User talk:Domeditrix/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Domeditrix. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Domeditrix, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Lloyd James (footballer). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mattythewhite (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, forgive me by that misunderstanding. I must have misread the first paragraph of the section History and I didn't realized that it referred to the past season. --Ravave (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The article Jimmy Oates has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL

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. GiantSnowman 08:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited England women's national football team results – 2010s, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

While I think the new style looks much worse than the former style which I'd taken from the 2011–12 York City F.C. season amongst others which is one fo the few season articles to actually be rated more than a stub/start article class, thank you for changing to the new MOS. Ytfc23 (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The MOS was only changed following an agreed consensus on the relevant talk page, waiting a period of time, and notifying every Premier League club seasons talk page (and the seasons task force) of the discussion. I even gave you notice personally on your talk page eight days ago! If you can make a positive contribution to the new MOS, start a new discussion on the relevant talk page. Domeditrix (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The article James Dodd (footballer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL - only played against U21 team, not senior team.

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. GiantSnowman 14:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Domeditrix. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Domeditrix. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Easy Allies. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Easy Allies, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick note after reading the talk page for Layla Moran. Thank you for handling the discussion in what seems to me to be an exemplary, fair, civil and calm manner in the face of attempts by others to be provocative, including ad hominem attacks and ad misericordiam irrelevancies. Your course of action was exactly right, borne out by the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation. Incidentally, I agree with keeping the current short "Personal life" section as it gives the article an appropriate balance. Thanks again — Hebrides (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Please do not update their 'current' club until that date. GiantSnowman 13:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 Liberal Democrats leadership election, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bath, West Midlands and Newcastle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019–20 Exeter City F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barbadian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Liberal Democrats (UK). Your edits appear to be disruptive. You have made a false accusation of disruptive editing against me whilst being the one disrupting, in your point of view the Lib Dems is centre-left, you have wrongly reverted my edit of content that was out of date to assert your POV, I had replaced the out of date information with a citation from the current time frame 2019 and from the official Lib Dem page, your actions are in them self disruptive, I have no intent of getting into an edit war with you on this matter and ask you to refrain. --Pennine rambler (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pennine rambler: Please add new sections to the bottom of my talk page, not the top. Also, please don't be so quick to assume that editors are acting in bad faith and post defamatory messages on their talk pages. The vast majority of Wikipedians are just trying to do their best on the site. I'd like to direct you towards WP:HUSH, and note that the placement of false 'warnings' on a user's talk page is not looked upon kindly. I will keep this particular false warning up for posterity. Domeditrix (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Domeditrix. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Mz7 (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Calling an internet forum "far-right" just because a minority of users would consider themselves "far-right" is not accurate. I'm willing to compromise by calling it a right-wing forum and mention somewhere else that members of the far-right use the forum, but to call it all far-right because of a few users who would identify with the far-right is biased. You're free to remove this once you've read it, well don't have to read it but it's highly recommended to read what I've put here. --Bolt9094 (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bolt9094: You may very well think that, but you must WP:VERIFY. See also: WP:VNT. Domeditrix (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Domeditrix: The issue here is that people on the left call it far-right, people on the right call it center-right/right-wing. The media is notorious for using the terms "far-right" a lot of the time to describe stuff that isn't "far-right" but rather "right-wing" just to fit a narrative. Also your source is behind a paywall, I cannot access it without a subscription, which hurts the validity of the source as well because the average user cannot access it. It is also in the United Kingdom, which isn't reliable for discussion about an American political forum. Also with the paywall, the source is unable to be verified and therefore it should not be included, as you stated with our sources because only those who have paid money can verify it. --Bolt9094 (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bolt9094: I think you seriously need to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policies. Practically everything written here is wrong (i.e. against Wikipedia policy). I don't believe you're acting in good faith, and will not entertain your responses on my talk page any longer. If you wish to discuss this issue, do so on the article's talk page. Domeditrix (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that WP:DRN isn't an administrator noticeboard to report behavioral issues (which WP:ANI would be) but is for content disputes. There's more information at the top of its page. I post this because I read "rushing an administrator into making a conclusion" there. —PaleoNeonate – 00:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @PaleoNeonate:. Would a bad faith report on there count as harassment, incidentally? Domeditrix (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It was sure hasty especially on the part of a recently created account... I also posted my message before looking at your contributions and then realized that it may have already been obvious to you and that you just meant moderator, —PaleoNeonate – 18:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I support your move proposal, I would suggest that you look back at the Talk page and ping those who support the move in earlier discussions as there are quite a few but they may not have seen it. Mountain^cirque 12:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mountaincirque: Thanks for the suggestion, I've notified the five people that participated in the previous two discussions who hadn't already commented on the new discussion. As Wikipedia rules (specifically WP:VOTESTACK) prohibit selectively notifying users, I've notified those in favour as well as those against. Domeditrix (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Great, that makes sense to have a rounded discussion as the name change has been proposed and discussed for a few years. All the best. Mountaincirque^talk 09:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I've removed the PROD for this one as its previous PROD deletion makes it ineligible. You may wish to take it to WP:AfD, though. The creator recreating the article after its deletion counts as 'contesting the deletion'. For what it's worth, I don't think Fosh is notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Spiderone: Thanks, I wasn't aware of that rule. I thought a successfully PROD-ded article could be re-PRODded, and that only articles that had a previously contested PROD could not. Domeditrix (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, Niko Omilana has been recreated. The article isn't the same as the old, so speedy deletion does not seem to apply, but could go to a new AfD. It doesn't seem to me that the new article demonstrates notability. Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly why I supported WP:SALTing the first time around.... argh! I'll create the AFD some time this week (if nobody else does first). The vast majority of sources for the new article are identical. The only 'new' ones are either links to his YouTube videos, or routine election coverage - an interview from Insider, two pieces written about his run by students at Tiffin School, and a piece stating where he finished by Complex UK. There is one very short 'interview' by Joe.co.uk, but its length is so short that it's unsuitable for establishing notability. I'd argue that as the reason for the original redirect clearly hasn't been remedied, that the page remains substantially identical in substance to the deleted page, and that a speedy deletion (per WP:G4) may be appropriate. I don't feel so certain on that, though, so I'll probably just take it to AFD. If you feel like doing it too, feel free to. Domeditrix (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It may not stick, but I have tried just boldly reverting the article to being a redirect. Bondegezou (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

We do - but not when they are used in-line already, see WP:ELNO, which I did refer you to here. GiantSnowman 16:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Then I have a lot of editing to do. Domeditrix (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

You need to explain your edits, and you should not embark on some crusade to remove all external links, see WP:POINT. GiantSnowman 20:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you please just explain what I actually did wrong? Because as I've said previously, if it is an issue then I don't see it as WP:POINTy to correct the issue across a range of articles, rather than letting errors stand. Domeditrix (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)