Hello, You moved the contract value from the lead to the main body in the comments but didn't actually do it. Additionally the removal of the Grayling failing to intervene has been done twice, firstly with a comment saying the source didn't include it which it did and on the second time without comment. These are details that are not widely known and worthy of being pointed out. I see you are active in political wiki pages, please assure me you are not overly invested in any particular side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.100.64 (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you discuss this at the article talk page, which can be found at Talk:Southern (Govia Thameslink Railway) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bellowhead678. You have new messages at Alarics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Alarics (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the reference. I asked for one because it seemed a bit inconsistent for many political parties (especially American ones) to have "position" parameters removed for lack of citation while a governing party of a major nation like the Conservatives had unsourced, uncited claims, no matter how obvious the information is.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Musa Raza. Absolutelypuremilk, thanks for creating People's Quantitative Easing!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This page doesn't belong to any categories.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Musa Talk  09:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding your edit summary, can I point you to WP:BLP and in particular this clause of the policy Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately [my emphasis] and without waiting for discussion. It was based on this policy that I judged it was not appropriate to tag a serious POV issue with {{cn}} and move on; removal is the preferred option. Don't get me wrong, your rewrite is good and the remaining uncited element is not contentious. I just wanted to draw your attention to the policy in this area in case you weren't familiar with it should something like this come up again. Thanks - QuiteUnusual (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Absolutelypuremilk,

I made the edit to the Council Tax Page because there was no information about Council Tax Enforcement on the page. The news article caused a big conversation amongst many stakeholders in Council Tax Enforcement but Council Tax Enforcement does not have it's own Wiki page.

Council Tax Managers at various local authorities, CIVEA - professional standards body for bailiffs, Local Government Ombudsman, Met Police, IPCC, CPS, Guardian Money, This Is Money were involved in discussions since the article.86.7.125.24 (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit, I realise you were trying to be constructive but that is not the place for it. I would suggest you start a new section in the Council Tax article called "Council Tax Enforcement" and you can source content using that link and others that you can find. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Rail transport in Great Britain. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Absolutelypuremilk/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Absolutelypuremilk, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to be the only other person interested in this article, I thought I would let you know I've just made a few more changes, and would be interested in hearing your opinion (even if it's just a 'no problem'). Basically, I've reduced the 'System' related text down to a single section, split out some material to a new Impact of the privatisation of British Rail, and refocused the Proposals section to be about political positions, which it largely was anyway. I think this now solves the size issue, and from a Table of Contents position the article looks much more accessible. I think it also better identifies current gaps in coverage (i.e., it wasn't immediately obvious before, despite the amount of text, that the info on political positions is patchy at best). Still lots to do, but it's still all only really putting lipstick on a pig until such time as someone wants to put some serious effort in. Such a shame that most rail people here seem to see this website as some kind of a hobby, rather than feeling any shame for foisting totally incoherent/unorganised rubbish on the unsuspecting public. Kristian Jenn (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at page 84 and noticed a whole host of other agencies with slightly varying figures for the GDP growth forecast. I'm wondering what, if any, thought went into choosing the Office for Budget Responsibility's estimate? According to the report the IMF recently forecast it at 2.5%, which was the previous source on the page. Jolly Ω Janner 03:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely sure, to be honest I just saw that the OBR had published the 2.4% figure and updated the page (from 2.3%) accordingly. If you think 2.5% is a better estimate then feel very free to change it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there are seven different forecasters and none of which warrant their use any more than the last, I think an average of their figures might make sense here. A couple of them were published in October, but the rest in November, so all pretty recent. The mean average would be 2.5 anyway. Jolly Ω Janner 19:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think just putting 2.5% and the IMF as a reference is probably the best option then Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done also updated the source for Q3. Jolly Ω Janner 21:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the IMF, the growth rate was 3.0% in 2014 and according to the ONS, the growth rate was 0.7% in Q2 2015. The growth rate has decreased... Jolly Ω Janner 22:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but its an increase as in positive growth, not as in higher growth than last year Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how I took it and I wonder whether the average reader might make that mistake too. Is there a guideline to suggest doing it that way? Jolly Ω Janner 23:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any guidelines on it, but this is the case on pretty much every article I have seen Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why they are needed at all, since the growth itself tells you whether it's going up or down. With the other facts in the infobox such as GDP per capita, it is going up because it is now higher than the previous figure. This is helpful when the previous figure is not included. Jolly Ω Janner 23:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that it is an easy way to see whether it is increasing for those short-sighted people who might not be able to tell if there is a minus sign? Possibly something you could take up with the powers that be Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a post on the talk page and see if anyone else is interested in the matter. Jolly Ω Janner 00:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , The very same user who posted that there was a grammatical error says there are grammatical errors despite those errors having been fixed and without explaining why. Kind of outrageous isn't it? [1] (N0n3up (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

This is probably best discussed on the article talk page Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have shown interest in previous UK housing topics and I would be interested in your views on this:

