User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Hello Alpha Quadrant, please offer me some help in approving a well deserved page for musician Jeff Dayton. Thank you in advance for your great assistance.

Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian231 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The article needs to be written in a neutral point of view. The sources also need to be properly cited. For information on how to fix these see: WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Also please make sure your sources are reliable third party sources. Once this is done, the article will likely be accepted. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 5845 (number)

An article that you have been involved in editing, 5845 (number), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5845 (number). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Galactic Quadrant.PNG

I'm curious about this image. Why is the picture shown with Sol/Earth in the middle of the Alpha quadrant instead of bordering the Alpha and Beta quadrants as is described in Galactic quadrant? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The article describes Sol as at the edge of the Alpha and Beta Quadrants? Then that is incorrect. Sol is toward the middle of the Alpha Quadrant. I will look over the article and fix this. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's been too long since I've paid enough attention to Star Trek to know, I just noticed that the article and image didn't match up. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Should site a source? I own a copy of the official guide. I could site that. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to change it yeah, you should cite a source since it currently cites multiple sources for the other way. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This could get hard, the exact area is never announced live on screen. Several of the shows technical people have drawn the Quadrants the way I did. However many fans believe the quadrants to be divided the way described in the article. I don't know which one would be considered true. I think it would be based on the tech manual. That is why I drew it that way. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case, maybe just a new section in the article about the alternate explanation (yours) and moving the image there would be the way to go? That (or something like it) would seem to work out since there are conflicting sources, none of them perfectly reliable (since they're not on-screen). That way you also don't really have to worry about the rest of the article, just write what's supported by the tech manual. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Vulcanbarnstar.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vulcanbarnstar.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Powers ^T 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

getting help with disruptive editor on nytimes and the holocaust

thanks very much for your advice and offer of help. is this appropriate to put on the discussion page: ":could you please explain why you removed huge amounts of referenced material from the original article? i used to be a professional writer and i enjoy working the editors and co-authors to improve an article. i love working on language to remove unwanted POV. you have made many accusatory generalizations of POV, original research, or 'lies' as you put it, but do not respond when these things are improved or explained. Please also explain why you have ignored all the requests on this page for consensus and collaborative work from myself and other editors. you have not responded at all to efforts made to answer your objections - for example, to the quality of Leff as a reference, to the Newseum covering the NYT. this has made working together impossible. you removed footnoted material from a complete paper by Dr. Leff that is linked to on the web for all to read, and substituted a quote from an abstract that was reductionistic and misleading, and not responded to objections about that. you have not responded to objections about the inaccurate and polemical lead sentence. indeed, you are acting like you three own this article and are the only ones whose opinion matters. you have not responded to information showing that this topic is not trivial, as you claim. if you cannot respond constructively, i will proceed to report you, as a disruptive editors."Cimicifugia (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia

He would likely not read it because it is so long. I tried talking to him and he told me to go back to editing Star Trek articles. The only thing left to do would be to take it to WP:ANI. He does not wish to have neutral intervention so the only thing left to do would be to ask for administrator mediation. Also as advice, when writing on the ANI board, make sure your post is neutral. If it sounds like your angry the administrators will be less likely to help. Present the case neutrally and it should go smoother. If you would like me to participate in the discussion please notify me here. I hope this helps --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

hi alpha - i went to an/i (faster than i wanted to - i was seeking help on the Judaism page on writing an effective plea for help and bali reported me). i tried to be factual and calm in tone, but don't know if i succeeded. i would appreciate your participation.Cimicifugia (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia

The content is not copyrighted

Hello Alpha Quadrant, how are you. Recently i contributed and edited a sandboxed article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/TradeKey It was declined and the reason mentioned was that the article contains copyrighted content, which is not true i wrote and edited the parts of the sandboxed article. Can you please advise me which part did you find copyrighted? so that I can correct it and try to resubmit it. You help will be highly appreciated. Also advise me i found some more references which are: http://www.ameinfo.com/72761.html http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=200806108863 Are the above two eligible to be included, because one of the editor told me to place more external references. I hope you will reply me soon. regards, (Xuberantguy (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC))

A automated bot reported that the article was a copy paste from several sources. I reviewed the report here and it it appeared correct. I then declined it. I hope this helps --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, both references are reliable. Sorry about the late response. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Should now i resubmit it for review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/TradeKey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xuberantguy (talk • contribs) 15:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Alpha Quadrant You may recall that in May this year you sent some advice to me regarding a new article that I was trying to put on Wikipedia regarding the unsolved murder of a lady called Jean Townsend. Your advice was good and most helpful. In the light of what you'd said I went away and did a lot of research. I then came back with more information and worked hard to improve the citations. In the meantime, I'd obtained old newspaper articles (at some effort and expense) and trailed around a number of libraries in the UK for information. I produced what I thought was a much improved version of what you'd already said was a good article. I'm turning to you because you seem sympathetic. The truth is the article has been rejected yet again. I find the comment left by the reviewer to be offensive and does not really give any indication what I should do now. I'm angry and upset - when I see some of the unauthenticated rubbish that is still on wikipedia I'm cross that my brief and well-research bit of work should be turned down. What can I do? Ian Vanarkadie001i (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Great job on the article. Your writing is very good. The tag left on the article indicates that it was not properly formatted with headers and subsections. According to the last reviewer it has been fixed and ready for acceptation. They do have a question on what you would like the title to be though. I hope this helps. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It does help. Many thanks for your assistance. I'm perfectly happy to accdept their suggestion regarding the title and theme of the article, but I'm not sure how to go about telling them that. Sorry, can you help again? Ian Vanarkadie001i (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference feedback

