User talk:Mz7/March–August 2015

O Kadhal Kanmani

Good. I agree with that date because the listed source says so. It is an RS except that website "Filmi Dhamaka" or whatever. Such sites cannot be accepted as an RS. Did you know that the unconfirmed user Alwaysjithin (talk · contribs) has written that stuff on that Filmi Dhamaka website? Better get facts cleared and read WP:OR as well as stick to WP:RS.

Another thing, the official releases on Twitter by the OK Kanmani page has not at all declared that 14 April 2015 is the release date of the film. Until now, there have been two posters one in Tamil ofcourse and other in Telugu titled "OK Bangaram". Further, there is no news from the official page about its Malayalam release. See you and I are well aware that actors Dulquer and Nithya are more famous in Malayalam film industry. So there is a generalized notion that their upcoming film will be in Malayalam too. However, whether the film will be a dubbed one or an original Malayalam dialogue(s) delivery release, no official source confirms this. One must not write that it is a bilingual, multilingual or whatever. So, please, you must help me as well as defend the page until there are official releases. One can hold on.

Arjann (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Arjann: Thank you for the explanation. It didn't occur to me that the username "Alwaysjithin" was similar to the name of the author of the cited article. I absolutely agree that we do need to abide by the principles of verifiability and stick with reliable sources. I appreciate your interest in keeping this in check. Best, Mz7 (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Your common.css page

Hi; I notice that in User:Mz7/common.css you have the CSS rule

.ambox-Orphan{display: inherit !important;}

- please note that there is an error in this (almost certainly copied from an old version of Template:Orphan#Visibility) which causes incorrect display in some browsers.

To check this, visit this page and look at the second bullet (the one that precedes the text "This article is an orphan ..."). If this bullet is not in the same alignment as the other four, but displaced to the left, you can fix it by altering inherit to table in the CSS rule mentioned earlier. If that doesn't work either, alter it to block.

Template:Orphan#Visibility has been amended. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: It worked! Thanks for the tip! —Mz7 (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

original appreciation
Thank you, worker behind the scenes, for welcoming and hosting in the Teahouse, for quality articles such as Wings for My Flight, for closures, reviewing articles for creation and restoring, for Note: Your message will be public and En Garde!, and for original appreciation, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 845th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Your signature

Changed. Though, please kindly note that I would still be campaigning for greater restriction over IP edits. If you and any others would like another good reason why, please look at the recent edit history of Vancouver Giants. I've put my heart and soul into this article and still some anonymous knock-head vandalised it. Ugh. — CÉDRIC: PROUDLY REGISTERED! 05:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cedric tsan cantonais: Thank you for changing it. Also, if you are really serious about making that proposal, allow me to offer some advice.

Firstly, your idea is frequently brought up. "Prohibit anonymous users from editing" is listed at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. Reasons for previous rejection include: "A large portion of our good edits come from IP addresses; positive experiences with initial IP edits lead users to create accounts who otherwise would not do so; software features disabling IPs from creating new articles or editing semiprotected ones are sufficient. According to Jimbo Wales, "what is commonly called 'anonymous' editing is not particularly anonymous ... and there are good reasons to want vandals on ip numbers instead of accounts". While about 97% of vandalism comes from anonymous users, about 76% or 82% of anonymous edits are intended to improve the encyclopedia. (Prohibiting IP edits would not eliminate 97% of all vandalism, because those inclined to vandalism could easily take the 10 seconds to register.) The ability of anyone to edit articles without registering is a Foundation issue."

Also, the Wikipedia community has spent considerable time and energy debating what the best way to handle vandalism is. One of the more recent discussions resulted in the implementation of pending changes protection, which holds back edits from anonymous users and new accounts until they have been accepted by a reviewer; the purpose of this is to allow anonymous good-faith users to contribute while still suppressing bad-faith edits. If a single page has a history of persistent vandalism, you can always apply for semi-protection, which disables anonymous editing for a particular page. We also have strong counter-vandalism strategies, such as User:ClueBot NG, Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol, and enhanced reversion tools like rollback and Twinkle. As a matter of fact, the two most recent bad-faith edits to Vancouver Giants were caught and reverted in mere seconds thanks to our recent changes patrollers.