Cost of moving in the United Kingdom

I put a lot of work into this article which has been nominated for deletion and I'm not sure why. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cost of moving in the United Kingdom I think it should stay. Thanks. Tomintoul (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say thanks for this edit on Jude Wanniski. I think you were right that there is a consensus against including the material you removed. Unfortunately, when I tried to remove the exact same material from the Art Laffer page, Volunteer Marek/lipsquid reverted [2] me, declaring that i would need to create a new RfC and that the old one wasnt resolved. This is despite the fact that the edits in question were literally identical and i specifically mentioned both in the RfC and on the Art Laffer page my intention to change both. I cant help but notice that neither of them challenged you when you made the change to Jude Wanniski, which leads me to believe that they (assuming they are even different people) have some kind of grudge against me specifically, although i couldnt for the life of me tell you why. Because of this i was hoping that you would remove the same material from Art Laffer that you did from Jude Wanniski, assuming, of course, that you agree that it should be removed. Thanks in advance, and feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions or concerns. Bonewah (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Absolutelypuremilk,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Rail subsidies for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can , but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Hama Dryad (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By promotional, I meant that it seemed to be promoting a product or a business without giving proper explanation of why the topic was important or providing adequate references. Since these were absent, I had assumed that this was not a legitimate topic . . . we do get lots of spam and pages of questionable value created here and I patrol new changes sometimes. I am sorry if I marked your page as spam prematurely. What you could do next time is to create the page in your own userspace or sandbox and then hone it there and when you believe that it is ready for Mainspace, just copy and paste it there. This may cause an editor to think twice before deleting a new page. Also, if you disagree with a speedy deletion or prod tag, they can be removed (not AfDs by the way, which need to be subject to consensus). If you wish to recreate the page as a redirect, you may do so. You can use the inprogress tag to indicate also that you may be working on the page and that not has not reached a mature state. Again, my apologies if I tagged your work for removal when I should not have. Hama Dryad (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, my problem was that "rail subsidies" can be divided up into European rail subsidies and American rail subsidies. I wanted to create a page which will direct a user to both of these, from rail subsidies. However, what I have done instead is to add a section about both of these to Rail transport and then created the Rail subsidies page to redirect to there. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice solution. Best wishes. Hama Dryad (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the confusion on the George Osborne article, I was unaware that he had changed his name by deed poll! Feasey (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed you're a member of the biography wikiproject. Could you please weigh in at this RfC regarding Georgiy Starostin and whether his hobby as a music blogger should be included in the article and attributed to citations from his personal website/blog? Dan56 (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Absolutelypuremilk; I saw this Special:Diff//722147730 revert on High Speed 2. I'm loathed to revert it again, but I would infer that these corrections had been made by somebody from Scotland/Wales/North Ireland/IoM/… which have their own Parliaments and so where the disambiguation is important. Per WP:EGG, we do not allow piping where the shortened link is the name of another topic; the reversion appears to have re-introduced this issue, because "Parliament" is a generic topic. Could I encourage a self-revert, and then if you still feel strongly to very carefully revert only those changes that are absolutely (purely) necessary. —Sladen (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partially reverted in Special:Diff/722876328 per WP:EGG. —Sladen (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Laura Kuenssberg". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 11 June 2016.

The request for formal mediation concerning Laura Kuenssberg, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Neoliberalism". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 June 2016.

The request for formal mediation concerning Neoliberalism, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Your latest edit on Corbyn was correct, but be mindful of 1RR; I suppose you could have labeled it as vandalism, as a way to reduce the prospect of being blocked for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Policy Innovation Research Unit, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Randykitty (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there is no result - as there is no declared challenge - thanks - please don't add result as a header - Govindaharihari (talk)

You gave the reason as “Undid revision - needs a secondary source”. Maybe your action was correcting according to a Wikipedia policy. You are a “PhD student and science geek”. I am a 92-year-old old fart. You have made more than 5,000. I have made only 3,000+. However, I question it.

As I read in the vast material about Wikipedia policies, “the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual” and “a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document written by such a person.” Even if your opinion that my edit lacked secondary sources is correct, would not my edit be acceptable according to the following policy with which, it seems to me, my edit complied?

“Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care.... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.”

