User talk:Turgan/Archive 2

Water supply and sanitation in the Palestinian territories

Coould you explain what you found nonconstructive about my edit which you reverted? An opinion from an advocacy group was presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice, I attributed it to the group. Here come the Suns (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to add a reference for that statement. Just saying "according to ..." is not good enough. Turgan ^Talk 18:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a refernce threre - which points to " Dispossession and Exploitation: Israel's Policy in the Jordan Valley and Northern Dead Sea, p. 24-26. B'Tselem, May 2011" Here come the Suns (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the reference. I will stand by my revision, though, as your edit does not really add anything other than unnecessary bias and personal opinion to the statement. Turgan ^Talk 20:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is it "my opinion" that this statement is attributable to Btselem, or is that a fact? Shouldn't opinions by advocacy groups be attributed to them? Here come the Suns (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the reference to the statement is from B'Tselem attributes it to them without needing to add "according to ...". What I considered the personal opinion was the comment due to what they say. What this in effect does is imply they said this, but I don't necessarily agree or they are wrong. Both are unnecessary additions and take away from, rather than add to the flow of the article. Turgan ^Talk 20:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I have this wrong. Prior to making this edit, I edited Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=611411309, to remove a similar "what he describes". This was promptly reverted by an editor Sean Holyland, who added it back with a comment that it needs to be "properly attributed". So I did the same here - and it is again reverted? Why? Here come the Suns (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

you suck

btw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.60.54 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your useful contribution. Turgan ^Talk 17:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Drew and Shannon

Turgan,

Actually I am the person who does PR for Drew and Shannon. They never authorized this page nor do they approve of the content and so I pulled all of it.

We would prefer the page be deleted because they no longer go by Drew and Shannon; however, if that cannot happen, would you please leave all of the area blank until we can re-edit it?

Thanks,

SRW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southsideworldwide (talk • contribs) 18:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hi. Actually, they don't have to authorize the page. Any page on a notable subject can be created by anyone as long as they can provide independant references to verify notability. Additionaly, you have just admitted to a conflict of interest with regards to that page, therefore you shouldn't be making signigficant edits to it as per Wikipedia policies to ensure neutrality, indepenance and no self-promotion. If they no longer go by Drew and Shannon, then that page can be redirected to a new page if and when it is created. Cheers, Turgan ^Talk 14:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Why edit summaries are important

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If you use a detailed edit summary, then your edits wont get reverted. Actually say why you blank a section in the summary. Not just "talk page". Section blanking is typically reverted quickly. After seeing your reason on the talk page, I agree that my revert was an error and I apologize for that, however a couple of extra words in the edit summary would have avoided the revert, especially where you already had warnings for section blanking. Turgan ^Talk 15:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I only had warnings for section blanking because of another careless patroller. The reason is explained on the talk page so that's good enough as an edit summary and you should have checked before undoing my edit. Thank you for apologizing at least. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Rachel Reilly

What did you mean that the links are broken? Did I do some sort of typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.178.78.200 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

the pages don't exist. the links you provided don't work. Turgan ^Talk 04:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Friend Reply

Hai,good morning Joyful sudarshan (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I want to delete content - yet to submit

I am yet to submit. I want to delete the article. I have realized that it is not suited for wikipedia.41.58.26.201 (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for the message regarding your intentions. Unfortunately the article and all of the edits to it were undertaken by user:BUNMIAWOYEMI, where as you are trying to delete the article as an anonymous user. I have no way to verify that you are in fact BUNMIAWOYEMI. I suggest you log in as that user and blank the article as that user. Replace the content with {{db-author}} while logged in as BUNMIAWOYEMI and it will be a done deal. Cheers, Turgan ^Talk 00:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Barry Simon

I mentioned that Barry Simon has 5 children and 14 grandchildren, and you removed it because it didn't have a source. I happen to know this because I have met some of his grand kids and was told this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.38.187 (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Information posted to wikipedia needs an independant verifiable published source. Hearsay does not qualify as a valid source. Turgan ^Talk 20:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I am related to one of his friends. The next time I was in LA, I asked Professor Simon if it was true, and he said that he really does have 5 kids and 14 grandkids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.38.187 (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Still is not independantly verifiable. Sorry. Turgan ^Talk 20:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Bine_Mai#Concern

Can you share any insights into my concern? Bearian (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

me

stop sending me messages you fucken creep.

