Jump to content

User talk:Mrt3366/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Advice for declined Article

Resolved
 – Query was answered and article was moved to main-space
Comment by Glorydust (talk · contribs) at 15:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Dear M, thanks for reviewing my Arrticles for Creation of a Chinese Artist Hong Lei. The submission has been declined due to lack of citations for notability; actually numerous citations about this artist could be found in Chinese URLs, but in English a few. What I submitted included evidence from FotoFest Biennial, professor from University of Chicago and collection records by the US Embassy and world-leading Museums, etc. I am now a little confused about what i could add to improve this article. As you may see, my article are well organized as any other Chinese artists. ( you may understand English is not the Artist's first language environment so English sources are limited).

Please kindly advice what I could do now to save me from this query....thanks a million for all.... Address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Hong_Lei Glorydust

Glorydust (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia actually doesn't prohibit you from using non-English sources provided that there are no equivalent English ref available to you. However you should know that
  1. if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.
  2. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations.
I hope this helps. See Referencing for beginners, Inline Citations for more info (I think you need it). Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bruno Weber (Mediziner), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rajsko (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues

Hi, when adding to an existing {{multiple issues}}, please note that it takes no more than one positional parameter. Thus, edits like this (of which there are quite a lot) leave an orphaned date in the second positional parameter. This edit was fine; but the one to the same page just afterward put the correctly-constructed {{cleanup}} in the wrong place - it should have gone into positional parameter 1, just after the {{underlinked}} (like this), and not directly onto the end of an existing date. I've been fixing up some of these, because the pages have been appearing in Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate what you mean by "positional parameter"? I think I understand what you're trying to convey. Okay I will not repeat the mistakes. Thanks for the notification, albeit you could have warned me earlier also. ;) cheers Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Positional parameters are the parameters without names. For example, in {{refimprove|section|date=November 2012}}, there are two paramaters: |date=November 2012 is a named parameter (the name is date), and section has no name, so it's a positional parameter. They're called positional parameters because the position is important. See Help:Template#Handling parameters. For example, in the {{multiple issues}} which was modified with this edit, there was previously three parameters, and all were named: |cleanup=March 2012|unreferenced=March 2012|wikify=April 2012; but you added three positional parameters |{{Underlinked|date=November 2012}}| April 2012|{{notability|Companies|date=March 2012}} - only the first is recognised as valid. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much I only recently started using AWB and I should have been more cautious. Won't happen again, thank you again. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Multiple discussions were initiated about this very topic. Whether or not to replace the template redirect.

Request: Keep your comments about this issue out of this thread. There are more important threads about this topic where more experienced editors are able refute/answer your claims/queries. Mrt3366 (talk · contribs) 11:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

AWB again

Hi, me again... re edits like these: [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; and several others. Please note that since all that you have done is to bypass some redirects (which itself contravenes WP:NOTBROKEN) and insert blank lines, this falls fouls of WP:AWB#Rules of use item 4, since they are both insignificant and inconsequential. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"which itself contravenes WP:NOTBROKEN" — Why? Is it a bad thing (as in if I do it a 1000 times without using AWB and in good faith would it be considered disruption)?? I am just curious. I don't see the point of WP:NOTBROKEN either way. BTW, I don't disagree that it's insignificant or inconsequential but at the same time I don't understand the reason of opposing/favoring it. Nevertheless, I am going to ask at AWB talk about this issue. Apart from that everything is okay. Thank you for the notification. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
You can comment here if you wish. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Just to comment on the above: if you did any kind of edit 1000 times, with any tool, you would need to discuss the changes publicly and get positive consensus first, and in most cases you should then file a BRFA. AWB has the technical ability to do many large scale tasks, but it does not relieve AWB users of the need to establish consensus before they start the task. Historically, the community has not generally approved bots solely to bypass redirects on a large scale, unless the redirect is about to be deleted. — Carl (CBM • talk) 23:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
All this is irrelevant if you are answering my query because I didn't ask the "best procedure" to commit 1000 edits, I asked something different, a very straightforward question: would it be considered disruption if I bypassed redirects without using any automated tool for a considerable amount of time? If yes, why? How is it harming the Project/Pages? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes it would be disruptive whether you used automated means or not. It's disruptive because you're editing pages without making any visual difference to the reader, which clogs up the recent changes feed and users' watchlists. Legoktm (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell there is a button named "Hide minor edits" on the watchlist pages and I mostly keep them under minor edits category. Besides, going by your logic any other minor edit would also "clog" up one's watchlist. I like links where was decided that it would be disruptive if one replaces a redirect to a template with the original link in good faith? I cannot just take your word for it, kindly give some links to guideline pages where it explicitly says it will be disruptive (not just insignificant or inconsequential). Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
There's a difference between a minor edit like fixing a typo and a cosmetic one. (Yes I know the last link is specifically for bots, but for the most part it applies to humans too.)
I'm not sure what you don't understand. WP:NOTBROKEN says While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, it is generally an unhelpful exercise, and it can actually be detrimental. How is doing anything that can be detrimental not disruptive? Legoktm (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
If you want more info, Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects has a better (might be out of date though) technical explanation of why it's a bad idea. Legoktm (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTBROKEN

