User talk:Dawnseeker2000

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Starship - We Built This City.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Following are tagged as proposals for deletion:

• File:Tiesto - Adagio for Strings.ogg
• File:Corey Hart - Never Surrender.ogg
• File:Hall & Oates - Out of Touch.ogg

If left uncontested for at least seven days, the files above will be deleted. George Ho (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello Dawnseeker2000, This is to let you know that one of your recent edit at Arfajah caused a citation error.

Do not add invalid url and use preview before saving your edit. Happy editing.––kemel49 ^{(connect)(contri)} 04:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello Dawnseeker2000, This is to let you know that one of your recent edit at Water supply and sanitation in Iran caused a citation error.

Do not add invalid url and use preview before saving your edit. Happy editing.––kemel49 ^{(connect)(contri)} 04:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Can please help me check if this is a reliable reference for a new Wikipedia article Madambola (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for uploading File:Doran - Monuments cover.jpg . The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International School of Engineering, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Applied engineering.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of bands from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Volta.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• While I was trying to complete the article, someone has continuously deleted and removed, making me very tired. I hope you calmly help me have time to make it better. If I break your house, do you feel happy? I have explained a lot that I am tired and weak and forced to use the phone, but it seems that you don't care and always preserve certain discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:800:3D54:32EC:56A8:B5A6:7F2A:9C1E (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Dawnseeker2000, great work on the date audit and general article cleanup, but note that your edits for overlink/geolink are sometimes going too far – e.g. [1], [2], [3] removed all geolinks from the intro, and all links to the city (which is definitely not well-known enough to fall under the overlink guidance's "common terms"!). Also, the geolinks guidance states that it doesn't apply to infoboxes, and in these cases the edits contradict guidance on that infobox template that those fields should be links. I've corrected those ones, but this might apply to other articles you've been cleaning up. Thanks, Joe D (t) 20:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi and thanks for the input, though to say that removing links to Bristol is an error is correct in terms of the items that I mention in my edit summary, which, as you saw, reads "date format audit, refine ref details, link maintenance (linked miscapitalizations, WP:OVERLINK, WP:GEOLINK, unlink common terms)".As you're aware, WP:OVERLINK talks about settlements, and my approach to this has been to not include obscure (or just plain small/tiny) locations. With that in mind, we're talking about one of the world's most easily recognizable countries. Continuing on with that, Bristol is not exactly an unknown settlement either.So, if you're truly set in your approach, and I realize that texting may not necessarily be the best venue for this kind of conversation, I think we are probably going to disagree, at least partially, about what's going on. Do you want me to remove Bristol from my settings file based on the idea that it's a relatively unknown city in England and/or the world? Dawnseeker2000 20:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Overlink says "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article..." In these cases, the articles were about suburbs of the city of Bristol, therefore the term is extremely relevant to the content of the article and it is not an overlink. Overlink also says "Be conscious of your own demographic biases" – the fact that Bristol is well known within England doesn't make it an overlink.

Are you saying that you are automatically deleting all links to a whole list of articles without first checking whether such link removals are appropriate to the context? Joe D (t) 20:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Brother, I'd appreciate it if you didn't underestimate me. With that, I'm a little closer to being done with this conversation. Dawnseeker2000 21:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

One more question: does the template documentation override overlink/geolink? Dawnseeker2000 20:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Forgive me for peppering you with these extra replies, but I chose to send off a response rather than working on a draft. I wanted to mention the philosophy of how I'm approaching this task. If, for example, there was a similar-sized community in the global south, I'd probably avoid it, and to continue on with what I've already mentioned, and I'll remove Bristol if you insist, but cites in England are pretty recognizable for readers of encyclopedias. I'm avoiding removing links to similar sized cities in African countries, as well as those in Southeast Asia, etc. If you take a step back and consider locations on a global scale, Bristol is a recognizable city in one of the worlds most prominent countries. Dawnseeker2000 20:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]