Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Hello PatGallacher, I'd like to clarify my intention for changing the above article on Nicola Adams. She has mentioned in interviews numerous times that she is bisexual (and this was the reason for why she fought for a female partner on Strictly Come Dancing) so it was wrong for the article to mislabel her as gay. The cited reference that was already there does mention her bisexuality*, so that is why I didn't add my own cite.

• so this was in fact an incorrect cite for the misinformation I was trying to correct in the first place.

Hello PatGallacher, I just wanted to clear up the nature of my (now-reverted) edit to Arthur Mullard's article- I in no way sought to indicate 'doubt' regarding the allegations (as there's no way I personally could have any real knowledge of it), but wondered if perhaps the emphasis on his daughter's claims was too great given the absence of any other sources than the Sunday Mirror, which, as the Sunday edition of the Daily Mirror, is presumably subject to the same consideration given to the latter at Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources. Since you've reverted the edit I don't intend to try again, but I do think it a shame that no other sources- even referring to the allegations second-hand- seem to exist which would lend credibility to them, and more to the point, to the very insistent manner in which details of said allegations are presented in three separate sections of the article. Just wanted to let you know where I was coming from when I made the edit, lest it be considered that simple doubt regarding the truthfulness of his daughter's claims had motivated me. Thanks!

Hello PatGallacher, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Akram al-Shafei, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akram al-Shafei.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. 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|Karnataka)). And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

— Karnataka 22:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lewis Grassic Gibbon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Craig.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Ukrainian Census (2001 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Ukrainian Census (2001 until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An ongoing discussion regarding whether to relocate Clement of Rome to "Pope Clement I" is underway. You're invited to join the conversation here. Thank you. EXANXC (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]