While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, it is generally an unhelpful exercise, and it can actually be detrimental.

With a few limited exceptions, there are no good reasons to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]].

  1. As you can see the line you quoted from is actually talking about article redirects, not template redirects (It even talks about possible "future articles").
  2. It even says that it might be beneficial in some limited number of cases.
  3. It only says that it can be detrimental (as in it's not always detrimental), in fact in the context of {{S-end}} and {{End box}}, I'd like to argue that it's the other way around. The software that creates and runs the books (If the article is, or is going to be, in the Book namespace) does have problems with the redirects to S-end.
  4. It's missing the part where it explains, why it can be detrimental. It seemingly dictates that it can be detrimental without saying anything that goes beyond subjective viewpoints.
In short, this page is not saying what I did was exactly disruptive. Not every insignificant edit is disruptive.

P.S. I will initiate a discussion on the relevant talk page when I get a chance to put some time into the discussion. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be a question as to why these edits were detrimental. My question, though, is why you considered these edits to be positive that is to say why you thought that bypassing these redirects would improve a reader's experience on Wikipedia.
You wrote that [bypassing redirects] might be beneficial in some limited number of cases. Why is this one of them?
→Σσς. (Sigma) 09:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't write "my edit is beneficial". You're —deliberately or not— twisting my comment of which I particular take a very, very dim view. My question to you is why you consider your comments on my talk here to be positive that is to say why you thought that asking me this basing on something which I didn't even say, would help my experience on Wikipedia. Please do read what I have written above. Thank you. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you might want to try and WP:AGF a bit. This is obviously a complex debate spanning multiple talk pages and project pages. Sigma is merely trying to ask if you see these edits as beneficial and why. Clear communication and good faith is the only way this debate will be resolved, claiming people are twisting your comments doesn't help one bit. Legoktm (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Note: I think I was right about it all along (about the need of replacing template redirect). See Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Always OK to bypass template redirects Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
There appears to be a misunderstanding here, so let me try to clarify things. I read above that you were asserting that your edits were not detrimental. So, it is not "twisting your words" to ask why your edits were not detrimental, ie beneficial. Please revisit my initial question. →Σσς. (Sigma) 21:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Please don't mistake politness for evasion. It is certainly disruptive to go through 1000 edits in row doing nothing but bypassing redirects. We usually treat it as an unapproved bot job and ask the person to stop until they get bot approval; if they continue, they can be blocked temporarily until they agree to stop. A task that involves making the same edit to 1,000 articles in a row needs to have demonstrable consensus before it is started, regardless of the method by which the edits are made. — Carl (CBM • talk) 17:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Please don't mistake politness for evasion. - Please assume good faith! I didn't mistake anything for anything here. And where does it say that it is certainly disruptive to make repeated edits in row doing nothing but bypassing redirects to templates (don't omit that part)? There is currently a grey area around it, the consensus seems to be divided on this issue. Moreover, there is actually no policy that says one might even be blocked solely basing on that. Please keep the comments regarding this issue at WT:AWB, since that is a more appropriate page for this discussion.

