Talk:List of rulers of Ife

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on List of rulers of Ife. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110102122721/http://theooni.org:80/ to http://theooni.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Everybody is welcome
According to user:Hijiri88, "Large portions of text in this article are ungrammatical and/or barely intelligible". This is the occasion to underline the last part of the message: "Please help improve this article if you can". Pldx1 (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The above doesn't make much sense unless read as an off-topic personal remark. Are you implying that I can help improve the article and I therefore have a responsibility to do so before tagging the article for cleanup? If so, I encourage you to read WP:VOLUNTEER, and re-read the barely intelligible part of my reason: I am not a subject-expert, and so it is difficult for me to copy-edit text where I can't figure out what it means. Or are you implying that I can not help and so should not be critiquing the work of others? If this were the case, then the template itself should never be transcluded by anyone who hasn't already actively tried to clean up the transcluded article themselves, and this does not usually seem to be the case. As elsewhere, I can't make head or tail of what you are trying to say. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear user:Hijiri88. If I have correctly understood your message, you are WP:VOLUNTEER for tagging, but not for cleaning, or even for describing more precisely what could be dubious in what has been written. Thanks for your contribution! By the way, I have a slight doubt about critiquing versus criticizing: imo, the former is about the activity of a critique, the later about someone who emits a critic. Pldx1 (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am a volunteer. I have a limited amount of time in the real world, and I only apportion a small amount of that time to Wikipedia. I have already spent far too much time assuming that if I had a rational debate with you over the romanization of Korean then you would see reason, and I don't have time to clean up this article. I would prefer to actually clean the article than detail what I think needs cleaning to you; most editors of English Wikipedia can clearly see the problems with the article. Your English leval is clearly insufficient to copy-edit the article yourself, but I am not here to teach you how to improve your English (I get paid for that in the real world); I am here to build an encyclopedia. Your sarcasm is duly noted. Kindly keep sarcastic remarks to yourself in the future, if you don't want me to request that you be civility-blocked. Your knowledge of the English language is clearly limited, so I also don't need you lecturing me on the differences between "critique" and "criticize". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Pldx1 wrote elsewhere that he/she thought my placement of the clean-up template on this article had something to do with Korean romanization (!?) and the discussion above happened in this light. I was posting under the assumption that Pldx1 was actually talking about article clean-up. Admittedly, this article does currently contain some off-topic commentary about Korean romanization, but I didn't notice that until after the above discussion had taken place. My placing of the clean-up template was to do with the poor English throughout the article, not specifically in the section on diacritics (!?) that I have already mostly cleaned up. This section should be closed as having been opened in error. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Authentic... well known list from the old
The alleged AUTHENTIC LIST added by User:41.190.12.111 was nothing else than the "LA" list, commented at large in the article. Nihil novi sub sole. Pldx1 (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)