User talk:John B123/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:John B123. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Thanks for creating BSA unit twins, John B123!

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

Nice job! I added one citation needed template to the lead as it was a sentence I think needs a source behind it, otherwise I think the page looks very good! Let me know if you have any questions.

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

Learn more about page curation.

SEMMENDINGER (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Motorcycling WikiProject. Hopefully you have a good time, start many new articles and can contribute lots to the existing ones as we need that. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought I'd mention that some of your references may not be highly thought of. Motorcyclespecs.Za that you have abbrieviated to MCS - which I thought was Motorcycle Sport as you wrote it into the prose - is regarded as a scraper site by some editors, that is, .Za trawls the internet and then plagiarises content, presenting it as their own. I have some concerns about Silodrome, BSA Hailwood and BSAOC as seemingly amateur self-published souces. It seems you have been keyword search-engineing for this stuff. I have only glanced at what is already on my Watchlist, and I don't really want any in-depth involvment as I've all-but stopped submitting prose and only return to WP to carry out a bit of maintenance-editing; one of the main reasons I've stopped is the prevalence of the flawed Wikipedia system which can be seen at WP:VNT - it doesn't have to be right, it just needs to have been published. WP still relies upon published content, but increasingly nowadays they can write anything at a website, with no historical archives as a hard-publisher (or affiliations to such) and content can be plagiarised from anywhere including WP without acknowledgement to the source - WP:CIRCULAR. I also noticed the name Rowena Hoseason - it was a private website run from a house in rural Dorset or similar, inviting/accepting amateur content from owners of classic bikes. I think it was bought-out (exit-strategy) by a better-known name. Another thing I could mention is trivia such as 'most were black, but some were red or silver', is probably unnecessary content, but I can't remember exactly - senior moments are, sadly, increasing.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: - Hi. Thanks for your comments and also your edits on the BSA articles. Whilst I can understand the need for verifiability, as you point out, its not the fail-safe it was intended to be. Having worked at a BSA dealer part time when I was at college (many years ago), I could write far more about the different models, but I couldn't verify any of it. I've tried to use as reliable sources as possible, but on occasions have had to use whatever is available. Where my prior knowledge tells me something isn't correct, then I haven't included it no matter how many sources it's in. (For example many sources give the A7 Star Twin as having twin carbs. It was an option, but nearly all were supplied with a single carb, the option being there so twin carbs could be used in AMA racing). MCS to me is Motorcycle Sport too, but Motorcyclespecs.Za call themselves that. Cheers --John B123 (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I had to really think about where to find this reversion early in my WP career. All I wanted was to link to the images for a greater reader-understanding of the words I wrote: one, two and scroll down. Similarly, this one, where I wanted to show the difference in height only, no info from there.

(Continuing) Unsuitability of .Za is something you might like to confirm with Dennis Bratland? I don't profess to know them all (or necessarliy agree with their non-usage), but try to remember. . Thanks for the BSA A10 umbrella article - only glanced at it, but it's something two of us had contemplated but you've certainly done a better job than I could've.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: Thanks for taking the time to find that. I'll ask Dennis Bratland if he can confirm what is or isn't considered RS as far as bikes are concerned. Cheers --John B123 (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prostitution in Iraq, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asayish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there

I thought I'd better draw your attention to the Nana Plaza article, specifically to an editor who has today removed the additions that you made to the article on 25 March 2018, describing them as "countless inacurate references and spam links." I had a similar experience on 8 December 2016 when the same editor removed numerous content and citation additions I had made (including one sourced from the Daily Telegraph) because they were "spam links". A look at the editor's account indicates that this is the only article it has ever been used to edit. I am not aware of any specific policy the editor has violated, but at the very least the approach used by the editor is responsible for the fact that the article has currently no citations. I suppose if this editor's approach is correct, the obvious question is whether the article is WP:NOTABLE if it cannot be sourced with anything other than "spam links". What do you think?

Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Polly Tunnel: - Hi. I'm not sure what the object of that edit was really. It simply removed the references but left the content untouched. If the links were "inaccurate references and spam links", then I would have expected the content to be changed to remove the inaccuracies/spam. Looking back at the edits he made to the content you added, it seems that anything he doesn't like, or doesn't agree with his personal view he deletes. In my view Nana Plaza is WP:NOTABLE and whilst the sources may not be the best, they seem to be ok under WP:RS. I'm inclined to revert his edits.

On a couple of different matters that I've been intending to ask your opinion on:

Prostitution in Tibet, which I note you translated from French a few years ago. The article has a NPOV tag on it, which I don't think is justified. Whilst there are a lot of accusations by the Dali Lama and government is exile, they're all balanced by counterarguments. Without wishing to undermine the effort you have put into this article, as a whole the article comes across as a political argument that happens to be about prostitution rather than an article about prostitution. I think it needs rewriting. There is quite a lot of neutral source material available about 1990 to the present day. There is also some information available about the histry pre 1900. The Dali Lama's accusations and the counter-views could be condensed into a single section and non-contentious sourced materials used for most of the article.

Prostitution in Monaco - There has been a lot of material added by two editors (or possibly 1 editor using 2 accounts). Most of it seems irrelevant to me, but I'd appreciate a second opinion before removing anything. Thanks, John --John B123 (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

1. Nana Plaza - I agree that this editor's deletions could do with being reverted. They may object, of course, as it seems to be their only article and they behave as if they WP:OWN it.
2. Prostitution in Tibet - This was the first article I translated and I agree it could do with a re-write. I've always thought of it as WP:POV because there's presumably a Chinese govenment view of things which I don't think gets covered very well. But I agree with your analysis – the real problem is that it's written as a political article which happens to be about prostitution rather than a social article which happens to be about a disputed territory. When I looked I couldn't find the additional sources necessary to improve it, but as you seem to have located them please feel free to re-write it as you suggest.
3. Prostitution in Monaco - The added content seems to repeat what's already said, to tell us about things that are not the case (such as "Monaco reported zero arrests...") or to discuss more general women's issues. There are probably a few details in it that are worth preserving, such as some of the legal penalties for procuring, but from my viewp oint most of it should probably go.

Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Polly Tunnel: Thanks. I'll also look at reinstating the previous deletions of your edits on Nana Plaza . --John B123 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Polly Tunnel: Hi. The references have been removed again by the same editor. I have reverted his edit. Cheers --John B123 (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@John B123: Thanks. I thought something like that might happen. I notice that the editor's edit summary said: "Another round of spam culled. If user John B123 continues to undo justified edits removing spam he will be reported to admin for violation of Wiki T&Cs/guidelines." The editor does not appear to have used WP:ANI before (unless using a different account or as IP) but does appear to have heard of the process. I expect the intended argument would be a strict interpretation of what constitutes a WP:RS and hence that all of the deletion should stand. Of course, the logical extension of that argument is that what the editor has left in should also be removed and that the subject is unverifiable and should not have an article. The most obvious parallel counter-argument to this editor's behaviour is WP:OWN, and the editor could potentially be reported for that or given an ownership WP:WARNING on his/her user talk page.

The qualification in your edit summary "...as previously discussed with other editors" reminded me that the discussion here is unlikely to have been seen by this editor. If there is an expectation that the editor will make a complaint against you then it might be helpful to move this discussion to the article's talk page. That way any third party will be able to see that the editor had read your arguments. It appears that this article has a history of creating disagreement over sourcing. The article's talk page has discussions dating back to about a decade ago on the subject of whether the addition of certain content and sources was justified or not. However, this editor does not appear to have been involved in those discussions – the first edit listed for the editor was in 2016. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Polly Tunnel: - Thanks as always for your advice. Copying the relevant parts of this discussion to the talk page is a good idea, I may also seek a third party opinion. Cheers --John B123 (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed your recent partial reversion of my edit to this page. Although I stopped by in my 'search and delete' mission for most instances of the word 'interestingly' because it's editorializing, I thought that deletion of an unnecessary jargon abbreviation, which is one of my other objectives, was also proper. Although the Swedish Association for Sex Education might be generally known locally as the RSFU, I suspect that this is known to far fewer than even 1% of Wikipedia's readership, who do not live in Sweden, and it does not appear except for immediately following what it abbreviates, so that it's not useful in saving space via repetition, either. These abbreviations, which I suspect are familiar to those who write the articles but are unnecessary, make them harder to read, which is why I remove them. Please reconsider. As I look at the article more closely, there are a couple of others (SOU, which is spelled out only in a reference, and NIKK, although at least that one is repeated several times) that I think should also be spelled out each time.

