User talk:Taeyebar/Archive 2

Adding "overpopulation" to India

Hi, please note this is the second time that I've been forced to revert you per this discussion at Talk:India/Archive 38#Overpopulation some months ago. India is a featured article and per WP:OWN#Featured articles, read the discussion and propose this change again on the talk page instead (if you disagree with the previous consensus). Thank you, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry if I came off a little harsh. We've had a string of people add weird genres to The X-Files, and I'm so used to reverting them. I apologize, seeing that yours was an actual, legitimate source.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It was a good addition, and like I said, it was a hasty revert and I was in a bad mood. Please don't think I'm a butt.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Episodes like "How the Ghosts Stole Christmas", or "The Gift" definitely are more "supernatural" than sci-fi. And yeah... that last "movie". :P--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting genre (and to be honest, I didn't know it existed). While I think the show is definitely an example, I would hold off until a source can be found, but I'm sure one exists out there somewhere.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Space opera/Military science fiction and their lists

Hello I saw your objection on the list of space opera media that you are for the merge. When I tried merging after a sleepless night - everybody jumped against it. Can you put on the talk pages, if you are still for it, why these lists: list of so and list of msf should be merged? Thanks beforehand!

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)

Your edit at Celestial Seasonings

I have reverted your re-addition of text at Celestial Seasonings. The text was removed precisely because it is unverifiable (see WP:V) because it is referenced to blogs and other unreliable sources (see WP:RS). If you think it should be included, it needs to be properly sourced and you should discuss it on the talk page. Thank you. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Anne Castles

Hi, I have added several more wikilinks to the Anne Castles article - others could be made from the various Dyslexia and Cognitive science articles, but this needs a specialist to do so, otherwise I may misrepresent and garble her contribution in these area.Garyvines (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Frontier (subgenre) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frontier (subgenre) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frontier (subgenre) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 03:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Frontier

@Taeyebaar:: I will see what I can do about it. I am having much time devoted to historical fiction and its related media exemples. I will try to return back to msf and space opera, frontier included. I wanna also turn your attention to space western and its further expansion.

Kindest regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)

Proposed deletion of Adventure science fiction

The article Adventure science fiction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a recognised subgenre. This article instead describes space opera, military science fiction, science fiction opera, cyberpunk etc.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:DEPROD, I have removed the prod tag from article. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. To remove the article you need a consensus, see Wikipedia:Consensus. Please do not continue the edit-war, if you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hain Celestial Group

Sorry, but I put the word organic back in the description of Hain Celestial group. You already started a section on the controversy and a court case. The company's brands still carry the organic certification label and use the word natural. If you have more to say, it belongs in the section on the controversy. If you think about it, there would be no controversy if the company's own description, and the labels on its food, did not claim opposite to the charges laid against it. The way to make the controversy clear is to describe the company as it is. If there is a loss in court where none of its foods carry the organic certification on the labels, then it will be time to change the lead in this article. I do not mean to start a dispute. Your information on the court case is new, and of course, interesting, if terse. That is, I would not mind a few more sentences on the specifics of the case. California only, or national? How far along are the court proceedings? Are there any food industry articles on the strength of the case, etc. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Arrowsmith Program revert

Can you please undo your revert of my move from Arrowsmith School to Arrowsmith Program? Eaqq (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please explain your reasoning on the talk page. I'd really like you to undo your edit :( Eaqq (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Almost everything on the Arrowsmith School article is actually about the Arrowsmith Program. Eaqq (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to undo your edit and I can add a section about the Arrowsmith School on the Arrowsmith Program article. Eaqq (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please respond Talk:Arrowsmith_Program#Requested_move? Thanks. Eaqq (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

(because I would really like to undo what you did but don't want to edit war) Eaqq (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I replied to you at my talk page. Eaqq (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Categories

Would you be okay with me adding the following categories:

• Category:Alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities
  
• Category:Special education Eaqq (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:A piece of random art for my userpage.png

A tag has been placed on File:A piece of random art for my userpage.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Safiel (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Images

As I said at the Help Desk as well, I suggest you have a read of Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Dismas|^(talk) 10:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Max Coltheart