I am going to try a similar edit using more resources, some of which should be classified as secondary. If you undo that edit, I’ll give up. I don’t have the time or energy to fight about it. Cheers, Vejlefjord (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing on talk rather than edit warring. Number of edits shouldn't matter, in general we should be able to come to a consensus, or if not then ask for comment from other editors. In this case, the reason that I felt a secondary source was required was that a secondary source would show that it was notable. I am sure that Blair participated in hundreds of debates, is there any reason we should add this one? If secondary sources thought it was notable enough for an article then maybe, but otherwise not. I would accept a primary source if I thought that the information was notable, e.g. if someone added a primary source for his date of birth then obviously that is notable enough to be in there, but without a secondary source then this debate doesn't seem notable enough to be included in what is already a fairly long article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally right about that.That guy has nothing of official.The only official national source for Italy is ISTAT as requested by the article (NATIONAL SOURCES).The fact he called you before it doesn't mean he is right.No official data at the moment for Italy.Sad9721 (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you discuss on the talk page of the article for everyone to see please. Perhaps you could post there the link of where you found the data you have posted in the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK ,but that guy seems to be depth..but he isn't..he realizes just what he likes...Sad9721 (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You added again that Forexdirectory source that isn't an OFFICIAL ITALIAN STATISTIC DATA.Consensus on what to revert?Italy without the page of ISTAT named "retribuzioni" hasn't any official value.1560 is just a value fixed by a private company named JP so not like for all other states.Why all the other states have a national statistic data and Italy not?This is required by the article officially.The reference isn't correct.Italy at the moment has no value for the average net wage.1560 and other data must be deleted.Sad9721 (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People here acting without answering.Forexdirectory data aren't italian official italian statistic agency data as required in the article .The article in fact asks natoional sources.Forexdirectory has inside just a private study by a society named JP.It must be deleted.Sad9721 (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on the talk page of the article. I will not respond here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding content deletion on the page Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution, see here. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Lancastle (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Electro-diesel multiple unit, Absolutelypuremilk!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Added a category, filled in the reference titles with Refill and linked to WikiProject Trains. Hope that's OK.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Just spotted your response to my comment on the talk page for Theresa May re the paragraph about domestic violence and have responded. --Prh47bridge (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. When you make updates such as this, can I ask that you update the full details of the source, including the title? It's a bit confusing to have data for June 2016 referenced to a source with the title "Labour Market Statistics, January 2015", and is likely to cause further work down the line as someone will need to check whether the data is verified by the source and then update the title. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add to my defencePlease add to my defence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeneral28#Suspected_sockpuppets. Have I not been a great contributor to many defence articles especially to Type 31 Frigate? Cantab1985 (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Traingate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traingate until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Absolutelypuremilk!

I'm a journalist who was looking for some statistics on Japan's rail system, but couldn't find good sourcing for the stats I was looking for at this Wikipedia page. Then, I found them at Japan's own statistics bureau: http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/c0117.htm

These figures vary drastically from the ones quoted at Wikipedia (23 billion passengers vs 7.289 billion, and shows rails accounting for over 70% of domestic transport!), and I was curious if you might want to sort it out? I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and thought you might do a better job.

Thanks and hope I did this right!

172.56.17.238 (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, it looks like someone has added the figure up incorrectly from the source given just above the table at Rail usage statistics by country and I have changed it now to 9.147 billion which approximately matches the figure given in your source for Japan Railways (allowing for a bit of growth).

The rail figures we quote are just for heavy rail, i.e. not including trams or metro systems (I know the line is sometimes blurred!) so this will account for the difference given in the table you quote, which says that around 9 billion trips are made by Japan Railways but 23 billion in total by "the railways".

If you're not sure about anything else, then feel free to post at either the talk page of the article concerned, or my page. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Hatnote?. Hi Absolutelypuremilk. Should we include a hatnote above the lede at Margaret Thatcher for The Iron LadyThe Iron Lady redirect? --Neve–selbert 16:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working from Starved NHS ‘at point of no return’ and ‘no longer envy of the world’. The text is diffucult to read because of an advertisement obscuring the text that I could not get rid of in the original document. If you copy the text and paste it somewhere else you can get rid of the advertisement. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the edit to Andy Burnham. I was not sure about it. I thought he had quit according to the media, wasn't fully sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.26.83 (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, the reporting of it was very unclear! He said in his speech that he wouldn't leave until Corbyn found a replacement, but many websites reported that he had already quit. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Andrew Bingham and his wife have separated, which presumably explains the "unexplained removal" of the sentence about his marriage (I'm one of his constituents). Not sure what to do about this as obviously it's a personal matter and not the sort of thing that is likely to be reported in a reliable source. I've left your reversion alone at the moment. Dave.Dunford (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Thanks for your comment, is there a Twitter source for this by any chance? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - I don't follow Twitter. Just heard this locally through mutual acquaintances. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is unsourced (and the editor doesn't seem to be competent enough at English to contribute), so I agree with your reversion, but I think it's good practice to only call vandalism vandalism to avoid scaring people off. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 04:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just googled it and according to some (admittedly not WP:RS sources) a jitney bus is a real thing - I assumed it was made up. Apologies.

I can help on the Fillon article.

Positive attributes include that I know some French, I am not a French citizen, I have no opinion on the man or French politics.

Negative attributes is that I am not French and have not kept up with the news about French politics.

In conclusion, I will start to help but if there are experts, I will defer to them. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind. I don't know enough of the man to write an article. It would be like asking me to write a textbook on brain surgery by copying sentences here and there from research journals. Instead, I will add some text periodically. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Absolutelypuremilk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Absolutely, you may have missed my input at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Party affiliation since 2015 section, since we posted almost simultaneously. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 15:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had missed that! I agree that if it was covered in the sense you describe it then it would be notable, but the section seemed to be more about debating the exact status of Sanders at different points in time. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zac_Goldsmith#he_is_not_an_active_politician_now b Govindaharihari (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Cameron&diff=752853494&oldid=752851852 Govindaharihari (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zac_Goldsmith&diff=752856348&oldid=752856140 Govindaharihari (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Active_politician.3F Govindaharihari (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thank you very much and the same to you! -- Alarics (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks! All the best to you for 2017! - Coradia175 (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was working on the page Poverty in the UK going through the manifestos of the political parties and citing their mentions of poverty, partly because someone had left a previous tag asking for the section to be updated - but you wiped the whole thing! Can you explain a little more please for this particular decision; this will help me get it right next time. Also, I see you have edited the page before so I'd be happy to discuss on the article's talk page and work with you on improving it. Thank you Xcia0069 (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick!
Cheers! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  09:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Crossrail page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that sentence shouldn't stand between those two dates is because it gives off the false impression that Iraq was attacking Iran all the way up to the date when the conflict ended, and we know that's not how it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.93.108 (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read it that way, but make the argument on the article's talk page and see if others agree with you. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You reverted an edit I made to Paul Nuttall and I'm curious about it. I removed what I considered excessive 'early life'-type information about his birth and education from the introductory paragraphs. I'd think a strong introduction for a politician would include their current roles, some basics about their general political views, and a potted career history. Not objecting to your revert, but hope to discuss the ideal. Do you know if there's a guide anywhere?

