User talk:PinkDucky91

Welcome...

Hello, PinkDucky91, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask a question on your talk page.  Again, welcome! Finch (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is an unreliable WP:USERGENERATED source per WP:IMDB - please stop using it as a ref in articles. Waxworker (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.)

Social (pragmatic) communication disorder

added a link pointing to Repeating

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems you have been doing a lot of edits that don't add any new content to pages/ correct mistakes, instead just change the way it is written in a way that affects the objectivity and unbiasedness of the article. please refer WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP and WP:LLM Shibui neko (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sherani District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sherani.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for removing the bare URLs. If you clean the last one on an article, please don't forget to remove the

This article uses bare URLs, which are uninformative and vulnerable to link rot. Please consider converting them to full citations to ensure the article remains verifiable and maintains a consistent citation style. Several templates and tools are available to assist in formatting, such as reFill (documentation) and Citation bot (documentation). (Learn how and when to remove this message)

marker at the top of the page. Rofraja (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you're doing a lot of bare-URL fixes, many by using the reFill utility. One I stumbled over was this one which was a problem because it caused loss of essentially all information about the source (so I reverted it). This happened because reFill changed the URL to one without information as to the article, and thus lost all chance of using the "reference" to again find the source. Apparently reFill replaced the URL with the one that it is redirected to when the URL is used, which now goes to the base page of a related site instead of to the specific article. The actual article can still be found if one has the original URL by looking in an archive (e.g. archive.org) using that URL. It happens that reFill also destroyed the useful hand-coded information that was present in the original reference (that sort of identifies the source).

You need to be careful about "cleaning up" bare URLs. In particular, the original URL shouldn't be removed unless a replacement URL actually leads to an equivalent article, one containing the text which supports the points being made in the article referencing it. -- R. S. Shaw (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anil Moonesinghe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athletics.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Well done for sorting out the references on Mary-Ann Ochota (and other pages). I know what a complicated process it can be so I really appreciate the effort you've gone to. Keep up the good work! ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pollution of the Ganges, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British colonisation of India.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I can see from your edit history that the majority of your edits involve converting references to use citation templates. In some circumstances that's entirely appropriate, but there are things you need to consider that I'm not sure if you've read.

WP:CITEVAR is the place to start. The first point there is one to be aware of straight off the bat. Be particular aware of the note. Then in the "to be avoided" section it's clear that "adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates, or removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently" is one thing to avoid.

So, I think the only place that I've come across these edits was at Benjamin Smyth, an obscure British cricketer. On 22 September you converted the references that were all consistent in their style to use citation templates. I've reverted that. I wonder if you ended up at the page due to the "bare urls" maintenance tag that had been added the previous day, despite the fact that there weren't any bare urls on the page at all? I imagine that's the most likely way that you ended up at the page.

So, I reverted you and I imagine that this could easily be considered an unimportant point about referencing styles and so on. Aside from the fact that I dislike using cite templates because I can never remember how to do them and tend to think that the errors produced by them are an issue, I tend to think of it as a matter of respecting the choices that the editor who added the original references made. If the article's a mess, sure, convert the citations - although I'd suggest checking the history first to see if you can figure out whether they used citation templates originally. But if it's consistent, there's nothing wrong with leaving them as they are. Most people probably won't even notice, let alone care. But someone might.

I'll watch here for a week in case you want to discuss this further, but after that you'll have to attract my attention somehow. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes I ended up there because it was tagged with the "bare URLs". I'll refer to the page you provided and keep it in mind for future citation edits and make sure to check the history as well. Thanks for letting me know, I appreciate it. PinkDucky91 (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Wolfgang Mückenheim. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has too many problems of language or grammar and too many of the claims go too far, plus notability is very unclear. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Good work, and lots of it. Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PinkDucky91,

On the page of Dan Roman (businessman) has appeared a message regarding the non-compliance to the Wiki standards for presentation. It is our mistake that we didn't take care of the mandatory rules.

In the mean time, I have changed and updated the text based on your recommended standards.

Please be so kind and send me feedback regarding the new version already published in order to rest assured that we are fully compliant after your revision.

If you consider necessary in order to avoid any confusion, please completely delete the text and revert to previous approved version of the page.

We are relying on your approval before publishing the new version of the text.

Many thanks in advance,

Bogdan Learschi Bogdan.learschi (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out, after reviewing, it flows much more cohesively. Thanks so much for your revisions. PinkDucky91 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, some of your copyediting at Special:Diff/1258319170 is not necessarily constructive. For instance, replacing This dish is served in almost all the activities by This dish plays a significant role in almost all the activities makes the sentence both more vague and more peacock-y. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it seemed more peacock-y as it didn't read well before but I have updated it to the original sentence with the addition of the word "of" between "all" and "the". Thank you @Chaotic Enby for pointing this out to me and I'll make sure to keep this in mind for future edits. PinkDucky91 (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]