I suppose the point of telling you all of this is that you will probably have a difficult time finding supporters. Most of us, myself included, feel that the goal is to suppress vandalism through reverting it as it comes up and applying preventative measures such as blocking and page protecting, and that full prevention of it is near-impossible. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

References

The Winner (2014 film)

Hi! From the Plot you deleted one of basic idea (question) of the film. Can I inquire why? (& Thanks for the other corrections!) Fauvirt (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Fauvirt: Hi! The question felt a bit out of place to me. It felt like the article was asking the reader this question to making them ponder it rather than explaining that it's a part of the plot of the film. As an encyclopedia, we should be doing the latter. I would support changing it to The film focuses on the question "is a winner really a winner?" instead. That feels more encyclopedic. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! :o) So now it's perfect! Fauvirt (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

10 July 2015‎

Hello, Mz7. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Callinus (talk • contribs) 07:18, 10 July 2015‎ (UTC)

Hello, Mz7. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Patrolling my page?

I just got on Wikipedia, and noticed that you are now patrolling my page? For what reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raulruiz73 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Raulruiz73. The notification that you got is part of our new page patrol system. Essentially, all newly created pages on Wikipedia are screened by editors to ensure they comply with our policies and guidelines. I have marked your user page as "patrolled", meaning your user page looks okay to me—it meets our policies and guidelines. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

:)

Hello, Mz7. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xhanetab (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Thank you for your work at AfD. Tricky NACs are just part of the learning process. We need more fair-minded editors such as yourself working the queues and attempting the tricky NAC stuff. See you around! Always consensus over procedure, – czar 05:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Czar: I'm endlessly humbled by your kind words. My goal with performing non-admin closures was from the very start always to reduce the administrative backlog in any way I can. The July 27, 2015 AfD log had 141 deletion discussions listed by August 3, with well over 100 of them still pending closure or relisting. I generally see myself as an editor who likes procedure—I'm comfortable with following directions and applying rules. For the most part, they make editing easier (for me).

But I also know that it is important to recognize when procedure is at an odds with practicality and efficiency—that's what my interpretation of WP:IAR is: when rules and procedures get in the way of actual work being done, they should be ignored to get the same work done sooner. I guess I'm still learning to recognize at what point does the procedure for discussing the fundamental difference between "merging at AfD" and "merging at talk pages" and "deletion at AfD" and whether or not the three should be discussed separately... gets in the way of actually improving the encyclopedia.

But enough rambling. What I really want to say is thank you. See you around too, Mz7 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your help.Ftomberlin (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! Mz7 (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A big problem

Since I'm still a bit lost here, and you really know your way around all this stuff, I figured I'd see what your thoughts are on this.

There's a user that has really gotten my dander up. I rewrote an entire plot of an article the best way I knew how. It took 45 minutes, and then I see it completely removed for the reason that it "wasn't succinct". I went to the user who removed my edit, said it took "blood, sweat, and tears" to make, and that it would have been easier on me if they'd just removed the passages that bothered them instead of the entire edit, so I asked him what part of it he found too long-winded. Now, when I made the edit I had a problem with my log in, (I think the password was entered wrong or something, so my post appeared as an IP.) Instead of answering my question, this user yelled at me for saying "blood, sweat and tears" and for posting as an IP. I told him I didn't do that on purpose, and that "blood, sweat and tears," was not exaggerating, that it just meant it wasn't a minor edit. I told him I didn't want to make waves with him. He spoke as if he took "blood, sweat and tears" literally, he told me "you should know how to log in by now" and he said he refused to say anything more to me, and justified this by saying "[it's] due to comments you've made to other users." I have never been blocked for any comments I've made to other users. I'm now left with two questions. 1) Should I just revert the page to my version since this user refuses to speak to me? And 2) isn't this user violating some sort of civility policy or something? Thank you. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:CharlieBrown25. I do not typically insert myself into content disputes where I am not involved, so I would rather give you advice on general principles as an outsider than take sides or otherwise engage myself in the dispute. I know it can be frustrating to see a good amount of your time you volunteered to Wikipedia be undone by one click of another user's button—trust me when I say it's happened to all of us (including me) at least once, and I've witnessed it many times. I like the way Wikipedia:Five pillars describes it: "Since all editors freely license their work to the public, no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed" (emphasis is mine). Other editors and especially our readers don't typically care how much time we volunteer, only that what we contribute is up to standard and in line with our policies and guidelines. Be prepared to accept this.