Hi, thanks for your message. I agree that the original material was excessive, so I trimmed it down a bit when I restored it. I haven't seen a guide anywhere, I generally include the place of birth and university education. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Milky. Ultimately happy to defer to your judgement but consider that Nigel Farage, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, Michael Foot, Clement Atlee, Tim Farron don't have that level of biography in their intro (though, in your favour, Jeremy Corbyn and Teresa May do). To me an intro should say who that person is, i.e. the role and any decoration that makes them noteworthy. What do you think?

Sure. Again its a question of judgement and down to the editors on each page - Farage, Blair, Thatcher, Foot and Attlee all have fairly lengthy leads already. Farron's lead seems to be way too short - I will try and rectify this. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for catching the unreferenced changes to Manchester-Preston Line, but I'm curious why you reverted my edit, which added another reference for the December 2017 date. Was it an edit conflict, or is there an issue with the source?

Cheers,

~SpK 20:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was an edit conflict and I have self-reverted to this version. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for this edit. I wasn't sure about the precise wording - and I was worried about phrases like even as late as and let alone "driverless" which you so masterfully removed - saving me much embarrassment! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad you approve! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Crossrail line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Grid. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's this about? Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just wanted to inform you of why the Greenford branch has been shortened, its actually because of the new GWR Class 387s running between Paddington and Hayes & Harlington. I put this down ages ago, but somebody seems to have changed it to Crossrail.

Hope that helps 86.183.182.67 (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, thanks that makes a lot more sense. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Absolutelypuremilk, your thoughts would be welcome at a discussion at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Photos. User:HopsonRoad 13:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on More2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. -- Dane ^talk 23:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2020 UK election. Since you had some involvement with the 2020 UK election redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Philip Stevens (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Undid vandalism", please do not defame me please.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them anyway. An account with a username identifying themselves with a political party, and then falsifying opinion poll data, is not something we want or need. Black Kite (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For diligent work tracking UK 2017 general election polls Alarichall (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling it to my attention. I've added a comment on the talk page. DOR (HK) (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good work in creating and updating the moving average graph for the UK election.
I draw your attention to a couple of comments that have been made in the "Moving average graph" section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017 and invite your comments. Ordinary Person (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:First Cameron ministry#RfC about what to rename this article. Hi Absolutelypuremilk. Please comment if you find the time. --Nevé–selbert 07:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn#Antisemitism and Holocaust denial.  Seagull123  Φ  22:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you just undid my edit to the poll numbers saying that these are the result for the GB only. The page title is very misleading in this case given the name (Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017) and I did not find any reference to this information anywhere near the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portisch (talk • contribs) 08:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead states that most polling is carried out for GB only. The line where the results are stated also states that these are GB results only. The polls (and results) for NI are given later down in the article. Perhaps you could suggest on the talk page somewhere in the article where this could be stated again to avoid confusion. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added important historical information (that does not require citation). Thank you.

It does require a citation, as everything does on Wikipedia. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My warmest thanks for the Barnstar. Nobody's ever given me one of those before! Most kind. 10:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Absolutelypuremilk, I've noticed you've made some edits to Wera Hobhouse's wiki page. I thought I should introduce myself, I work for Wera as part of her comms team and have been tasked with fleshing out her page. I've not worked much with wikipedia before, so want to make sure I'm not breaking any rules or stepping on anyone's toes. I've re-worked the Councillor section, adhering to the guidelines to the best of my knowledge. If you could have a look at it and let me know if I've overstepped at any point it'd be appreciated! --Pencilsfromacup (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pencilsfromacup: thanks for posting here, it's always much better to seek advice and post on the talk page of an article before doing anything too controversial. I've had a look at your edits, which mostly seem fine, apart from you adding a space between a full stop and the reference supporting the sentence. You also should not use Wikipedia as a reference for itself as you did for the majority. Finally, you should be very careful about removing content which is sourced, especially without providing an explanation in your edit summary. The edit summary is very important to let other editors know why you made certain changes. I've fixed these problems and restored the content. Removing this content in particular (the criticism of Hobhouse for not calling a by-election) is dangerous to do as someone with a conflict of interest for obvious reasons - "Lib Dem MP deletes negative content from her Wikipedia page" is probably not a headline you will want to see!

