Archive of old posts[edit]

Cagliostro (horse)[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cagliostro (horse), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Cagliostro (horse). Dana boomer (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campari (horse)[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Campari (horse), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Campari (horse). Dana boomer (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yasin, December 2011[edit]

Hello!

This message I sent to User:Nimom0, who asked my advice:

==Yasin==

Hello, thanks for asking my advice on the editing of the Khalid Yasin-page. However, I think you'd better ask for help at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard-page, and explain your case over there.. After all, apart from the advice that youtube-vids are not considered as WP:RS, there is not much I can tell you right now. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please resolve the upcoming edit-war over there. That would be the most peaceful solution. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I simply ask: is the point to get a factual biography or to support (old) disputed claims of a heavily debated person?--Caygill (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factual biographies need to be supported by verifiable, valid sources. THe problem here is that the 'negative' story can be verified by valid sources. Thus, facts from these sources may be used, as long as it is placed in neutral words. If you have a valid source that provides 'positive' facts about mr. Yasin, please feel free to use them. And as the sources contradict heavily in how they view mr. Yasin, I wish not to get involved in this matter. I will only remove all youtube-links per WP:RS.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source I used was a Youtube-upload of a lengthy feature interview by a Dutch broadcasting company NMO, gone bankrupt since publication. It is very much a valid and verifiable source, addressing the particular questions, but cannot be linked to, as the whole domain and company does not exist. This must be more a question of copyright rather than sourcing? Can I somehow solve the problem?--Caygill (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Did you find the link to the interview I put on the noticeboard?Jeff5102 (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, I've used it! And halfway there, come a long way already with the article. Got some new, controversial stuff from more recent times also, and hope to get a good balance, as I get it all written down.--Caygill (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Khalid Yasin. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you need to review WP:CLAIM - you've been inserting the word "claimed" into the article in many areas, against guidelines. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I simply tried to provide an opposite view (which I believe is the factual) to claims, which are highly negatively labeling for the portrayed person. Please also see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Khalid_Yasin - I'm happy to get any help to improve the article.--Caygill (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are working on a WP:BLP. All views, including "opposite" ones, must come from reliable secondary sources. Putting the word "claimed" in front of cited material is not the correct approach; nor is inserting your own personal opinions (e.g. "This statement seems wrong and taken out of context, where Yasin speaks about historical writings and customs of that time."). All this needs to be fixed quickly. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jayg, but how do dispute or address false or mis-quoted information? You will find one single source for all these "views" now dominating the article, interviews and a Dutch documentary contradicting them. If someone get printed that you have a big mole on your nose, should that be prominent part of your biography, especially if you don't have one? Help me out here, don't just throw WP-acronyms at me! --Caygill (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You "dispute or address false or mis-quoted information" by citing other reliable sources, not by putting the words "claimed" in front of every sentence, or inventing your own arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up a lot now, looking for better and more sources for further edits--Caygill (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted my edit for Nokia Lumia 800[edit]

I have moved answer/discussion about this to talk page of Nokia 800 "Is Lumia manufactured in China or in Salo, Finland?? False facts, overinterpretation or what?." where you can find my answer and arguments, edited properly which is not done here below. And also you are asked to write down your point of view on this.77.254.134.147 (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not onNokia Lumia 800. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

If you are taking part in any conflicts then please be informed I am not interested in, and this is unacceptable and waste of my time. Acceptable for me is getting to concensus as I've tried to obtain with above initiated discussion. 77.254.134.147 (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume good faith, but 99,9% of your edits on both the Polish and English name space concerns introducing negative bias in favor of the Meego based N9. I have no interest in your battle in good vs evil (Linux vs Microsoft), but I have tried to use my time to bring Lumia and Windows Phone articles up to Wikipedia standards.--Caygill (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Nokia Lumia 800, you may beblocked from editing.

You keep editting for several times materials which are promoting certain products but deleting facts which are not your's adverting point of view, hence you create more advert then wikipedia article which is against Wikipedia policies IMHO. I assume your activity is intentional, but wikipedia is not for adverts, please stop it. Try to find neutral POV based upon true facts, which are as they are and which are verifiable. Follow Wikipedia rules please.77.254.134.147 (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is utterly unfounded what you write and I won't engage in further pointless discussions with you. And, stop spamming my talk page. --Caygill(talk) 13:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logs of the article shows actions precisely. I have tried to use or used your, among other's, contributions, while you are just deleting what you don't like. In wikipedia we are finding consensus by discussing subject, not by fighting IMHO. But none can force anybody to discuss anything.

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Nokia Lumia 800, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Several times you have deleted legitimate and sourced content which is censorship in Wikipedia towards to certain point of view and most probably intentional vandalism. You were aware as changes reverting devastations were described with comment pointing censorship and vandalism. Also I personally have tried to discuss with you to find commonly acceptable consensus. Please stop doing this way. Wikipedia is not censored, towards to advertising or unadvertising, or any other towards. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that content will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to their persona POV or preferences of any kind, besides pointed in Wikipedia rules of course. Some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. But "being objectionable" for a person like you is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content, especially when it is sourced and when it is a fact, because this is censoring others work and denying diffrent POV then your own. Finnaly this is against freedom of thinking. Please stop. If I will not find any good will for cooperation from you I will consider informing about this administrator, which I think generally is wasting time of a next person because of your personal approach and preferences, and sadly inform you about this. 77.254.134.147 (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need to point out a few things regarding this discussion:

Accusing someone of vandalism is a very serious charge. Vandalism requires bad-faith intent to disrupt the project. A disagreement over what constitutes neutrality in the context of this article is not vandalism.
Further, accusing someone of vandalism without clear evidence indicates that you are not assuming good faith. Considering that you have warned Caygill of this above, you would do well to take your own advice on this point.
It's generally considered bad form to template the regulars, and especially when there is a content dispute. Template messages will usually just inflame bad feelings.
Edit warring is never acceptable, and it takes two to war. Both parties are advised to seek dispute resolution if discussion doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, and stop editing the article until consensus is reached.

--Chris (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section blanking reply[edit]

You had asked as to why i removed a paragraph in the nokia lumia 710 and lumia 800 page . It seems that some nokia fans have hated the fact that nokia has adopted wp7 as their primary platform . So, they are reporting some errors to make it look bad . If you look at the lumia 710 page , there's a false information that it has battery issues . In the lumia 800 also similar false information has been represented . So , i thought that the fake information must be deletedTej7war (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I partly agree on your motives, the way you did was wrong. If there is a dispute, please address it on the talk page of the article first or by inserting an appropriate problem template. If there are conflicting facts (from notable sources), please present both views with their cites. Simply blanking referenced material is not ok.--Caygill (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]