User talk:Yelobluread

June 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Claire Pettibone, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 04:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mako001, I removed The Washington Post cited her collection as “proof positive that bridal fashion is keeping up with the runway” and Say Yes to the Dress Randy Fenoli confirms, “Claire has a cult following”. Both sentences clearly sound like advertising, out of tune with Wikipedia. I find it weird that you would reinsert those sentences and call my edit not constructive. Being a new user doesn't mean I don't get what Wikipedia is about... Yelobluread (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about that, I don't recall it exactly, but I hadn't actually meant to revert that. If I had, it would have had a different summary. I'm guessing I was trying to tap on something nearby, and hit the "vandalism" button by mistake. Thanks again for letting me know, I've restored your edit. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 07:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violent Lips

Please don't remove dead links. They do indicate that the content was (probably) correctly cited. For policy, please see wp:KDL. You should tag them with a {{dead link}}. You could also research Internet Archive, Wayback Machine and other archival sources. These use "|archive-url=" and "|archive-date=" Thank you Adakiko (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--> @Adakiko: Ok but those links were mainly advertising, used to list press clips in a very promotional way. In other words, they were useless. I am a bit surprised by all those automated actions on Wikipedia that, in the end, maintain what the rules of this website do not tolerate. I understand from the previous comment on my page that you have tools to easily detect and revert undesired edits, but maybe you should semi-automate those actions to allow some proofreading before reverting. I know I sound judgemental, but I'm just sharing my two cents here. --Yelobluread (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If those links are advert, then please state so in your edit summary? If your ES doesn't match your edit, it is may be undone. You shouldn't expect others to research your edits for what you could have put in the ES. If the ES would be too large, you could add it to the article's talk page then make your edit with an ES of "See [[talk:Article Name#Section heading name]] Thank you Adakiko (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adakiko: I removed a list of press clips and my edit summary was Removed the list of press mentions (most of them dead links), so my edit summary was pretty accurate. But I don't really care in the end, and I feel like I'm pesting here, sorry for the bother. And thanks for the tips! --Yelobluread (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment and restored your edit. The article is in rather sad shape still. For some strange reason, the about link was to an archive; there is a live about. My apology, and thanks for sticking with it! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN concerning Carlos Hank Rhon

Hi - you were right about those accounts. However, I also have some concerns about the way the phrasing of the content you added - I don't want to get involved in how it should be written, so I have started a thread at WP:BLPN - you may wish to comment there. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 10:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! The link between the two accounts was pretty obvious. Ok for your feedback regarding the phrasing, it is a little hard to fully understand the affairs in question, I admit. Yelobluread (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]