For more information about editing the page of someone you are associated with, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Let me know if there are any more edits you want to make and I will try and give you a hand. If you want to add another photo of Hobhouse, say in a different context, e.g. going on the campaign trail or giving a speech, then add it to Flickr and I can add it to the page. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and restoration, I'll be a little less delete key happy in future! I'll also make use of the edit summary, and have a look through that page. There were a few things that I wanted to do concerning her early life section, but I fear they may be in conflict with the OR policy. I'll find some more sources and get to grips with policy, thanks again! --Pencilsfromacup (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've got some more content, plus an updated photo that I'd like to add to the wiki page. I've uploaded the photo here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/157716848 My understanding of the COI rules is that as a paid employee involved in politics, I shouldn't really be editing the page myself. With that in mind, I thought I'd draw your attention to Wera's biography, currently hosted here: http://werahobhouse-ldbath.nationbuilder.com/biography. In the interest of academic integrity, I imagine it's best that you make the changes! Pencilsfromacup (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why that photo link didn't work, try here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/157716848@N08/with/35590389054/ Pencilsfromacup (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding these sources. I've started to add some content from the biography. However, I personally think the current photo is better than the one you linked to. Feel free to post it as a suggestion on the talk page if you disagree. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is channel tunnel only rail road tunnel or the cars and busses can go through that tunnel aswell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadmem1550 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AbsolutelyPurMilk. Why did you revert my last edit? Twice? Then say "refer to talk" when no talk existed? It is a valid point, that Michael Gove did in-fact cull all the so-called "soft" subjects (Latin, Ancient Greek, Archaeology, etc.) from all Further Education in Britain. You cannot deny this. If you would like me to re-word the statement, perhaps tone it down, and stick more to the facts, I can do that (in-fact I will do that now, and daily, until you cease this nonsense). Anglyn

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

GAB^gab 18:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC) GAB^gab 18:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cabinets of Charles de Gaulle and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice message. I did it completely by accident. Thanks for the help and have a nice day :) 209.93.106.136 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In This Edit a named ref was deleted, but the named ref was used in another place in the article as well. please replace <ref name="Eurostat"> with: <ref name="Eurostat">{{cite web |url=http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tgs00109&plugin=1|title=Tertiary educational attainment, age group 25–64 by sex and NUTS 2 regions |publisher=Eurostat|year= 2014|accessdate=8 June 2014}}</ref> (I would do it myself but i'm not autopatrolled in english wikipedia). thanks, Orielno (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't delete the ref but simply moved it further down the page (right at the bottom of the edit). This reference still works, it is currently ref 304. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Absolutelypuremilk. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Portsmouth Harbour railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Western Railway (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) 19:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my point was that the quote read "the Queensferry Bridge near Edinburgh was two thirds as big but still a third cheaper to build" surely you would expect something that was "two thirds as big" to be "a third cheaper". I was querying whether the quote was nonsense or not and so should be removed. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I completely misunderstood your point here - I have now corrected the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Cabinets of Charles de Gaulle, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Absolutelypuremilk. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cabinets of Charles de Gaulle".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  » Shadowowl | talk 08:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I noticed that there was an error in your UK opinion polls graph. The Lib Dems were shown as being on 40%, boosting their average to 10% - I have reverted the edit that added the 40% Lib Dem score, but thought I would bring this to your attention. I hope this was ok. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in providing your insight at: Talk:Bernie Sanders#RfC: Social democracy. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I see you recently reverted my edit, in which I specified Laura's place of birth as Milan (it had previously been marked simply "Italy"). Your reason was that it probably needs a better source. The source of the information on Findmypast (as well as on other genealogy websites like Ancestry and MyHeritage) is the UK Government birth records. Short of paying the £10 to order a certified copy of the birth certificate and uploading a scan of it on here, I'm not sure what better source there could be?

Many thanks, MorbidStories (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, at the Antisemitism in the UK Labour, you were just reverted. Please change back. Twitter is not a RS, especially for something that can't be verified.

Hi, in this edit - I think you meant to revert Garageland66 revert in the Mural section, but you also took out the "Renaming Holocaust memorial day" section which was added in the interim - possibly you were editing an old version of the article / edit conflict? If you could re-instate the "Renaming Holocaust memorial day" section - I'd be much obliged.Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good spot, I'll fix that now. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Absolutelypuremilk. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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)[reply]

This passage you added seems to be causing a lot of aggro. I don't see a problem with it but I'm getting "warned" about it from the rather jumped-up DePiep. What are your thoughts? Rodericksilly (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

iran shahid this is the most used word in 40 years in all of iran 2nd to word iran what country and what time did you live 5.75.122.205 (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Entries in the Register of members' interests are absolutely of note. Where one has an MP earning far more from extra-parliamentry activities, one is entitled to wonder in whose interests they sit. That's why there is a register of members' interests. The text you deleted without good reason is neutrally stated, factual, and referenced. please do not revert it again. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two reverts within 24 hours on Corbyn -----Snowded ^TALK 14:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating The Independent Group.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks, good kick-off article

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dweller}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For creating The Independent Group