if they continue, they can be blocked temporarily - This warning seems to be premature at best. I don't think there is any policy dictating that a diligent good-faith editor should be blocked just for bypassing template redirects, performing an inconsequential task as you guys put it, a certain number of times. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is a policy. It's called WP:IAR (well really it's Wikipedia:Disruptive editing). If you're going to do something 1000 times that people have repeatedly told you is a bad idea, someone's going to block you for it. Legoktm (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Blocking is only a very last resort. For AWB users, repeated violations of the AWB rules are more likely to result in a loss of access to AWB. But you asked what could happen if an editor did that sort of thing *without* AWB, and the way it has been handled in the past is to ask them to stop a seemingly unapproved bot job, and to block only if they decline to stop and gain consensus before continuing. — Carl (CBM • talk) 22:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
CBM and Legoktm: Only claiming something is disruptive or a blockable offense, while there are multiple ongoing discussions about the same topic, is in my opinion totally premature. I didn't assume anything and if it seemed that I contravened WP:AGF, then I am sorry. Let us keep it on the relevant discussion pages and not here. Also the question was hypothetical, I didn't then and don't now plan on acting on it. Please keep your comments about this issue out of this thread. There are more important threads about this topic where more experienced editors are able refute/answer your claims/queries. Comment there, not here. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

advice for Declined Article 2

Comment by Glorydust (talk · contribs) at 18:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC) . Thanks for your prompt answer to me query; if this is not too much, may I able to know how many "reliable sources" and citations exactly do I still need to add concerning my new article? It is not my first article but this one does not go very well. I have checked other similar published articles many times and it seems my article is adequate... could not get a clue! Pls kindly understand as it started to drive me a little crazy...

Look forward to your reply,

Glorydust

I approved the article, added a reference, and ran reflinks.
Resolved
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Glorydust (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Michael Schulman

Comment by 68.5.62.30 (talk · contribs) at 16:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC) How can I resubmit the draft article on Michael Schulman68.5.62.30 (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at Vacation9's talk page.
Message added 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vacationnine 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edit war on Kashmir Conflict

Comment by Killbillsbrowser (talk · contribs) at 19:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your edit war on the Kashmir Conflict page. You have been warned before as you push one POV. You deleted the statement about civilian killings claim yet insist on keeping the other side of the story. You are known to push one side of the story that favors the Indian sentiment on this article. And on top of that you accuse others of edit warring.

Killbillsbrowser (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Please shut up, Killbillbrowser. You have been warned before about a lot of thing. You want that quote because it suits your POV. This is you who is edit warring. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: A small request

I dislike the monologue-upon-monologue format on principle. Instead, when I'm replying to a particular idea covered by a particular paragraph, I answer directly below that paragraph so that it's clear what my reply is referring to exactly. I especially dislike the excess copying of other people's lines in green color, it's just wasteful. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Understood, but others may not hold your view. I, for one, do not find it helpful. You don't have to use {{xt}} or anything if you dislike them. But please maintain the readability. You have placed your comments in between other's comment (where they haven't signed) which makes it seem something it is not. And that is a contravention of WP:TPO. Also see Wikipedia:Indent. Please don't make it harder than it already is. You may ask any veteran uninvolved editor about this. Please shift your comments below kumioko's comments. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 16:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
You may want to actually read WP:TPO - interruptions are allowed. There's a polite request there to use a tag, so I did that now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
As an administrator and a veteran editor you ought to be considerate of others' concerns. You are right now behaving dismissively, Sir. What you did, I am sorry to say, was more of a disruption (disrupting the proper flow of the discussion by creating confusion) than an interruption. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Malaysia International Islamic Financial Centre (MIFC)

Hi Mike, i add the article on Malaysia International Islamic Financial Centre (MIFC) in wikipedia, which have been deleted. For your kind information, the article is not copied from any other website, as the article belong to MIFC which i worked now. Thus, the copryright is belong to MIFC. You can check it in www.mifc.com .

Appreciate if you can help me on these. The article is belong to us, but we cant upload it in wikipedia. For now, i will upload it again. pls dont delete it again. Thanks ya.