Your reversion.

Having been here for seven years, I would've thought you'd have developed the practice of going into greater detail than "I didn't think it was constructive, so I got rid of it".

The Scottish Gaelic translation (one of two extant '"traditional" languages of Scotland) of "Scottish People" was included - I added in the Scots translation (the other extant one), and you revert it because you don't think it's constructive to include the much more relevant and used language alongside the other, presumably? Not only that, you have the arrogance and cheek to neglect explaining yourself beyond the most opaque, bluntest of statements?

I think an explanation of both reasoning and behaviour are required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.218.206 (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel I did not go into enough detail. When reverting what appears to be vandalism from an anonymous user, that is normal practice, as the clean-up is typically more important than a detailed explanation that will not even be read by an actual vandal. If that is in fact a proper translation, I apologize for removing it. It appeared similar in nature to much of the vandalism we see every day, and I am unable to verify it as a proper translation. Turgan ^Talk 18:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Pilgrim

My Bad I Was Doing An Essay An It Must Have Edited It — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.184.14.5 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What was wrong with my edit to Chief Joseph

I just put the name Chief Joseph in the box? 50.178.123.12 (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit to Chris Hedges

Hi Turgan, I understand your concern, but I think my edit more accurately reflects that person's role (important note: I don't personally think any of the terms I included are necessarily negative). That said, I'm fine with leaving your version as is for now (I'll think more about what the right neutral language is). Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.177.20.2 (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit to Women in Islam

Regarding your complaint about the edit made to "Women in Islam":

I am so sorry. I actually don't remember making that edit, and as a religious studies scholar, it's not something I would say. This does add to my concerns about who did do it, if it wasn't me (someone using my IP address?) but I can assure you I would never make such an offensive claim about Islam, and I'm sorry that whoever used my IP address is not as professional.

Peace and light. 50.250.140.237 (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

You took down a post because it was "vandalism" please explain what I did wrong. There was nothing inappropriate or out of place with my post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splashbrother (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The edit you made [[1]] has several issues; it is unsourced, it is spamming a social networking site, it is biased content of uncertain purpose and as such is inappropriate in an article about a person. I marked it as vandalism as it had previously been removed by ClueBot a few minutes earlier, and you re-did the edit without addressing issues. Turgan ^Talk 20:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC

How is it spamming a social media site? Also, how or why would I sote that? His nicknames arnt sourced, plus It fits the personal section.

This is an encyclopedia, not a fan page.

1. We don't link social media sites like twitter and facebook to use as sources of information or to get people to visit.
2. We don't add information, including nicknames, that have not been published somewhere reliable.
3. We don't put our personal opinions in articles.

Additionally,

• why are you chasing me to other totally unrelated pages I am editing to post about this? [2]
• every single one of your edits since your account was created this morning has been removed. Please think about why this may be happening.

Turgan ^Talk 20:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have never hear anyone call Marcus mariota the throwin soamoin. So I guess that is a valid nickname right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splashbrother (talk • contribs) 20:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Now you are just stalking my account looks g at my contributions. Please stop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splashbrother (talk • contribs) 20:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I am not. Huggle just takes me to the next recent change on it's list to check. Turgan ^Talk 04:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Proded articles