Regards,

Ira Leviton (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ira Leviton: - Hi. In principle I agree with your logic about the use of acronyms, however there are a couple of other things to be considered here. Firstly "Swedish Association for Sex Education" isn't the name of the organisation, that is a translation of their title "Riksförbundet för sexuell upplysning". There is a general convention when writing about foreign organisation (I don't know if WP include this in their guidelines) that you either write the foreign name and then the English in brackets, or the English name and then the acronym from the native language in brackets, eg "Riksförbundet för sexuell upplysning (Swedish Association for Sex Education)" or "Swedish Association for Sex Education (RFSU)". In the second case, the fact the acronym doesn't match the English name indicates the name is a translation. Secondly, RFSU is what the organisation calls itself, Riksförbundet för sexuell upplysning only appears on thier website in the 'about us' section, the header and all other references to itself use RFSU. That said, I don't feel that strongly about it so if you still want to remove the acronym then I wouldn't object. On a side note, it should be RFSU not RSFU as used in the article. Cheers --John B123 (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, John B123, This is strictly a housekeeping question: in this edit at Talk:Trans woman, you struck out some text you wrote, and added new text in an apparent change of mind. This is fine, and perfectly according to principles (WP:REDACT). Otoh, in the same edit you also struck comments by another editor, which seems to me a violation of WP:TPO, unless they are socks or fulfill one of the other strike criteria. The whole point of striking your own text but not the responses, imho, is to make it clear that the subsequent opinions by other users while earnestly given, may now be read differently, but in context, given that your now-struck opinion has changed. Striking their text obscures this, and may make it appear that either they have changed their mind (no way for us to know that) or that they are a sock. My suggestion would be to unstrike the edits of 21:38 and 22:18, 6 August 2018. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Hi, thanks for the heads-up. I've unstruck the two posts as suggested. --John B123 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I've reverted few of your edits, which have replaced vector maps of relevant information hosted on Wikimedia Commons with inferior quality images uploaded to this local wiki (English Wikipedia). Please create or edit the SVG maps on Wikimedia Commons and upload them there. Thank you. 144.2.73.21 (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• @144.2.73.21: Whilst SVP is the preferred format, PNG is also acceptable (see WP:CMF). Of more importance than file types is the information contained in the map. To revert to an inaccurate version a Luddite action. --John B123 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I will not assume good faith here, because of wrong place to upload and not tagging it {{Vector version available}}. There's no demonstration for the SVG (or your PNG version) to be incorrect or correct, only possibly the SVG being (out)dated. 144.2.73.21 (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, do you have an opinion on WP:BRD or WP:3O? I feel like you've not addressed my concerns in the edit summary. 144.2.73.21 (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In good faith, I've decided I'll do the SVG edit for you. sigh. 144.2.73.21 (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Okay, I finally understand your motives behind not updating the SVG. The SVG source is bollocks, drawn by existing colors not by shapes of counties; or in other words, not meant to be updated. I still condemn the edit for not backlinking to File:NevadaProstitutionCountiesMap.svg and not making the issue obvious in the edit summary. 144.2.73.21 (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I disagree that the earlier svg is an alternative version (as you have now tagged on the file) as the information contained is incorrect. This is could potentially cause other users to revert back to the svg, in good faith, without realising it is inaccurate. To be honest I'm not fussed if you accept good faith or not. Fell free to WP:3O or even on WP:DRN as I would far rather have an accurate map in a less preferred format than an inaccurate map in the 'correct' format: accuracy takes precedence over housekeeping imo. --John B123 (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Tagging {{Vector version available}} on enwiki would be inaccurate due to lack of quality parameter (comparing to commons:Template:Vector version available), and there is no machine readable source information in your PNG upload anyway – usually {{Own}} or one of the more specific templates on Commons, such as commons:Template:Derived from. I slightly suspect the original uploader of the SVG to also be the author of this updated PNG . So, the information is incorrect anyway; and not fixable due to – uhm – errors in the upload process. You have more editing privileges than me to fix the issues; by moving the file to Commons, first. 144.2.73.21 (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I tried to transfer the image to commons but got an error message because NevadaProstitutionCountiesMap.svg exists. --John B123 (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Openlydialectic. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Prostitution in Georgia (country), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Openlydialectic: I think you may have used the wrong template here. John B123 (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, John B123. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Index of brothel articles, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. 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 here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I created File:Prostitution in Europe.svg to replace your file by a svg picture, however, I believe there is a mistake in it: Corsica is part of France and should follow the same laws. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Comte0: - Thanks. SVG files are a mystery to me and my previous attempts to change this file into an svg ended in disaster. You are of course right about Corsica, being a region of France French Law applies. --John B123 (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