Acongfikri (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the conditions before clicking on "save page"?? I have posted it for you:

By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Copy-vio is not an issue we take lightly. Even if you had owned the company, it won't have helped your case unless you released all your contributions under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Hope it helps. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your fixes

Comment by RubenSchade (talk · contribs) at 09:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for fixing some of my new articles of late, such as this one. I try my best to have articles written flawlessly before I submit, but often I leave a small typo somewhere that sneaks under my radar. Cheers :')

RubenSchade (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

For your great work in Wikipedia. Especially, your work with AWB and your comments in the latest discussions. Magioladitis (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, it's very thoughtful of you. I in fact was about to fetch a cup. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

kate howarth page

Comment by 212.225.124.24 (talk · contribs) at 03:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

not sure why you objected to the changes i made. they were simply ones of correct register. it seemed that a comment like "she has overcome all obstacles in her life" is not very encylopedic. rather than delete it, i thought adding "she claims" (as she wrote the page in the first place) was a reasonable compromise. do you disagree?

212.225.124.24 (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
You also seem to have added "Lately she has been concentrating her efforts on self-promotion using wikipedia." This is a serious claim (potentially contentious even) and needs a reliable source to vindicate it which was missing.

Now, if you think that you have the right to say all these things because the major contributor seems to be the author herself, you have to understand that she might not be the real Kate Howarth insofar as we have no credible proof just yet to prove that it was kate howarth and not her neighbor or her cat. As far as I am concerned, she might not even be aware of all this.

I agree the article needs work. However, addition of unsourced allegation is not the way forward. If you have problems with the info published in the article, then correct them without breaching the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. You may have to discuss the changes, should you get reverted, on the talk page. Thank you, Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amit Phalke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Events (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

kate howarth

Comment by 212.225.124.24 (talk · contribs) at 17:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC) hi, mrT. i do take your point about that the assertion "...using wikipedia..." should have included a reference, and i do not object to its removal. as for my two additions of "she claims", this was an attempt to render blatently POV comments into something at least slightly justifiable. i think you would agree, however, that if it a source cannot be provided to show that "she claimed to have overcome all obstacles in her path", for example, then certainly a source is not available to demonstrate that "she has overcome all obstacles", and therefore the assertion is best dropped. (it appears that the page has, in fact, been cleaned up a bit by someone else. it does look a lot more like a brief biography now, rather than a hagiography.) cheers.212.225.124.24 (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I beg your pardon in advance because, I think, I could not fully make out what you're actually conveying. Anyways, if there is no source for a claim/assertion, then the proper way to deal with this is to either delete it stating that in the edit summary or letting your views heard on the talk page. But it's certainly not necessary to replace it with another unsourced claim. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

random fecking header

God your talk page is a mess. I know how to sign FFS. You would do well to ignore Killbillsbrowser as much as you can, I still think he is a sock of highstakes00, but alas he is quite clever. Stop the bitching on the NPOV board, let someone weigh in. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(Jokingly) Don't be such a grumpy and fastidious pottymouth. Now back to the matter of him being a sock, I reported him to Elockid (Check User) earlier but was unable to give the name of a puppeteer/Sock Master. Would you mind if I report my doubts based on your claims here?
BTW, What is "FFS"?? Seeing your irascible nature, I very much doubt that it's a reference to WP:FFS. Nice seeing your comment fecker . Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Probably "for fucks sake". Legoktm (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) He has a good point. He probably means that experienced users don't want to read posts with the "comment by", and don't need all the extra stuff to deal with because it's easier to simply add 4 tildes and that's it. Newcomers will be just baffled and overwhelmed with the extra stuff. So, we're not sure who this is supposed to serve. Your intention of making things easier is appreciated, but it's probably anti-helpful. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oh yes, I forgot. These (needless?) abbreviations rob it of all the legitimate emotions. "For fuck's sake", right.

    Okay I will make it short. Thank you Anna and Legoktm. sometimes I wonder what I would do without such loyal and diligent stalkers like you guys. Thank you very much for the heads-up. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No offence intended. We're all just trying to serve the project as best we can, including you. I know your intentions are good. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Who said anything about offence? Haha.. I trust your intentions are just as good as mine. Cheers, Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll just chip in to say that the standard user interface to user talk pages works fine and the elaborate structure here has been known to confuse experienced editors! It just makes matters more complicated than need be. PamD 11:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reviews

Comment by Gildir (talk · contribs) at 18:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reviews of the Ripley Davenport and Roger Chao articles. I really appreciate it. :-) Gildir (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. However, lion's share of credits should rest with you since you're the one who developed those subjects into articles as well as the opportunity for me to review them. I guess I should also thank you in return. So, thank you and keep going. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at Vejvančický's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice and links. I didn't mean to list 8 tags, and think I clicked a few of them accidentally. I checked the page, and realised there were several tags that I hadn't intended on adding. I'll try and be a bit more conservative in future. Thanks for the advice, Meeeeeeee39 (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC).

