? Thanks!

Generally, there is no reason to report usernames with no edits whatsoever. Per WP:UAAI: "Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA, nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." The exceptions are obvious hate speech or names that attack a living person/Wikipedia editor, those are blockable even without any edits, but other run-of-the-mill violations need not be reported unless and until they at least attempt to edit, and you should be able to clearly explain what the problem is if it is not immediately evident.

For whatever reason, every day dozens, if not hundreds of accounts are created that never make one single edit. It is our responsibility as admins to conscientiously review every report a user makes at UAA, so we have to check for contribs, deleted contribs, and tripping of the edit filter for every one of these reports, only to find out there's nothing there and therefore no problem to be solved. So we add the {{wait}} tag to the report, it goes to WP:UAA/HP for a week or more, and must then be reviewed again to see if the account has since become active before removing it. That's time that could be spent doing more productive things, but you basically obligate admins to do it by making such reports. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, I see someone else blocked the user anyways, so there appear to be a diversity of opinion here. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

why u revert. me?? i do nothing wrong....

Read the message I left on your talk page. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

w at is talkpage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.185.2 (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Accidentally reporting ME to AIV (How'd you manage that, anyway?).

Yeah, it was a bit of a surprise when I went to AIV to see if an IP had been reported, and saw my own name at the bottom of the list... Thegreatluigi (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(P.S. It feels kinda wrong to be trouting someone with a decade more experience than myself... I hope you're actually open to trout slapping.)

No worries. My mistake that I quickly fixed... P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your change of 'instalments' to 'installments' at Skandar Keynes because it was a change of a British spelling to an American spelling in the article on a British subject. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked in what I thought was a British English dictionary, but apparently it was not. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 12:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That was just in time... But now the admin will have to revdelete another edit. 209.51.172.142 (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't catch your edit and rolled back the wrong one. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Shit happens. Take care--thanks for cleaning up. 209.51.172.142 (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The edits are sourced and supported by the entry itself. The financial situation is described lower in the article and the leadership change was announced bu Colonial Williamsburg itself. I presume that the Wikipedia entries are not supposed to be public relations puff pieces crafted by the institutions themselves, but to accurately reflect the subject and its circumstances. Please advise me if I am mistaken68.13.220.131 (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

If you're paraphrasing a quote/announcement from someone, you really should cite the source in that very sentence. Your edits really look like original research. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I honestly appreciate it. 90.232.32.184 (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep it up and you'll get the honor of being blocked. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The actual source says "mother*****r", not "motherfucker" or "mother******". Shouldn't we quote the source correctly? ubiquity (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

A fair point, but there are certainly sources that used the full word. This one uses a censored title, but the full word in the text. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!}

Please do not revert my edit, what I said was accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.91.200 (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You should review WP:BLP. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed the disclosure tag on the Piu Eatwell wikipedia page. I did pay an agent, Wikiprofessionals Inc, to submit material for this Wikipedia page. I assumed they, as professional editors, would make any necessary necessary disclosures when they made their submission to Wikipedia. I am currently taking a break from active writing by doing further research, so my first preference would be for the page to be deleted. However, if you feel the page may be useful for researchers, do feel free to keep it with the necessary disclosures21:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Corretions (talk). My apologies again, I did not realize the professional editor had not followed the requisite procedure. Best, Piu Eatwell

Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately, many folks offering to write Wikipedia articles for profit do so in non-compliance of policy. For now, please leave the disclaimer on the top of the article. If I get some time, I'll edit the article to remove any perceived bias. As for deletion, that is largely based on whether the article is notable per the WP:AUTHOR guidelines. If you do really want to delete it consider taking it to WP:AFD. Let me know if you have any other questions. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 21:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would suggest trying to get your money back. On their website, Wikiprofessionals Inc guarantees "compliance with Wikipedia standards", which they did not. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 21:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand that this makes sense. The point about disclosure is to declare a possible bias. The tag is simply wrong because it says the article 'may have been written for undisclosed payment', now that has been disclosed so it is no longer correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corretions (talk • contribs) 21:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I accept either the article be deleted or have disclosure, but it is simply wrong and defamatory of me to have a big heading implying there is an undisclosed paid source. You could put a tag saying the article needs correction or revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corretions (talk • contribs) 21:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I have added a conflict of interest tag instead. Until someone reads through the content and checks the references, please keep it in place. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 21:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I still object to this - the words a major contributor "APPEARS" to have a link implies I am concealing something, I have been totally upfront so it is defamatory. It implies I am trying to pass something off as neutral when it isnt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corretions (talk • contribs) 21:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing. Regardless of whether the declaration has been made or not, a conflict of interest still exists since the original author has a financial motive for creating the article (and therefore pleasing the article's subject). I'm sorry this is inconvenient for you, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for promotion. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, saw your suggestions to the Mergers & Acquistions section to avoid COI and maintain a NPOV. I've readjusted the messaging to just reflect the factual information. Don't want to cause any issues and just want to make sure that section looks okay. Let me know if you have any other issues. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.19.241 (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Your latest version has an appropriate, neutral tone. You still have a conflict of interest, but your edits seem to be factual and use secondary sources. Thanks, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I see you wonking around Wikignoming away on numerous articles and wanted to say thanks! I just undid an edit you made on (I think) Baldwin, Michigan. Removing the period was absolutely correct, but I re-added the "lived here". Speaking about US subjects only, there are different guidelines for what to give for a description of a notable. On settlement articles, WP:USCITIES says we should list the wikilinked name, primary notability and the individual's tie to the community. For schools, WP:ALUMNI says wikilinked name and primary notability only. Just an FYI. See ya around. John from Idegon (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 15:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

im am not the one editing kingsmeads wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Detectivegoober (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Fantastic. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The file File:Haworth Logo.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The local logo is incorrect. The commons logo is correct (and also the license on Commons is correct).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the file. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Regards --Serols (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

No worries! P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not experimenting or vandalising, I added a source, greekmythology.com so can you and Deisonarona stop bothering me. 82.17.221.173 (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I can see that perhaps it wasn't your intention to be disruptive on the Frankenstein's monster article. However, your edit added an indent which blockquoted the opening paragraph. I changed the warning on your talk page to assume you had good intentions. For what it's worth, the first bolded name in the opening line of a Wikipedia article generally should match the title of that article. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi PdCook! this bitch is back changing RCA → Records in infoboxes after being banned on 4/20. Could you make a case to permanently ban them? I would but idk how to. I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks :-) – zmbro _(talk) 22:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

What a waste of everyone's time! I started a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_mass_changes_against_consensus. Thanks, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

On 9 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Westbrook (American football), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1966, Baylor University student John Westbrook was the first African American athlete to play a game in the Southwest Conference of American football? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Westbrook (American football). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John Westbrook (American football)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

DYKUpdateBot (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

why doesn't Wikipedia don't look it up, I mean, Oceanus was originally stated as the son of Chaos and Gaia, so you should've put that on the article, Oceanus, good, I changed it, I provided a source specifically Greekmythology.com, but this whole citing sources thing is too complicated, do you really need to write down everything about this source, dummo, just, look let me edit, I am trying to improve this website's reputation, by putting more stuff on it and no, they're not lies, it's not vandalization, it's just I'm trying to teach Wikipedians information, Pdcook, just make a more simple citing template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.221.173 (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Greetings. The message I sent you was in regard to edits that disrupted the Frankenstein's Monster article. You seem to have more of an issues with the comments made by User:Denisarona or User:El C. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The article Interactive collateral management has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced and tagged for almost 11 years.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pdcook! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)