Hello, regarding your reinstatement of content to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Radcliffe. I removed the content because it was inaccurate, slanderous, and possibly libellous. I was certainly not attempting to censor anything. Please may you reinstate my editions to the article this immediately? Thank you for your help.
@Jctm29052000: thank you so much for your message; I have gone through the article, summarized some points and removed those irrelevant to the article or not mentioned in the source the text was cited with. I hope the article is fine now, let me know if anything is incorrect or a violation to any of Wikipedia's policies. Thanks! jolielover♥talk13:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undid my removal
Hey,
You reverted my removal of the coordinates in Delhi Private School, Dubai.
Did you read my comment in the summary where I stated:
Coordinates lead to the wrong school with a similar name. (As reported on Discord)
If my removal was wrong, then I accept the revert. But if you thought it was vandalism, could you then be so kind to check it, and then remove the coordinates again? Thank you.
Hi, I responded on Discord - you removed the coordinates on the wrong article. The coordinates on Delhi Private School, Dubai are correct, the school stands there today. The coordinates on DPS Academy were wrong, somebody mistakenly put in the coordinates of the former school due to their similar names, which resulted in the two entirely different schools having the same coordinates despite being in different locations. Though I removed the coordinates, it somehow still shows on the article on the infobox map which was my issue, and I'm still unsure of how to fix that. Jolielover (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ammakandakara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English. 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.)
No worries! The problem was in the archive-date parameter, as the timestamps didn't match (the link was archived on November 12 yet archive-date stated November 11). Wikipedia follows UTC time so while it may have been November 11 for you, it was Nov 12 in UTC time hence the error. The date parameter was also incorrect, "date=11/08/24" causing the template error as it doesn't accept this value, likely because of time discrepancies as it can also be interpreted as August 11, 2024. I switched it to "date= 8 November 2024" so in the future I'd recommend writing dates as such. Hope this helps! Jolielover (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You never officially recieved...
The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Jolielover! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Significa liberdade}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Significa liberdade}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
I am not going to object to your PROD because the article is in a woeful state, and keeping it doesn't serve anybody's interests. But I want to note that the claim of a lack of notability is not tenable. We have any number of "Culture of X" articles involving smaller cities. A quick search shows any number of sources discussing the topic, including a handful of scholarly sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your comment. While I agree that articles of the nature are typically notable, the potential content on Culture of Dubai would have a massive, if not entire, overlap with the Culture of the United Arab Emirates article since the entire country has the same culture (imo because the population is rather small and concentrated). I acknowledge that this is not true for most countries, such as India, where each state has massively different culture and traditions, but it isn't true for Dubai and every other emirate in the country. As someone who lives here, the extent of the culture in the emirate is already covered in the country article and most sources I see repeat the same thing.
Redirecting is a reasonable solution for the moment, because, as noted, the current content is very poor. However, if the topic is actually independently notable - and I believe it is likely to be - a redlink may be preferable, as it can encourage page creation. See WP:REDLINK. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've reviewed the article for close paraphrasing and I believe there is none - I removed the redundant rug pull note and a citation defining it as it's probably not necessary on the page. I hope the article is fine now! jolielover♥talk02:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+rollback
Hi Jolielover,
After reviewing your request, I have added your account to the rollback group. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Users should be informed (or warned) after their edits have been reverted. If warnings repeatedly don't help, WP:ANI is the default place to go. In cases of very clear ongoing intentional damage to the encyclopedia, WP:AIV can be used.
Reverting someone's edits may confuse or upset them. Whenever other users message you on your talk page, please take the time to respond to their concerns; accountability is important. For most users who message you, the tone and quality of your answer will permanently influence their opinion about Wikipedia in general.
Because the plain default rollback link does not provide any explanatory edit summary, it must not be used to revert good faith contributions, even if these contributions are disruptive. Take the time to write a proper summary whenever you're dealing with a lack of neutrality or verifiability; a short explanation like "[[WP:NPOV|not neutral]]" or "[[WP:INTREF|Please provide a citation]]" is helpful.
Rollback may never be used to edit war, which you'll notice to be surprisingly tempting in genuine content disputes. Please especially keep the three-revert rule in mind. If you see others edit warring, please file a report at WP:ANEW. The most helpful essay I've ever seen is WP:DISCFAIL; it is especially important for those who review content regularly.
If you encounter private information or threats of physical harm during your patrols, please quickly use Special:EmailUser/Oversight or Special:EmailUser/Emergency; ideally bookmark these pages now. See WP:OS and WP:EMERGENCY for details. If you're regularly patrolling recent changes, you will need both contacts sooner or later, and you'll be happy about the bookmarks.
To try rollback for the first time, you may like to make an edit to WP:Sandbox, and another one, and another one, and then revert the row with one click. 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 trouble or have any questions about rollback. Thank you for your time and work in cleaning up Wikipedia. Happy editing!
Please stop nominating article for false information. This is actually copied from the YouTube article, only small part from this article was spited. But you falsely said it was copied from YouTube moderation. We should improve this article rather then deleting it. RealStranger43286 (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't realise that - however, given that the offensive content in YouTube page and Youtube moderation page are very similar, I don't think they need to be separate articles (esp since they're copypasted from eachother). I agree that the content should be split from YouTube since it is far too long, however it should only be split into one article, probably titled YouTube controversies or something similar.
I think Offensiveness in Youtube should be redirect to YouTube moderation - which should be renamed YouTube controversies - and then paraphrasing and fixing up content on the page & cutting down majority of what is on the YouTube page. I'll try to chip in if possible! jolielover♥talk13:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