I strongly advise against just reverting the page to your preferred version. Doing so leads to edit warring, which is highly disruptive. Instead, talk with the other editor or to other contributors to the article on that article's talk page. I would also advise being cautious about accusing the other editing of incivility (like you did with this edit)—it can sometimes be taken as a personal attack. Remember, "comment on content, not on the contributor," and assume good faith. Being frank or straightforward about an issue is not necessarily uncivil. While there's no policy against logging out to edit, I would probably make sure you're logged in for all your Wikipedia editing to avoid confusion like what happened. If the user is refusing to talk to you, try apologizing for what they thought you did. I took a quick look at your contribution history, and I think the best way forward is to try rewriting the plot again, but this time with a goal of making it shorter, not longer. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You're one of the few people I've come across who definitely has much good sense. It's a breath of fresh air. It's certainly nice to hear someone say "best of luck".

Frankly, I'm not sure what they think I did wrong, they chastised me for using a metaphor, said I ought to know how to log in, and are refused to talk to me on the basis of previous posts to other editors. Since I haven't been blocked for any comment I've ever made, I don't even know what I'm apologizing for. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@CharlieBrown25: I'm sorry for the delay in responding. I took a look at the discussion you had with MarnetteD, and what I think they want to see is a plot that is shorter in length. The current length of the plot section for Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (TV special) is unproportionately large in comparison to the other sections of the article, so what you need to do is rewrite the plot, but cut out details that aren't absolutely necessary for an overall understanding of the basic plot of the story. The edit you originally made actually increased the length of the plot, hence why they wanted you to make it more "succinct". With regards to the other conflict, I'm pretty sure it's because you said "Let's keep this civil," implying that their comment wasn't civil. Remember what I said: be cautious about accusing other editors of incivility, as doing so is sometimes taken as an argument against the person and not the actual issue, and that can lead to understandable bitterness. Just because an editor disagrees with you frankly doesn't mean they are not respecting you (and accusing them of not respecting you certainly won't make them respect you more). In any case, I think they have all moved on, so I would move on past the conflict too. I would encourage you to go ahead and try to WP:BOLDly rewrite the plot again (keeping in mind the idea of cutting out unnecessary details). If it gets reverted again, that's when you want to reattempt discussion—see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A pleasure as always speaking with you. I think I speak for Czar, and probably others when I say: I hereby award you the unofficial imaginary "King Solomon of Wikipedia" award, for outstanding wikipedia wisdom.

And I'll certainly take your paradoxical advice to remove the passage that your my favorite user on wikipedia, thereby affirming that your my favorite user, sort of defeating the purpose, but at the same time... Oh, My head's spinning! Thanks for the help – CharlieBrown25 (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@CharlieBrown25: If you think I'm your favorite user, just let me know personally. No need to advertise it as the first thing people see when they click on your username, is what I mean. Cheers, Mz7 (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD Karel Martens

At the time when you first left that message on my talk page I was in the middle of doing something else, so I just added a short answer . Later I checked again, and found that you were absolutely correct about the "speedy" and the "relist" (I must have been very tired to close a relisted discussion as "speedy keep"). Thanks for pointing out my mistake, which enabled me to correct the closure statement. Kraxler (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kraxler: No, I totally understand. See you around, Mz7 (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

L.A. Noire (2011 video game)

That's what I intended, yes. I was bitten by the new interface for creating pages with the Visual Editor. Thanks for fixing my mistake. Diego (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! Mz7 (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Help needed in editing...

Mz7

Please consider personally editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Performance_fabrics

I urgently need help

Regards rajiv sharma 17:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk • contribs)

Hello RAJIVVASUDEV. I will shortly take a look at the draft and see what advice or help I can give. —Mz7 (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou so much for the help and acceptance

I sincerely thankyou for all the help.I will keep on improving the article and make it more informative and useful for the readers. thanks again rajiv sharma 03:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk • contribs)

need your help to guide to put citations and picture gallery in Performance fabrics

Dear Mz7, Greetings of the day! i sincerely thanks for helping me in the earlier case as this is mine first article i need your guidelines to put citations and picture gallery so that Performance fabric would be more informative and educative page for the textile industry. i have added some external links please check if they are ok? believe me this is the newest concept in textiles and this page can create awareness to the students and industry. thanks in anticipation. rajiv sharma 06:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk • contribs)