[Username Needed] 17:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Absolutelypuremilk,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username TheLongTone and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, The Independent Group should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Independent Group .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|TheLongTone}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

TheLongTone (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to explain, I think detail or its absence can affect understanding. Here, the level of engagement of attending a conveniently located infrequent event might be considered to be less than it would be if meetings were more frequent or abroad. On another matter, I saw that you added that Eisen was Jewish and I see that Jackie Walker and Gerald Kaufman are also described as Jewish. However, the writers of the critical letter and many others are not so described. Is there a general rule or guidance on this? Thanks. Jontel (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add that Eisen was Jewish, certainly not deliberately. I might have moved it further down after someone else added it. I personally don't think it should be in there unless the source describing the event mentions it, which I would guess comes under WP:OR but I don't think there is a specific rule about religion/heritage of the person being mentioned. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. It was as you say. Thanks for your view. Jontel (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

While you might be right in general, if I could explain:

London Economic is preferable to The Guardian on the letter, because the latter is simply the letter or self-published Icewhiz would say, whereas the former is independent coverage of the letter, making it noteworthy

The Independent, as a British quality paper, is preferable to a global newswire or foreign paper, which have fewer focused connections and resources

The Lipstadt quote is referenced by her book and does not need a review reference as well

The Independent explicitly asserts that Field jumped before he was pushed, so supports the text whereas the BBC does not

If that makes sense, can I implement some or all of these?

Thanks, Jontel (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't noticed that the Guardian source was the original letter. I think that the Independent (especially in recent years) is of lower quality than Reuters or NYT, but we'll have to disagree about that. I would argue the Lipstadt quote needs a reference to show notability - in any case I don't think two citations is overkill. Sure, keep the Independent source for the Field content in that case. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've changed it on that basis. Thanks. Jontel (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rather spirited discussion currently ongoing at Talk:Layla Moran#Domestic Violence. Seeing as you are an experienced editor that recently edited the page, I would appreciate if you could chime in with your view, in the interests of finding a consensus one way or the other. Domeditrix (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

It might be that that you would be doing it if you thought it was a good idea or had time but, just to say, I really appreciate the trendline for Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election that I understand you do and think that a similar graph would also be interesting for the currently very negative views of UK party leaders. Leadership approval opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. Jontel (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the issue with that table is that the wording is different between different pollsters so it's difficult to compare those polls. Some say well/badly, some say approve/disapprove and then some allow "don't know" as an option whereas others allow "neither". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I wondered if that might be it. Thanks for the response. Arguably, it could still be done as a rough indication if accompanied by a caveat, given that some of the inconsistency will be alleviated by the averaging and because the measure is intended as an illustration of trend rather than an absolute measure. Anyway, interesting times - lots of variation and some new parties. ;) Jontel (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is - there are too many 'anti-Semitic incidents' involving Labour: a statement of fact not an opinion. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general discussion of the topic. Go to a forum if you want to discuss Labour. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Traingate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traingate (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tedfitzy (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making on-topic, relevant and thoughtful comments. It may be that we agree on some things and do not agree, but I often enjoy sensible discussions with people I disagree with, and abhor nefariousness. Tony May (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Kerr-Schild perturbations.

User:Doomsdayer520 while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Thank you for your new article on Kerr-Schild perturbations.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Just to clarify :), do please address questions you ask on talk pages e.g. ASitLP to named editors, so one knows who you would like a response from. Thanks, Jontel (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited London low emission zone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Circular Road (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) 09:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Referencing was planned, though I tend to do them in bulk - The height was lifted from the Stadler online datasheet for the Welsh sets, but I've since found and linked the GA ones and linked to references for most of the dimensions, performance, number of engines and that they are V8s, I'll link anymore I find :) --Enotayokel (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Degenerate Higher-Order Scalar-Tensor theories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Action (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The details for assessment year 2019-20 added by me were removed. If I give the proper reference then can I again add it at that place? Kindly suggest. Bhattuc (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to hear what you thing of the script. Thanks Uziel302 (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for creating it! I think I've gone through all the ones I can fix, looking forward to having more to fix! I've left a few questions for you on the talk page - main thing is that for some reason I get the "passage unavailable" message quite often when editing on my computer (even when going upwards from the bottom), but not when on my phone. Bellowhead678 (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some scripts add things to the code after the paragraph number, I changed it now to take only the number, please test and update me if it is fixed now. Uziel302 (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! I just checked your contributions, you fixed over 1900 typos with single clicks! Uziel302 (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm at home for a couple of weeks waiting to start a new job so this is keeping me busy! Bellowhead678 (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on your new job! I am looking for ways to expand this beyond Wikipedia, so if your next company has a public website, you can send me here or via email, and I'll create typo list of their website. Might help you bringing value even before you started. Uziel302 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 1-9 are new lists. Enjoy. Uziel302 (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your help is needed in Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Correct typos in one click, thanks. Uziel302 (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help on wikivoyage. I tried a different way of showing the context there, it might be a little confusing, I added the full line at the end so the context isn't cut to two. I think I should remove the other old cut context. Since you use mobile view so much, I would recommend adding this line to user/common.css to prevent gray passage highlight when clicking a button: div.mw-parser-output h2 { -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0,0,0,0); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; } Uziel302 (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm away at the minute and I did notice the change on Wikivoyage, it made it difficult to read. I'll let you know if adding that line fixes it. Bellowhead678 (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new list. Thanks. Uziel302 (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lists 1-12 are new. Moved what was left to 19 and main page. Uziel302 (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this list? User:Uziel302/oddwords