Hi, Turgan. You proded several articles with explanation: "Not a mine. Exploration property". I deproded them because this is not a valid reason for deletion. Even if the article's title is incorrect and the mine is not exists, the deposit itself may be notable to have its own article. In this case, the proper title and rewriting maybe be preferred alternatives to deletion. However, my de-proding based only on the deletion reason you provided and there may be other valid reasons for deletion. You also tagged some articles with {{Disputed}}. However, this tag requires that the issue what is disputed should be explain at the talk page before tagging the page. As there was no explanation and it was not clear what is disputed, I removed these tags. Beagel (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Beagel, I just noted this morning some of your changes and wanted to message you about them. These articles are part of a package of 1900+ articles created by user:Bine Mai on a variety of topics. Many have been called into question through a few AfD discussions recently, most notably [3] and [4]. Many of the articles created rely on one vague source that can not be verified elsewhere.

-I am concentrating on just the mining articles as part of WikiProject:Mining. the list can be viewed here. I am attempting to verify every article. Those that are actual mines, I am tagging for maintenance. I was using the "disputed" tag due to the fact that almost all of the ones to keep have factual errors. They were created with the same/similar "template" stub with just the name and "resource" changed. In many of them, only the name is correct. They will of course need to be rewritten, and have additional sources added, which I have already done on some of them. I will try to remember to add something to the talk pages where required by the tags.

-Those that I am tagging for deletion are those that I am unable to verify as "present/future" mines or notable deposits. Through several years of AfD discussions for mines and deposits, we were considering notable deposits as those that meet JORC or NI 43-101 requirements for a "measured resource" or a "reserve" that may actually be a mine one day. I have a few on my list from last nights review to rename as deposits/projects. There are just too many projects out there to have an article for every one that gets a passing mention in some analyst's report and never goes anywhere. I will try to put more detail in the explanations. I am guilty of using a "canned" explanation to try and speed up the process.

I guess the main point I wanted to get across is that there is a fair bit of research going in before a PROD, and I am trying to save those that I can and hoping I don't miss any. Cheers, Turgan ^Talk 18:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am aware of the issue. E.g. some years ago there was created an article called Aleksinac mine. This was incorrect as there is no Aleksinac oil shale mine, as of today. However, Aleksinac oil shale deposit is a significant deposit and therefore this article was cleaned up and moved to Aleksinac oil shale deposit. If the resource, deposit or reserve is notable, it deserves its article notwithstanding if its mined or not. From your answer I understand that your main concern with these PRODed articles is notability and factual errors. Both are valid reasons for deletion if notability can't be proved and factual errors are impossible to be corrected. Therefore I recommend that instead of your current provided deletion reasons to use these. Beagel (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

New Alresford

Hi, Turgan. You deleted my alteration to the New Alresford wikipedia page. I changed the population figure to 5,102, as thats what the referenced census data says. You have changed the population back to 20,266. How about you visit the reference page before suggesting i've not referenced the data. 81.6.215.1 (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC) [5]

Doh, sorry about that. Might I suggest that in the future you use an edit summary? Too many IP users change numbers and words with no edit summaries explaining why, which are usually vandalism, cause me to be hasty I guess. Turgan ^Talk 15:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Haven (season 5)

Thanks for the notification of my possible edit-warring on Haven (season 5), but I was already notified of this by another user, and no further edits had been made when you notified me (again). For the first notice, I recommend checking my talk page history. Thanks. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Your threats...

It was decided yesterday that the changes that were made as a redaction of infamotory and libelous postings were related to someone not the subject of the Babin Wiki. Your threats are accepted as a fact. We demand an independent review of your threats and the erroneous and the down right libelous lies you have posted. Let's dance...

Undone edit

Hi Turgan,

I received a message saying you undid an edit I made, but I checked the edit and I have no recollection of ever making it (and doubt that I ever would make such an edit). Maybe you meant to send the message to someone else? I just wanted to bring this to your attention so you don't run into this mix-up in the future.

Thanks, Liv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.166.6 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No mix-up. The edit came from your IP address. Turgan ^Talk 21:10, 14 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) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)