In inkscape select the territory then select a color on the bottom bar. I found it pretty easy, but then I started with a svg map already done, I think I was lucky to find a good map to begin with.

Corsica is actually a territory, and has additional laws. Being from Paris, I wasn't so sure about its laws, but a quick google search told me that prostitution laws should indeed be the same. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Comte0: - Thanks, I'll have a look at inkscape. Apricate the info about Corsica. (I didn't read beyond the first paragraph of the WP article.) I have some very fond memories of Paris. --John B123 (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I see you managed to update the map, congratulation! Regards, Comte0 (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Comte0: - Thanks, and thanks for pointing me to Inkscape. which I'm getting the hang of. I understand you are multilingual. It would be helpful if you could translate the legend of File:Prostitution in Europe.svg into other languages. Regards --John B123 (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I just translated it in french. I also took the liberty to shorten your english text. And I think that the first legend and the last are not actually in use in the map. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Comte0: - Thanks. You're right about the first and last legends, but I was keeping them in for consistancy across all the other Prostitution by region maps. --John B123 (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, ok, that makes sense that way. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, you've definitely owned the history of that article. Would you please consider explaining (in the article talk page) what all those edits amount to? You've used mainly just two edit summaries; those are not a useful guide to your intentions.

Please consider using a draft in your own userspace for experimental edits, instead of cluttering-up article history with edits of your own edits. Thanks. MrDemeanour (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll add some explanatory notes on the talk page --John B123 (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You have reverted a short edit I had made twice. In spite of clarifications, corrections I made and references added. Last revert did not provide a reason. If there is a problem with facts and figures, please let me know so we can be all informed. Repeated reverts without cause is not in line with Wiki policies. Thanks.Murat (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed repeated reverts are against WP policies, yet I'm the 3rd editor who has had to revert your POV edits. I have seen no facts and figures yet, just POV. For example, "After the failure of the Guarantor states and UN to intervene", the British did have plans to intervene if an annexation took place. --John B123 (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: your revert. samarthbharat.com, valmiki.iitk.ac.in, and copy paste from this link does not meets WP:RS.

This appears to have been imported by an IP from other irrelevant articles. But you should not be restoring since there is no relevance of those subjects at all. Qualitist (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought a collaborative piece run by Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur based on the Ramayana would be RS.