It is focused on frequent words I haven't found on SCOWL biggest list of words. If you find a few that are actual typos, it can be a nice task on AWB. Uziel302 (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bellowhead678, I ran a new scan, this time focusing on capitalized words. Many of them are names, but I expect every name appearing frequently on Wikipedia to have an article containing it, or at list a disambiguation page. Here is the list I found the most, please note that all of it are words similar to known words, so it won't surprise me if many are typos: User:Uziel302#Missing names that appear frequently on Wikipedia. Thanks a lot, Uziel302 (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bellowhead678 and Uziel302, I think that this was probably a false positive. I've reverted it pending legal action, prorogation of parliament, blood alcohol tests etc etc. I mean, yes, it's not like I am a sugar production expert (!!!) but without even grabbing a dictionary (which, yes, I should) I think that "molassed" is a lot more likely than "molassied". And just for a silly add-on, my Canadian cousin used to tell a terrible joke in which the punchline turned "molasses" in "mole asses". My how we laughed ... Best to all, DBaK (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBaK, first, if you look up in webster dictionary, the word molassied appears. Indeed it appears as less common variant, but the edit itself isn't adding typo to the article. Second, the reason of this hiccup in the script is my usage of SCOWL widest wordlist, which for some reason included molassied but not molassed. molassed wasn't found in titles of Wikipedia and Wiktionary either, so I had no easy way to find it is a word. In the articles of Wikipedia it appears only twice. Third, every edit in the project is done manually, so the false positives of the script offers are filtered by humans, which may not be familiar with one word or another. Uziel302 (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and thanks Uziel302 for all that. I suppose the problem comes when we accept what is suggested without knowing the word usage, since this was certainly not an improvement. Oxford (DE) has only molassed and doesn't think molassied is even a word – I suppose I would prefer it if none of us ever made mistakes (!) but I do think your system is doing a pretty good job! Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you're right that molassed is more likely to be correct. Bellowhead678 (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And Happy Editing :) DBaK (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you no longer have much free time, but in case you have some, I uploaded new list with a scan for missing space and it has much lower false positives rate. Uziel302 (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll see if I can have a go on my way to work! Bellowhead678 (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibooks joined the party. Uziel302 (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I try and add this to my js page, I get the error "Your edit has triggered an automated throttle designed to limit spammers. It appears you are adding external links to many different Wikibooks pages in rapid succession. For some kinds of links this may be okay, but it is often a sign of people abusing Wikibooks. If that is not your intent, we apologize.

If you were not trying to add links to many pages, and you received this message in error please report this error. If you feel that the URL is needed, please request its addition here." Bellowhead678 (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your awesome work. I just uploaded a new list. Uziel302 (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New lists arrived, will appreciate your feedback. Uziel302 (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bellowhead678. In the article Miracle of the Sun with this edit you changed "fulfillment" to "fulfilment" and called it "Typo", by which i assume you meant you were correcting a typo. In fact, the word is correctly spelled with three l's in American English, and had been that way in the article since it was first added two and a half years ago. I invite you to revert your edit, and question the variety of English on the talk page, if you think it's necessary. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 20:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
6		Round Mountain (Massachusetts) (talk)	Add sources
11		Peterborough–Lincoln line (talk)	Add sources
590		Hymn (talk)	Add sources
276		Railway signalling (talk)	Add sources
44		Abraham Weinberg (talk)	Add sources
7		Bakke Mountain (talk)	Add sources
13		Malton and Driffield Junction Railway (talk)	Cleanup
194		Quinton Fortune (talk)	Cleanup
41		Lee Chun-soo (talk)	Cleanup
16		Newark Castle railway station (talk)	Expand
161		Midland Main Line (talk)	Expand
250		High-speed rail in the United Kingdom (talk)	Expand
23		National Union for the Progress of Romania (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,663		Powers of the president of the United States (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
518		Rail transport in Great Britain (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
119		Select Group (talk)	Merge
52		Diversity in early Christian theology (talk)	Merge
113		British Rail Class 52 (talk)	Merge
43		Schwenkfelder Church (talk)	Wikify
28		Liberalism and radicalism in Romania (talk)	Wikify
471		The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (talk)	Wikify
3		Hiking in Connecticut (talk)	Orphan
2		Raymond Lane Jr. (talk)	Orphan
10		Airman Apprenticeship Training School (talk)	Orphan
3		Freedom Party (Bessarabia) (talk)	Stub
5		St Peter and St Paul, Chingford (talk)	Stub
9		Farley Ledges (talk)	Stub
5		Mount Orient (talk)	Stub
4		Echills Wood Railway (talk)	Stub
2		Communist Reformers Party of Moldova (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Extoling" is not a word, extolling is. I have undone your edit. DuncanHill (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Uziel302 pointed out, the previous version was "extollng" not "extolling". Glad to see it's now been properly sorted out. Bellowhead678 (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your "one click typo fix" on Chaotic Trading Card Game changed "mugician" to "magician", which is incorrect as it is in reference to the term "mugic", which means "musical magic" as demonstrated in the Chaotic cartoon clips in this video. Mattwo7 (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that. Bellowhead678 (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the Momentum article, my edit summary could have been better. I think some errors have crept in with regard to Joshua Garfield: not from you, I hasten to add. He is presented as a 'leading figure of Momentum' i.e. one of the most important leaders. However, he has no national role. Momentum has 180 groups. If we assume a conservative six officers (CLPs can have up to 15), he is one of over 1000 people at his level, out of Momentum's 40,000 members. Moreover, he is a youth officer, one of the least important branch roles. He is 23. I conclude that he is not a leading figure.