No worries. You're welcome. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sree kurumbakkav bhagavathy temple poickattussery

Comment by Dthomsen8 (talk · contribs) at 17:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I see you have been contributing to Sree kurumbakkav bhagavathy temple poickattussery, one of many new articles about Hindu temples in India, which have multiple problems. I find this particular article to be of doubtful notability. My intention is to mark the article as reviewed, and to tag it for notability. What do you think should be done about this article? You can respond right here, I am watching this talk page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's a copyvio. I've tagged it accordingly. Legoktm (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think it can be deleted with a suitable reason. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 17:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: John W. Berry

Hello Mrt3366. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of John W. Berry, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. —Theopolisme 18:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't think that that article makes any assertion of importance, it only says "his research has had strong impact on the field.". It doesn't specify what sort of impact. I don't know much (not that I don't know anything) about the subject I grant you that, but a subjective assertion falls a little short of a credible assertion in my view. However, I cannot impose my own views upon you. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, a google search shows nothing to support the claims of strong impact in acculturation. And in the first page itself there comes the mention of John Berry (an independent animator and illustrator). Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mr T—regardless, the specific CSD criteria states "credible assertion"—which it clearly makes. —Theopolisme 18:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
It also mentions that it has to be credible (not to be confused with "possible", or "probable"). You and I both know that these are not laws. We may do well to use common sense. The assertion was not credible IMO. Cheers, Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Meno

Comment by Magioladitis (talk · contribs) at 08:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Please, just let the BRFA to run. Better email me for more questions on the matter. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will let it run. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

AWB

Comment by Magioladitis (talk · contribs) at 10:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

New snapshot is up. http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Genomic epidemiological database for global identification of microorganisms

Comment by PRW69 (talk · contribs) at 10:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Micheal, I have added inline citations and secondary sources to my page. Is this OK? (Articles for creation/Genomic epidemiological database for global identification of microorganisms) Best regards, Peter

It's surely an improvement but the submission still contains many unsourced claims. Get rid of them if you can or cite sources for them too. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

About this message

Thank you so much for this. To be honest, I have been hinting that [[WP:RfA/Shiry58]] WP:RfA/Shirt58 mifgt tutmd might turn from a red-link yo to a blue-kink in some subtle and bot not so subtel subtle ways for a while now. But in more immedate pronmes immediate promise, I reaaly dp really do need to find my reading glsoees glasses.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand much of what you wrote above. (jokingly) Are you trying to make me give second thoughts to that nomination? Don't dissuade me this way.

See, you need to communicate in English in this wikipedia. Once you get nominated, your eloquence (i.e. how effectively you express yourself) will be a decisive factor in the outcome. Now I have taken the liberty to correct some of the typos to the best of my ability in order to make your comment sound somewhat coherent, please take care of the unfathomably broken typos (i underlined them for you). Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I got it now. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here we go

Comment by Shirt58 (talk · contribs) at 08:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi MrT and WormTT,
Thanks to both of you for the nomination, and your patience about me taking so much time over making my mind up. I gratefully accept.
Though feel like I'm in the middle of dozens of things that should be tidied up before a nomination, that would be the case whenever the nomination period ran. With the (western) holiday season coming up, hopefully the 'strong opposes will all be on vacation. If that's OK, I'll make a start on the answers, just in case they give me last-minute cold feet, and will formally accept in a few hours. Let the ordeal begin!
Thanks again, --Shirt58 (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. If you want to hold off, it's no problem take your time. Initially I misunderstood the RfA template. Take your time. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
As of 15 December 2012 my feet are are approaching 0° kelvin. I don't think I'm ready, just yet. Would 02 Jan 2013 be OK? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Ananyaprasad/Rashmi Singh