Hi There Taeyebaar - I did as you suggested, see article here Max Coltheart. Garyvines (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of LearningRx

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

No evidence of significance, "sources" are recycled press releases.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of LearningRx for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article LearningRx is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearningRx (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

LearningRx

I have no objection to you restoring any part of the removed content which is compliant with WP:NPOV and sourced to reliable independent sources, noting in passing that any medical claims must pass WP:MEDRS as well. I reviewed what I removed and offered my judgment on that content, so simply reverting all of the removal on the basis that you think some of it has reliable sources, is not acceptable. You don't seem to be hugely experienced and a lot of your edits are in this area, which is, as you must know, rife with pseudoscience, so you should probably ask for help rather than edit warring with more experienced Wikipedians. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You are reintroducing errors. Stop now. Please note that I do actually know what I am talking about here, I have been here a lot longer than you, see my edit history: JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)}. Ignoring more experienced editors while edit-warring to reintroduce material with poor sources, is likely to get you banned. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP

This is forum shopping. You opened the same thing prior at the admin noticeboard. If you have something else to say about the matter that just must be heard take it to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_keep_an_eye_on_this_user where you already have a discussion opened.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I started a new topic because the editor has done more damage since I raised the AN report. No action besides various editors reverting him has been taken, which is why I brought it up.--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You can't forumshop to speed up action. The discussion is still open. Take your concerns there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Query

Do you have any real-life affiliation with LearningRx? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cogmed logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cogmed logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Cogmed

You really thought changing six words [1] would satisfy all parties? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Linda Siegel

Hi Taeyebaar, I followed your suggestion and cleaned up this article, but there was another editor deleting it as I did so - so I might have broken some rule in recreating it. Garyvines (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Battlestar Gallactica

@Taeyebaar: Hello, I think there should be no problem in delisting it, as it is under the Category:Military science fiction. I don't think there should be a seperate discussion. We can move on with putting it at the msf list asap.

Kindest regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)

Thank you

Hello Taeyebaar, thank you wholeheartedly for the fantastic barnstar! It feels really like I am appreciated for my work here and all my contributions are not unnoticed and someone cares for what I've been doing all these 15 years, since I started contributing here with all my passsion and love on this informational database. Once again: thank you very much for your kindness and your contributions, and for your appreciation and that you have noticed my work and my passion!

Kindest regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)

Orphaned non-free image File:Arrowsmith Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Arrowsmith Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Mummy Returns, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Back to the Future (franchise), please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Interstellar

Regarding this edit - I understand your objections, but I think including those links implies bias. The section clearly states that they were striving for some level of scientific accuracy, and while there is obviously some debate about that, when I read the articles for soft science fiction and hard science fiction, it seems pretty clear that it shouldn't be treated strictly as soft, or at least not implied by see also links that we're treating it as such. That seems like WP:OR to me. I think the section you mentioned stands well enough on its own. If there is a reliable source that calls it soft science fiction, it can and should be put into the prose instead. --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Back to the Future (franchise)

Please note that, per WP:RS/IMDb, IMDb is not considered a reliable source. As per my original edit summary and WP:BRD, please initiate a discussion at the article's Talk page to reach a consensus for your change. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

DonIago I provided a better source.--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not confident that that constitutes a reliable source, but I won't challenge it at this time. DonIago (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I had, It'll need to go to the talkpage for discussion. Amortias (T)(C) 21:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

DonIago, likewise I will not challenge battlstar galactica at this time though I see all the online sources calling it a space western--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

High fantasy

Hello, Taeye, just wanted to tell you that when you get back from lectures and exams, check on the high fantasy, because we don't need some Nikki Gamble defintions, we don't komarr that much, it is useless and meaningless, just wanted to tell you that some dude Dl2000 reverted me and will probably do it again, although I warned at the talk page to let me do my job and that the article doesn't need that stuff. Please, friend, I tried doing work on biopunk, comic science fiction splitting into list and this high fantasy issue, so please this is just for it – look at it, and suggest also something to do and expand the comic science fiction article as well.

Kindest regards, best luck and skills at the exams:

The Mad Hatter (talk) ry 2016 (UTC)