User talk:Pol098

I'll respond here to any comments, as is usual, to keep the entire dialogue in the same place. If I take a long time to respond, which I regrettably sometimes do, I'll say that I've responded on the Talk page of the author of comments signed by a named user (I have nothing against users with only IP addresses, but the address may no longer apply to the same person). I unfortunately responded to some of the earlier comments on this page on the author's Talk page, leading to incomplete dialogues here. Pol098 (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The first sections here are general, and may be updated from time to time (edited, not appended to). --16:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many guidelines, some contradictory, which are not to be taken as rules. In case of doubt I use WP:BRD and WP:BOLD, sometimes WP:IAR.

Just a minor note, so you're aware: WP:BRD isn't a guideline. It's also not what a lot of editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, was vaguely aware but not really paying attention. I'll remember for future reference. Pol098 (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm DMacks. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. User forums are not WP:RS, especially for human-med-adjacent claims. DMacks (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Mexican tortilla has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 9 § Mexican tortilla until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

https://www.scotsman.com/news/uk-news/sir-jimmy-savile-the-medallion-man-with-a-heart-of-gold-1655782

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/pneumonia-alert-as-sir-jimmy-admitted-to-hospital-1920193

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jimmy-saviles-chilling-comments-big-26648447

I wonder if you can add the following to the death section, something worded along the lines of “In late September 2011, Savile went into hospital with pneumonia. Although he was initally reportedly recovering (second source), two weeks later, Savile was not feeling well (first source). In an interview he conducted four days before he died, Savile acknowledged his health had worsened, “I've got a bounce back-ability, but this time I don't seem to be bouncing back” (third source). He was found dead on October 29. This was discussed on the talk page of the article but I think it could elaborate as to when Savile grew ill and died. 78.150.15.34 (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

You can do this yourself, even without a Wikipedia account. You need to make sure that what you say is supported by the sources. To insert a a reference, add <ref>details of the reference</ref> after the text supported. The URLs you list become, in a form you can copy and paste:

<ref>{{cite news| last=Ferguson | first=Brian | title=Sir Jimmy Savile: The medallion man with a heart of gold | newspaper=The Scotsman | date=29 October 2011 | url=https://www.scotsman.com/news/uk-news/sir-jimmy-savile-the-medallion-man-with-a-heart-of-gold-1655782}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite news|author=<!--not stated-->| title=Pneumonia alert as Sir Jimmy admitted to hospital | newspaper=Yorkshire Post | date=1 October 2011 | url=https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/pneumonia-alert-as-sir-jimmy-admitted-to-hospital-1920193}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite news| last=O'Sullivan | first=Kyle | title=Jimmy Savile's chilling comments in Big Brother house that won't air again | newspaper=[[Daily Mirror]] | date=6 April 2022 | url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jimmy-saviles-chilling-comments-big-26648447}}</ref>

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Pol098, you didn't write in your edit summary that you reverted my edit tidying up citations. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, inadvertent and unintentional. My purpose was to do with ambush and killing wording, and your edit, which was fine, got caught up. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Pol098. Thank you for your work on Emerald Expositions. Another editor, Ceyockey, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

I'm proposing this for deletion via the PROD pathway based on insufficient independent support. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

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

{{Re|Ceyockey}}I merely created the page as a redirect and have no interest in it, or knowledge about the company. It could maybe be reverted to a redirect, or deleted; I have no opinion. Pol098 (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for finding a reliable source for the origin of the term Flat White (to refer to an espresso-based coffee drink) in England. A couple of editors, including me, have tried to add this previously, but it has always been deleted by others as "original research". You are probably also aware that the British Film "Danger by my Side"(1963) includes a scene where a character goes into an espresso bar, orders a flat white, and we see a character playing staff member make the drink with an espresso machine and milk. I'm not sure why you deleted my addition of the retrieval date in the source though. My understanding is that this is required for technical reasons. It would also be wise to archive the page because OED may well change their webpage and no longer include the relevant detail. Adding the detail in invisible text won't help in verification if the webpage is altered. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know much about flat white coffee, went to the article to find out. Regarding retrieval date: it is not required for technical reasons. It is often useful to the reader to know when a changeable source was retrieved, but is pointless for a stable source. Guidelines do not recommend a retrieval date for a stable source for which a publication date is stated - you can find this somewhere in the documentation for the {{citation}} or other cite templates. To add my personal opinion, the date that someone happened to look up a stable source is just adding clutter to absolutely no purpose to the reader, particularly so if an archive date is also given. Citations that give a (useless) retrieval date but not the (useful) known publication date are particularly obnoxious. OED is extremely unlikely to remove the first date the term is attested, though they might find an earlier date - I personally see no point in providing archived links to dictionary definitions, they are just clutter for the user. Anyway, you're free to disagree with my opinions and edit accordingly, I don't see any point in going to war. But I do recommend, if you choose to add the retrieval date, that you also include the (not very useful) date that the term was added to the OED. I often add non-obvious information on sources in hidden comments to help future editors, in the same way that Wikipedia suggests "author=<!--not stated-->" to save editors from having to look up information. In summary, we disagree, which is OK. But I do state as a fact that guidelines do not always require a retrieval date, and the reasons for using it when recommended are not technical. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC) (added later) I've looked into the film, and added it to the flat white article, edited the film's article, and told the OED about it - I don't know if mention in a film qualifies as attestation. Pol098 (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I have slightly changed your wording in the lead. There is no evidence that the flat white referred to by Schaeffer or shown in the film is the same drink as the modern flat white: ie "a double espresso (50 ml; 1.8 imp fl oz; 1.7 US fl oz) and about 130 ml (4.6 imp fl oz; 4.4 US fl oz) of steamed milk with a 5 mm (0.20 in) layer of microfoam." Nor is there any evidence that the term was in continuous use in England since the 1960s. The term wasn't in use when I lived there in the 1980s and I went to a lot of coffee shops. You could get a cappuccino, a café latte or a café crème, but not a flat white as we know it today. The term in the 1960s probably just referred to an espresso with warmed milk (ie, flat, not frothed like a cappuccino.) Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The Universal Church of the Kingdom of God page appears to have been edited to make the organization look more positive, possibly by someone with connections to the subject (and a repeat editor, judging by similar grammar and spelling in edit reasons of the editor and two others). The main description in particular appears to have ben heavily affected. I am notifying you as you have edited the page in the past, and would like some help reverting these edits. Burgerolivealpha1 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed that, and intended to do something about it, though haven't got down to it because it looks like a big job. Maybe, rather than getting into detailed editing, the best thing is to revert to a previous version and re-add any of the reverted material that is supported? Having several people involved without agreeing on methods is a recipe for chaos, though. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I also believe the page should have some sort of temporary lock applied until the problem (at least temporarily) subsides. --Burgerolivealpha1 (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your reversion. I've added a link, in relation to UK politics, that has a lot of material relevant to other sections. Pol098 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of match-fixing incidents, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consumer watchdog was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Pol098, pleasure to meet you. I am the declared paid editor for Pretium Partners. I noted your previous contributions and involvement on articles within the financial industry. Might you be willing to review my edit request on the Talk page of Pretium's article? My suggestions are crafted to add more detail to the Background section of the article and expand that content. If you approve of these changes, I am happy to implement and save you some time. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you, B for Pretium (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)