Hi again, RAJIVVASUDEV. I would really recommend giving the page Help:Referencing for beginners a read—it has a lot of great information about how to add formatted citations to your article. Watch the videos there if you can. One thing I've noticed is that you add references in <ref> tags, but you pile all of them up at the bottom of the page. The <ref> tags are actually supposed to indicate inline citations, or citations that appears in the body of the text. As such, the <ref> tags need to be in the actual body of the article, not listed at the bottom. See how I've done it in the "Characteristics" section of the performance fabric article.

With regards to adding a picture gallery, I would first make sure you understand the Wikipedia policy on pictures. One of our five pillars is that "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute." As such, we strongly prefer images that are freely distributable, meaning we take copyrights very seriously. We want pictures that are either 1) made available under an acceptable free license or 2) in the public domain (free of copyright restriction). If you find an image on the Wikimedia Commons, then the image will almost always be permissible for use on Wikipedia. On occasion, Wikipedia does allow fully copyrighted images to be displayed, but this is generally done only for things like corporate logos on article about the company they represent, or an image of a fictional character on an article about that character.

The full policy for the use of images in general can be read at Wikipedia:Image use policy, for non-free content see Wikipedia:Non-free content. If you need help adding an image that is already uploaded to Wikipedia, check out our picture tutorial. If you need help uploading an image that isn't already on Wikipedia, I recommend our File Upload Wizard. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the guidelines

Dear Sir, Good morning to you thanks for the prompt reply and the guidelines,i will follow the same. warm regards rajiv sharma 02:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk • contribs)

As per guidelines citation is done for Performance fabrics

Dear Mz7, Good Morning to you! thanks for your encouragement and guiding me.i have done citation as required. May i ask you to spare some time and confirm if they are ok? Please GUIDE HOW I CAN IMPROVE THE SAME FURTHER. Thanks rajiv sharma 06:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk • contribs)

RAJIVVASUDEV, thanks for adding references, but you need to watch your tone when you write encyclopedia articles. The purpose is to inform the reader about the details of performance fabrics—it is not to try to persuade them to buy performance fabrics or change their opinion of them or something. Avoid asking rhetorical questions and avoid using second-person pronouns such as "you". Doing so is contrary to the formal, businesslike tone on Wikipedia, and it makes the article sound more like a personal essay than an encyclopedia entry. Also, I might add that we generally prefer secondary sources—such as news or magazine articles, books—and discourage the excessive use of primary sources. Mz7 (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

i will definitely follow the same

Dear Sir, This is first time i am trying to write a full article that is why i am doing and asking everytime for the corrections from you. appreciate your patience and bearing with me. i shall definitely follow the instructions and corrections. GOOd Day thanks and regards rajiv sharma 03:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@RAJIVVASUDEV: I totally understand. Just to let you know, school has started for me, so I might not be as active as I have been. If you need further help, try asking a question at the Teahouse—it's a friendly place for newer editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. I help out over there once in a while. You will probably actually receive a wider range of input than what I've been giving you. However, you are always free to talk to me directly here if you wish. Don't forget to properly sign your posts on Wikipedia discussion pages (such as this one)—to do so, type four tildes (~~~~) after your message. A signature should include at least a link to your own user talk page, for ease of access, and the time and date. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Since you've been adding a timestamp after your message, it leads me to wonder whether you've unwittingly customized your signature without adding a link to your user talk page. If you have gone through your preferences and modified your signature, make sure to uncheck the box that says "treat the above as wiki markup" or add a link in the customized signature to your talk page in wiki markup. See Help:Cheatsheet for help on wiki markup, if you need it. Mz7 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your contribs...

Dear Editor, my sincere thanks for your contribution to get my article better. best regards Rajiv Sharma (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@RAJIVVASUDEV: You're welcome! Mz7 (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for your contributions to the Performance fabrics page! P.S Can you spare some more time editing the page ,Also, you are a wonderful editor ! Themessengerofknowledge (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Rajiv Sharma (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Themessengerofknowledge: You're welcome, and thanks a lot for the barnstar! I'll see what I can do, but as said above, I'm starting to get a little busy with the school year starting. Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)