The article says he 'resigned and ceased all involvement with the organisation'. Yet his letter of resignation in the source says 'I hope to continue to work with Momentum in a national capacity', the very oppposite of what is stated.

The article says he resigned because of 'widespread antisemitism'. He does not use the word widespread, so that is a false quote. On the contrary, he only mentions members of Newham Momentum and that he 'cannot work alongside individuals who...' That he hopes to work with Momentum nationally and that he has 'witnessed more antisemitism in the last week than ...in eight years of Labour Party membership' confirms that he is resigning because of his local experience, not because of any wider issue.

We are left with a young man in a junior, local role - one of a thousand such roles - who resigned because of what he says is antisemitism in his Momentum branch and hopes to stay involved in Momentum is some way. I do not think it is sufficiently significant to be included, just as we do not include on the Labour page any resignations of local officials or representatives. Can we just delete it, or shall we discuss it on the talk page? Jontel (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I can see you were the creator and only editor of File:Opinion_polling_UK_2020_election_short_axis.png - thank you for that.

Due to some retirements, the graphs at Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election have become badly out of date. The main graph is slightly misleading, showing data that's a few weeks old now. The subnational graphs haven't been updated since May, so I hid them because they were actually worse than useless.

Is there any chance I can ask you to help at least keep File:UK_opinion_polls.svg up to date? The format etc has, as I'm sure you'd guess, emerged from many wrangles and heated discussions, but I think it reflects the various opinions quite well. There's guidance here (see entry from 21 Aug) on how it's done, but it baffles this dunce.

Obviously fine if you're not able to help, but I do hope you can, as this is a high profile article now that the election's been called.

Thanks either way --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS the idea of a vertical "Election called" line is a great one. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Bellowhead678 (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your great work! Just one minor thing if you don't mind : could you use the Brexit Party color that has been agreed on on its page? It's #12B6CF, coming directly from the logo. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will try and remember when I update it tomorrow, remind me if I don't! Bellowhead678 (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for making your graphs.
If it wouldn't be too much trouble, there would be several advantages to making these graphs using (for instance) R and its package ggplot2, as was done here:

• The resulting graph avoids the problem described here where some polls do not affect the average when they should;
• Each poll's effect is weighted according to its sample size and therefore its individual margin of error;
• A confidence interval is shown (within which the true value is expected to be about 95% of the time);
• The output is an SVG.

Thank you for considering.—AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have the data in an Excel spreadsheet, but I don't have the sample size. If you fancy writing down the samples in a spreadsheet then I'm happy to weight them accordingly. I might try doing it on Python (which I'm reasonably familiar with) for the next election, but I'm pretty busy at the minute. Bellowhead678 (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I doubt I'll have the time for that until a point when I'll also have time to learn some R and make the graph there, and I don't know where I would upload the spreadsheet to. Still, I've copied wikitables straight into Excel before, so it shouldn't be too hard to modify what's on the page already.
If you do decide to re-make the graph, remember to weight according to the square root of the sample size.
You should also be able to output an SVG file whether you're using Python or Excel to produce the final graphs: Matplotlib can save graphs as SVGs, and in Excel you can

• copy the graph into Word (keeping source formatting);
• save the document as a PDF;
• import the PDF into Inkscape;
• save the Inkscape file as an SVG.

Thanks again for the work you're doing, and sorry I can't be more helpful right now.—AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion here on the word overager. Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bellowhead678,

Thank you for creating Pedal Me.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Not sure there is enough here to establish notability. Overly relies of press handouts.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slatersteven}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven:, I've added more secondary sources to the article. Is that enough to remove the tags now? Bellowhead678 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to check tomorrow had a rough day.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Kansas and some other states, USD means "Unified School District", thus USD 362 is NOT $362, nor does it makes sense in the context of the automated change. Please validate after conversions! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fontana,_Kansas&curid=114743&diff=934254271&oldid=933465695

Thanks for spotting this, sorry about that! Bellowhead678 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit direct quotations to reflect your preferred spelling conventions. DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting this. I did check, but couldn't see any inline citation. I've added a tag so hopefully someone will add one soon so this doesn't happen again. Bellowhead678 (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were to be corrected, I think curtseying would be better than courtesying. Indeed, the existing courtseying seems better to me than courtesying. DuncanHill (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Bellowhead678. 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 benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

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

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 01:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]