Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)
Hello. Sorry, I missed totally that you'd changed both the infobox and the body text date formats at John Cameron (New Zealand cricketer) when I undid your edit. I apologise about that; I imagine I must only have noticed the change in the infobox for some reason.
The body text should certainly use the 1917–18 format - I tend to prefer to be explicit in the first instance and mention that it's a season as well. The infobox date, however, should probably use the slash. This is the standard way of formatting southern hemisphere seasons in the infobox and there appears to be a fairly long running consensus over this. This is mainly because of the need to do things such as 1917/18–1923/24, which would otherwise be rendered as 1917–18–1923–24, 1917–18 to 1923–24, 1917–18 – 1923–24 and so on - which generally causes more confusion. In cricket literature a mix of methods of writing this sort of date exists, but the slash is reasonably common, and is used by CricketArchive, one of the two major cricket database sources.
I've added a bit to the article just now. I'll head off and see if there's anything very much else we might find on Cameron. Apologies again for not spotting the body text change that you'd made. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please use Edit summaries
Thank you for your recent contribution to an article I created. I request that when you make and save edits on Wikipedia, you include an Edit summary: Always provide an edit summary. It enables others to see what changes you have made without the need to open the page and check the differences. Oronsay (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
September 2024
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Deaths in 2024, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Hi there, I just want to let you know that song titles are not italicized on Wikipedia, they are put in quotations. I have reverted your edit on Deaths in 2024 where you italicized those song titles. Please read WP:MOSTITLE, the section of the Manual of Style that concerns titles of works.Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook22:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring sourced (NYTimes) entries in the 1987-1989 deaths lists
Hello Bryan,
How are you? I've spent the bigger part of yesterday going through the edits you made since May 25th regarding the deaths lists. The speed and accuracy of your work is quite impressive as always. I have some questions regarding the status of your work which I will address in a separate topic on this page.
Last spring we had some interesting discussions regarding the criteria for inclusion of entries in the list. We more or less share the same opinion regarding notability of profiles/biographies. You give more weight to page views per period and I favour links to the bio of an entry.
Going through your edits I noticed that you removed many entries that I added in the past. I don't mind that you delete unsourced entries but I do have an issue with you removing the sourced ones I added. Being cited by a reliable source adds to the notability.
As you may remember I compiled the initial lists regarding November and December 1989. I restored my sourced entries in those two pages.
Moreover, regarding 1987, 1988 and 1989 (which you are processing now) I noticed that you removed many of the entries that contain NYTimes citations. I added the citations using my software tool remember? Please restore those entries since they are all notable and it cost me a lot of time and effort compiling them. You can identify the removed entries as follows (using Jan. 1998 as an example):
(Progress) status regarding processing the deaths lists
Hello Bryan,
As mentioned in the previous topic I have some questions regarding the status of your work regarding the deaths lists. Analyzing your work I concluded the following (per year):
1987
Status: in progress
Processed months: Jan. - Oct. (apart from restoring NYTimes entries, if any, see previous topic)
Nov. and Dec.: TODO
1988
Status: DONE (apart from restoring NYTimes entries, see previous topic)
Processed months: Oct. - Dec. (apart from restoring NYTimes entries, see previous topic)
Processing: September
Is this accurate? I would like to resume applying my NYTimes ref tool to the processed months to add/replace citations but I need to know which pages are done.
By the way, if you plan to extend your work to the years 1986 and 1985 you'll find that user Drewsky1211 has been busy as well. It'll be a lot of work since Drewsky1211 does not cite his entries and does not seem to apply any criteria for inclusion at all.
Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
My perspective on the Infobox documentation is that those are somebody's guidelines, not policy. If you want that to be policy, it should be discussed as part of the MoS. I view the Infobox as as summary of the article, and as such including the names of the parents names is not an issue. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your perspective is wrong.
"It is a GENERALLY ACCEPTED standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect CONSENSUS. When in doubt, DISCUSS FIRST ON THE TALK PAGE."
It is up to YOU to initiate such a discussion, not someone who is following the guidelines. And you have provided NO reason why the names should be included. Bryan Krippner (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryan Krippner: In the future, please use the 'ping' template to inform me when you reply. I'm not necessarily watching your talk page. Anyway, I suppose we agree to disagree. I'll let this slide because just it's a silly edit war. Praemonitus (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the ones you edited en masse are all https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_royalty, where parents and issue, if known, must be inserted regardless of whether they have their own page or not. The only exception is when the list is too long, in which case children who died as infants can be excluded as long, but we are talking about individuals with dozens or more consorts/children. In that case either create a link to the "Issue" section or use the functions to close/open the list, but are rares cases.Sira Aspera (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"... where parents and issue, if known, must be inserted regardless of whether they have their own page or not."
It does NOT say that in your citation. It says "INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ARTICLES and/or who died as infants MAY BE OMITTED FROM THE LIST ON AN ARBITRARY BASIS."
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I was blocked 6 months ago for a personal attack on an individual. I have not made any such attacks since, and have resolved not to do so. Yes, I can get somewhat bristly when challenged, but it has gone no further than that with this account. Further, my edits in the past 6 months have all been constructive - I am here to add to Wikipedia, not to detract from it. I am in the middle of a project - adding to the Deaths in Year pages pre 1990, and editing some individuals' pages as I go as per the guidelines. I'm sure you will find the work I have done is only positive, and I don't want to leave the project incomplete. I am also maintaining a page on Solar Cycle 25, which I would like to keep updated. I understand that the rules required you to make this block, but I guarantee that the reason for the original block will not arise again. Bryan Krippner (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
There's no chance you'll be unblocked at this time. You've been evading your previous block to continue editing. Your only real chance now is to go six months with zero edits, then apply under WP:SO with your original account. Frankly, you'll almost certainly need to propose a topic ban around the areas you've been editing. Yamla (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