Comment by Ananyaprasad (talk · contribs) at 13:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Can you please check this page and move forward? I don't know how to go about itAnanyaprasad (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rashmi_Singh_(author)
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Plus, the image File:Rashmi Singh Author.jpg may be copyvio. Uploader has a bit of a history. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Ananyaprasad, you have appealed to several people (eg: Boolyme) and they've advised you pretty much the same. This userfied article is almost identical to the item that was deleted, and we do not reinstate such things. In fact, they can be speedy deleted per G4 if reinstated. - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Who created it the first time? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
No idea, We mere mortals do not get to see that unless we were there at the time :) However, there has been a clear pattern of WP:COI regarding this article, including usernames that partially replicate the author's name, IIRC. Family? Agents? Who knows? - Sitush (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Agents! Secret agents. I knew it! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Ananyaprasad, it was nice talking to you after so many days. Now, I must admit that the article supposedly has a few basic problems:
  1. Notability may also be FUTON bias
  2. WP:COI
  3. WP:G4 → Recreation of a page that is almost identical to one that was deleted per a deletion discussion is prohibited.
In my humble opinion your options are
  1. Find more sources and rewrite the article again (you are free to use the old sources to re-write the article but finding more reliable sources is, I think, needed and will raise the chances of inclusion) and hope for the best.

    or,

  2. if you think that the deletion discussion was questionable you may list it on deletion review.
But always remember that if you neither rewrite the article nor opt for WP:DRV, your article can be deleted even more quickly through WP:G4. I know it is not easy seeing your article get rejected but that is not the end of the world. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks all! I think I'll leave it here itself. Not interested in this page any more. The author is doing good work. Maybe someone else will come forward in near future/far future and give her the due. Just a piece of info to all- She is the first woman writer to write English fiction from her State Bihar. But I am for now at least leaving everything Ananyaprasad (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sikh Community of Western Victoria

Thanks. I was going a bit fast and didn't notice. I'm also thinking PROD. Thoughts? Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy is a choice too. The thing is I can't dig for refs because the GFC blocks me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you prod it and I will endorse it. That's the safest way. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 17:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
One more thing, I didn't find much about it except for the following two:
Don't think they can be used in an article. Any thoughts about these? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 17:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at Worm That Turned's talk page.
Message added 15:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WormTT(talk) 15:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at Several Times's talk page.
Message added 16:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

§everal⇒|Times 16:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Resolved
 – fixed it. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naina Ashwin Kumar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Genomic epidemiological database for global identification of microorganisms

Comment by PRW69 (talk · contribs) at 13:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Micheal, I've added new primary and secondary sources, and taken out all unsourced claims (I hope you agree). Are we on the right track and already at the finish line or would you recommend additional changes? Best regards, Peter --PRW69 (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

End of the world prediction

Comment by Eduardo Sellan III (talk · contribs) at 20:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This article I created is not about the 2012 phenomenon, it's about all doomsday predictions in general. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Commented here. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 20:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

For all you do!! Have a wonderful HOLIDAY!!


Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you my dear. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 20:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please explain to the above mentioned user 109.148.209.11 what he has done.

Comment by Arctic Kangaroo (talk · contribs) at 01:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi mrt3366, I noticed that the above-mentioned user removed warnings on his talk page which were placed by you. I restored them and now he accuses me of trolling since you did not state which article he vandalised/disrupted. As you know, vandals should not remove warnings on their talk pages when they had done something wrong. So, please help me to explain to him what he done wrong. Thanks very much and cheers, Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 01:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That's what the warning is for. See the edit summary of the warning to know what he has done. And see his contributions, it won't be hard to get what he is trying to achieve. Merry Christmas, Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
He is most probably a sock of banned user nangparbat. Merry Christmas, Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Merry Christmas dude! Enjoy! TheStrikeΣagle 14:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

ECLAIR

Comment by Roberto Bagnara (talk · contribs) at 14:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mr T. I have revised the draft article about ECLAIR taking into account your suggestions. Can you please have a look? Thanks, and best wishes for the new year.

Merry Christmas!


Pratyya (have a chat?) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Copyright problem: Human rights abuses in Kashmir

Simply unnecessary because it didn't tell me which part exactly was copy-pasted from the website adduced. Mrt3366 12:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Human rights abuses in Kashmir, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.flonnet.com/fl1707/17070360.htm, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Human rights abuses in Kashmir saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!  MehrajMir (Talk) 10:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mrt3366/Archive_6&oldid=1143861464"