The fact it was added by an IP is irrelevant. Other editors would no doubt have reviewed it at the time of addition and found the section acceptable. --John B123 (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit to add: the goalposts seem to be moving, first "Original research unreliable sources", now "unreliable sources, copyright violation" --John B123 (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday the page came into my attention after I saw this edit where an editor created connection between a sloka and prostitution in absence of any mention of prostitution. That is called original research and it is also unconvincing. Same was case with a couple of other paragraphs of the article which was directly lifted from websites without confirming any connection. These things require academic sources not just simple websites. Original research should be avoided. Qualitist (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

And the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur is not academic? --John B123 (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I described above that source was misused. Still you can open https://www.valmiki.iitk.ac.in it says: "Users can edit content now. If you want to be an editor, please send us your credentials." Qualitist (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, contributors need to show that they have recognised knowledge of the subject to edit, unlike WP where anybody who thinks they have knowledge can edit.--John B123 (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi John

I wanted to ask if you've been having any problems using the Wayback Machine. For some time now I've found that any attempt to access an archived webpage results in an error message. I'm wondering if this a consequence of my own location or set-up, or whether there's some general problem with the site at the moment.

-- Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Polly Tunnel: - Hi, hope all is well with you. Generally the site is slow, but sometimes is at a snail pace. When it is at it's worst I do sometimes get error messages, even going from their 'calendar' that shows when the page was archived to the page. I have also had problems from links on WP that were made a long time ago. I suspect they may have changed the code in the centre part of the url that indicates the date archived. Sometimes if you find a link from WP gives an error message, searching the original url in the wayback search box brings up the page. All that aside, I haven't found it any better or worse than normal lately. Cheers --John B123 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@John B123: - Thanks; you've helped me solve the problem. As you weren't getting the same issues as me, I tried checking up on my own system. It turns out that my browser was blocking the site and throwing up the error message. I've cleared my browsing history and that seems to have got it working again. All the best -- Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Fremont Street (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Clark County

Las Vegas Strip (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Clark County

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The NPOV is not political correctness. And please search in google about word "Japanese military sexual slavery". It is one of common name about "comfort women". Thanks. --Garam (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed "Japanese military sexual slavery" is a common name for "comfort women", but common name is a different thing to which means, i.e definition, as used in the text. The cited works used this term in an attempt to distinguish between Volunteer Corps (Jeongsindae) and Comfort Women (wianbu). It did not give it as an overall meaning of "comfort women".

I have absolutely no objection to the phrase being used in the article, but not as what comes across as a definition in the lead section. --John B123 (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERNAMES. And commonly the "Japanese military sexual slavery" means "comfort women" only, not "volunteer labour corps". Thanks. --Garam (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Comfort women are part of (and the victims of) Japanese military sexual slavery. They are not the entirety of it, it also includes the people who ran the brothels, the soldiers who used the women etc. The people who ran the brothels were part of Japanese military sexual slavery but that does not make them comfort women. As far as both factual accuracy and WP:OTHERNAMES are concerned, "Comfort women", which means "Japanese military sexual slavery" is incorrect. --John B123 (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Then, you means, is "Comfort women or Japanese military sexual slavery" okay? --Garam (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer: "Comfort women (Japanese military sexual slavery) were women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army in occupied territories before and during World War II."

Discussion transferred to talk:Comfort women#"Japanese military sexual slavery" --John B123 (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marguerite Bellanger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi John B123. I just ran across your use [1] of therichest.com. Like famousbirthdays.com [2], this is unreliable. When in doubt about the reliability of a reference, you can check WP:RSP or search WP:RSN. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi John. I wanted to let you know that I reverted your revert at Prostitution in Overseas France#Martinique. I might have left this message on the talk page, but it appears to be unused there. Anyway, academically speaking, that link is not even a publication. It is an abstract of a conference proceeding. There's usually no review involved - just pay your registration fee and submit an abstract, and up it goes. And of course, it's just the abstract of the actual presentation, which was most likely not recorded, and could not be considered published. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: Hi. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but I'm disappointed that WP:BRD has been totally ignored. My experience on WP is that most administrators are really fair, helpful and a credit to the position, others seem to think that because they are an administrator the rules don't apply to them, they can do what they want and their world is final. --John B123 (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I'm new user. I accidentally click "Undo" against you. This is my mistake. Forgive me! I know you very upset against me. I can't revert for you because I'm new user. Sorry man.... :(

Alif Fizol (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I got reported by other user by issue of WP:INFOBOXFLAG, so I try delete by using manual edit not "Undo". Again, I feel sorry for you.

Alif Fizol (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)