Hi Alpha Quadrant,

Thank you for the warm welcome. I revised the layout of references for my two articles (Royce R. Lewellen (Judge) and Louis Lucas. I followed the instructions for "General References" rather than "Footnotes" as each of the sources support a fair amount of material in the articles, the articles are fairly short and there is no contentious material that is likely to be challenged. Do you think this is fine or should I be using footnotes. Sbmrl 19:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alpha Quadrant. You have new messages at VQuakr's talk page.
Message added 19:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GA review of Dominion War

Hello, Alpha Quadrant. I am planning to review this article, as requested at WP:GAN. I shall try to leave some opening comments within 24 hours. Super Mario Man 20:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for all this delay. The review is finished for the time being, and has been placed on hold, so that alterations can be made to the article. Feel free to ask at either the review or on my talkpage if clarification is needed for any of the suggestions made. Super Mario Man 20:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Leghari declined

You nominated this article[1] as "patent nonsense." While it is not particularly well written, it is also not incomprehensible gibberish. It's a good idea to check a page's history before nominating it for CSD, this one has been on Wikipedia since 2006 and been edited by numerous users in good standing, it's likely one of them would have already noticed if it qualified for speedy deletion. Please be more careful in the future when trying to determine if an article meets any of the criteria. They are deliberately narrow in their scope and poor writing and poorly translated material are explicitly exempted from the criterion you used. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong revert?

This one. I was reverting vandalism, not adding it, as you see. So I guess it was a wrong warning, so I hope you don't mind me crossing it on my talk page. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

- Woops, my apologies, I must have clicked the revert in huggle the same time as the you. That explains why I got a error message. Sorry, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  - No problem. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This revert

[2] The comment looks constructive and policy-based to me. Sometimes, with Huggle, clicking on the wrong button makes the wrong edit be reverted and the wrong user warned. Is this what happened here? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought I was reverting the article Crib. My connection must be lagging, (this is the second time I clicked the wrong revision today). Sorry --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Le Corbeau

Hi, I noticed you reverted an edit as vandalism, not doubt in good faith. I left a message at talk:Le Corbeau and would welcome your input. Superp (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lou Slaby

FYI,

Lrsea (talk · contribs) asked for help with refs, in IRC, and I advised them (23:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)).

The user previously asked for help with it in IRC, and I answered, and placed help on their user page (on 5th Sept).

This second time, I also added an example reference to the article, and talked them through how it worked.

They said that they intend to work on the article, and I emphasized that they can ask for help at any time.

Best, Chzz ► 23:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for telling me. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Vandalism" on Sidhpur page

The paragraph I removed from the Sidhpur article was lifted, without attribution, directly from the book "Hindu Temples and What Happened to Them: The Islamic Evidence", as you can see here on google books. In fact, the copying extends to other paragraphs, as I noted on the copyright discussion page. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations page says that the "Otherwise, if some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known.", (elsewhere it said "If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page, if it is active. (If it is not, your note may not be seen for some time; please bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems instead)", and as the discussion page was not active, that is what I did. I also put a helpme on my userpage and asked for guidance in the issue, and Chzz came and agreed with me. I noted the apparent plagiarism on my edit summary, as well as the only discussion on my talk page prior to yours, so I don't see why, if an assumption of good faith is made, that my removal of the paragraph would be considered vandalism, the copyrighted paragraph restored and me warned. Vacationing55 (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have confirmed that this is a copyright violation and was not vandalism. Further, I have noticed other incidents of you reverting edits which certainly do not appear to be vandalism, such as this and this. Please slow down and be more careful when you are on vandalism patrol. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I thought the Sidhpur was content removal vandalism and spam, a comment was placed in the article about where to find information on the topic. I thought it was vandalism, so I reverted. As for the Aphrodite article only two words were added and they were un-sourced so I reverted. The Ho Chi Minh City article I was unsure of, I probably should have clicked "pass" instead. I'll slow down when reverting. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's all I ask. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Lame Reversion of USCGC Eagle (WIX-327)

A quick glance at the change and its comment would have told you that this was not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.246.51 (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It was content removal vandalism, removing content from a article because you don't like how it is written is not how to fix a article. This is why I reverted. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Rescue

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Herbert Garrison has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to undo that vandalism, I thought I reverted both edits. Thanks for fixing it. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Tool-server English Wikipedia Internal Account Creation Interface confirmation

English Wikipedia Internal Account Creation Interface confirmation

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request so welcome to the team. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide thoroughly to familiarize yourself with the process.

You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in and to get any advice on requests as well as the mailing list. Please note that we have implemented a policy of zero tolerance on mishandled requests, and that failure to assess correctly will result in suspension. I would like to emphasize that it is not a race to complete a request, and each one should be handled diligently and thoroughly.

Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day, although you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked "Account Creator Needed" by the bot and "Flagged user needed" in the tool. However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM.

Please keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse will result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)