User talk:Chmyr

Abuse of speedy deletion[edit]

Some editors are in a hurry to delete new articles in the middle of being written. Thank you for their speedy action.Chmyr (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Mobile internet world[edit]

A tag has been placed on Mobile internet world requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Collectonian (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, go ahead and delete it.Chmyr 02:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources in Wikipedia[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to the Probiotic article! I noticed that you may need some help with citing sources in Wikipedia. In case you didn't already know, a good starting place would be WP:CITE. I personally use standard citation templates or Harvard referencing templates but there are many other methods listed in WP:CITE that you can choose from. –panda 22:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I had to remove the text you added to the Probiotic article since it would have been a copyright violation to include text copied from http://www.garynull.com/documents/Arthritis/Friendly_Bacteria.htm. If you are the author of the original text and would like to grant Wikipedia permission to copy your text or would like to request permission to use the text, please see WP:COPYREQ for how to do so. –panda 03:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of KenBuster[edit]

A tag has been placed on KenBuster requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- pb30<talk> 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Handset Alliance[edit]

Hi Chmyr, you previously edited the Open Handset Alliance article. I have started a discussion on article organization on the talk page that could use some outside input on the topic of effective and encyclopedic organization of the article. Please weigh in if you can. N2e 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments[edit]

Could you explain what you are referring to in Talk:2007 Korea oil spill. I really have no idea but it sounds quite serious Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in Kimchi Fridge[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Kimchi Fridge, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Kimchi Fridge is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Kimchi Fridge, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justification[edit]

The reason why this article should not be deleted has repeatedly been mentioned, saying it is a far cry from being one specific company's advertisement. A user with a biased view might ask for speedy deletion. Actually, has that user been adversely affected by the claimed "advertising nature" of this article. I suspect that the user might want to justify why this article is a piece of advertisemt. Any wikipedia article should not be perfect in its true sense, and if other editors might need to cooperate to make a wikipedia rticle perfect, which is a basic wiki sstandard and quality. Does that use have a sort of hidden cultural valndalism or what? Come out and tell me specifically what is the point?Chmyr (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud computing[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to the talk page. I've spent the last days overhauling the article and I hope you are more satisfied with the article now. Feel free to contribute yourself. samj (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the "hangon" tag[edit]

I deleted it because it was putting the article into the speedy deletion category. I agree with you that the article should not be deleted (is this for the refrigerator one?). Keeper ǀ 76 20:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PXE[edit]

On pseudoxanthoma elasticum you stated that antiangiogenetic drugs are being used to treat PXE retinopathy. This sounds logical, but a PXE website is not really the kind of source one would prefer for such a claim. Unless you can provide peer-reviewed published reports, I think this is all pretty anecdotal. Try discussing this at Talk:Pseudoxanthoma elasticum.

In general, please don't use undo unless you are going to provide a rationale for your move. I provided an edit summary when I made my edit, and I expect you to do the same. JFW | T@lk 22:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the {{wikify}} and {{unreferenced}} tags on the PXE article is obviously inappropriate. It is wikified, and every statement contains sources. I have also explained why I oppose the mention of angiogenesis inhibitors, so this is not an issue of {{POV}} but one of verifiability. Please do try to play by the rules. If you think I'm being an autocrat, please consult with other medical autocrats on WT:MED; they're a sensible bunch and I usually yield to consensus formed with those contributors. JFW | T@lk 20:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, your attitude to monopolize the article is something not socially acceptable. In the world of medicine and technology, what was right yesterday turned out to be no longer effective. Treatments you insist on the article is ancient history. Wikipedia articles can be edited by anybody, you seem to assert that what you think is classic is not acceptable in this fast-chaging world of medicine and technolgoy. And you don't even know who you're talking to.

Chmyr (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your points on the PXE talkpage. If the discussion is to be about new treatments for PXE retinopathy we should do it there.

You accusation of monopolizing an article would be valid if you had taken the trouble to respond to my requests, namely to provide evidence that this novel treatment is published in reliable sources, not just a website. See WP:MEDRS for the standards we apply for sources in medical articles.

"And you don't even know who you're talking to" - I could reverse the argument. I'd prefer to address the issues rather than an appeal to authority. JFW | T@lk 23:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say is not acceptable by Wiki editing standard, of which the basic principle calls for being edited by anybody. I am anybody and you are,too. The first time I had edited the PXE article, you erased it when I was in the middle of writing it. That is not the right attitude at all, when you consider I was not vandalizing any part of the article at all. Before you refer it to talk page, you've got to cultivate your attitude. Even long-experienced medical doctors tend to make big blunders. As for the treatment of PXE, you kept insisting on laser therapy only. Perhaps you might be funded by some corporations to carry their corporate spin. Once again, this Wikipedia article is not a sort of academic dissertation, either. Wikipedia should offer knowledges as they are available now, but not the way you want them to be. One more thing, the next time you put your opinion here, you will need to draw a line between your point and mine 'cause other editors are also watching so they won't be confused.

My userpage[edit]

Wikipedians have their userpages where they write about themselves, their interests and their contributions. If you don't like it, don't look at it, but certainly don't leave personal messages the way you did.

Your previous message demonstrates that you have failed to grasp the basics of assuming good faith and remaining civil. I removed your contributions because they lacked the kind of sources we normally require for medical pages (see WP:MEDRS). Only when Sharon Terry came about and provided these references was the content suitable for inclusion. Rather than ranting at me, perhaps you should observe the process and do better next time. JFW | T@lk 21:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way you talk is something like the following: You kill people on the street, and you say "don't look at it, if you don't like it". What you write in your user page comes in a public domain. For example, you get involved in a lewd and obscene conduct in public, you would like to say "you don't have to look at it, if you don't like it." That might make sense, but you know I have a freedom of speech,as much as you do.

The main thing I'd like to talk about is your uncilivized attitude toward my edit. While I was in the middle of editing, you deleted it right away. Is that the 'civil" standard you're talking about? Basically, the article PXE lacks a lot of recent developments so you might want to do some more research if you think you are in that profession. Personally I'm sick and tired of talking to people who are obsessed with bigotry and who think they are the center of the world. Chmyr (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want anybody to leave an unpleasant personal mesage in your userpage, then you might want to block any edit attempts there.Chmyr (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of KenBuster[edit]

The article KenBuster has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable technical device.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]