User talk:T Cells/2015/May

Regarding Autopatrolled right

Two days earlier, I had requested the Autopatrolled right and yesterday you had declined my request. I hope you have understood what I'm talking about. You said that my first article was deleted, I know it. The day when I had joined Wikipedia, I had no knowledge about Wikipedia. Before I had continued editing Wikipedia in March 2015, I had gained much knowledge about Wikipedia in February 2015, and continued editing in March 2015. You also said that a bulk of my created articles contain copyvios. OK, I'll take some of my time and remove all the possible copyvios within 3-4 days. My question to you is, what should I do to take the Autopatrolled right and when I would request the Autopatrolled right again? Regards, KunalForYou^📝☎️ 04:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Wait for a minimum of six months. Thereafter, If your edit history demonstrate a good understanding of the core wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you may consider to reapply. You are just too anxious to have rights on Wikipedia. Why do you think you need the Autopatrolled user right? Any reason for your eagerness?. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I will feel pleasure in reviewing the articles and if any article would meet Wikipedia's deletion policy, I would flag the deletion tag in that article. Regards, KunalForYou^📝☎️ 06:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the autopatrolled right, Kunalforyou. It is the right to post new articles that you have written without review by new page patrollers. You need to have an established track record of creating new articles with zero copyright violations, in compliance with policies and guidelines. This is essential. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen, I feel they still don't even know what the tool is all about. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Page Speedy Deletion

Hi, I had created an article on Goel TMT which is one of the famous and leading brand in our State Chhattisgarh. But page has been marked for speedy deletion due to copyright issue. can you help me regarding that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goel_TMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadeep (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Until you make 50 constructive edits to different articles. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

I really appreciate, I'm very happy to contribute significantly to a better Wikipedia. BangVng (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome! I just reviewed some of your recent edits and they seemed very good. Always use the four tides to sign your comments on talk pages. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks BangVng (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

confused on speedy delete

I know these type articles like 2015 Kei Nishikori tennis season get speedy deleted all the time. Which version of speedy delete is the proper one? This will be like the third time it's been deleted and the same editor keeps bringing it back. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), can you post some diff of where it got speedily deleted apart from deletion through prod? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok I just did a generic DB version with a reason added. Perhaps that's the normal DB to use? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I declined your speedy deletion nomination of the article with no prejudice against its deletion through WP:AfD if notability is in doubt because A7 does not applies to articles with a claim of significance and probably this kind of articles in particular. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

G11

Hi Wikicology. Bal Rajagopalan is basically a puffed up resume and was originally written by a now-blocked editor: User:Trident13/Rajagopalan. It's obviously 100% promotional and would require a complete re-write even if the subject was notable. As such it qualifies for G11. Regards SmartSE (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I respect your concerns on promotional articles but I don't see this particular one as 100% promotional. If a subject of an article is notable and its promotional contents can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. However, such page may be tagged with {{Peacock}} or {{Peacock inline}} template until the problem is fix (I.e rewritten). I usually don't see deletion as the only solution to address such problems. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oru Second Class Yathra

Ggentle scolding: Before you write "Subject of the article fails WP:NFILM. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to establish the subject notability" in a nomination, you really need to be a touch more diligent in your WP:BEFORE. I easily found multiple sources to show the topic as easily meeting WP:NF, and so decided to take a few minutes to improve the article. See edits. See used sourcing. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Michael, you are such an amazing editor and am so proud of you. Thanks for pointing me to WP:SEP. The page was initially nominated for speedy deletion by RHaworth (talk · contribs) but I decline it and decided to take it to WP:AfD instead of fixing the problems (I feel remorseful about this). I will be more diligent in my WP:BEFORE next time. I observed something so extraordinary about you. No matter how difficult it is to find sources, you will definitely find more than enough. What is the magic? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

A very wise decline, thank you. Proper use of an WP:A7 (which does not apply to films) requires a topic actually be researched first, as WP:UGLY is not a deletion rational and WP:NRVE tells us an article does not have to actually be sourced, as long as sources are available. The original article content "Oru Second Class Yathra is a 2015 Malayalam comedy thriller written & directed by Jexson Antony & Rejis Antony" IS a sourcable claim of notability, and an article is not to claim "this topic is notable because..." specially as WP:HANDLE instructs we fix things that are fixable and not toss them out of laziness. Having made over 100,000 edits, RHaworth should know WP:BEFORE better than anyone and you'd think he could have found and added at least one source himself. (sigh)

For sourcing Indian films, I modify the Find sources search parameters, and also then use enquoted "modified parameters" with the search engines offered over at WP:INDAFD... and I do go past the first or second page of results. A <s>struckthrough<s/> withdrawal is the greatest prize. Now I need to figure a decent DYK. Again, thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC

Y Submitted my DYK. Now its a matter of waiting. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Yoruba Tribal Marks

Pick which hook you wish or write one of your own, go review another article at DYK, and let me know and I'll be happy to move it to the DYK list. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I've never done this before and really don't know how to go about it. How can I create the hook? Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Michael; am ok with the one you wrote. I want to let you know that, I had just reviewed an article at DYK. What next? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay... what did you review? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Howard Schneider (Florida dentist) using the Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide after checking through the article itself. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Wikicology... Yes, I saw that. You offered an opinion about that article not being likely to survive its AFD... after someone else already reviewed it. Go find one that no one else has checked. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@MichaelQSchmidt:; I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/1984 All-Big Ten Conference football team now using the Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide after checking through the article itself but I'm not sure I did it correctly. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wikicology: I can see a line stating you reviewed it, but cannot see the DYK itself. What was the DYK's date? What happened to it? Something become untweaked? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay... found this and moved your review to the proper section. Now I'll place the DYK back on April 25. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

And added that you reviewed something to your DYK. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

AND I just added yours to its spot in queu. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Many thanks, am so grateful! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

And of my three potential hooks, which do you prefer? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The second one is ok. We can use that. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

MichaelQSchmidt, thanks for your immense contributions. More grease to your elbow! The image currently on the article is a non-free image and an editor had suggested the use of a free image, I found one (this one) that is not copyright protected in one of the common blog around. Can we use that? Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

To be frank, I have never used an an image in any of my DYKs and so do not know. Ask here. One of these guys will know. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Puget Sound fish monitored for contaminants

This appears to be just another project like hundreds around the world with no references or indication of what makes it notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. There is no third-party sourcing or evaluation to help us. I CSDed as non-notable event(s). If you think that is incorrect or inappropriate, feel free to modify, prod or AFD Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Its actually not and event but it appears as an attempt to research on toxic contaminants in Puget Sound fish. I will take it to WP:AfD. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Or if it is referenced, it could be merged with Puget Sound Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Jim, I took it to WP:AfD. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Vajrakaya Technologies

Exactly which claim of significance is being made, because I see none, exactly zero of the "references" are anywhere close to being reliable. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, I insist that you tell me where the claim of significance is in this article, if you are going to contest a speedy you need to give a valid reason for doing so, now we are forced to go through a lenghty AfD discussion for no practical reason. Not to mention that an admin had deleted the exact same article earlier that day for A7, as can be seen at the page's log here. -War wizard90 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

War wizard90, I agreed that the subject of the article fails WP:CORP and left my comment in the discussion thread and no one has stated there that it should be speedy per A7. The argument that it was earlier deleted might not be too necessary to me because, admin may sometimes wrongly delete articles and I had save a good number of them such as Australia Dairy Company and Oru Second Class Yathra currently nominated for WP:DYK to mention few. You already took the article to WP:AfD, fine!! Why do you need to engaged in WP:LAWYERING? If you are sure that it met the speedy deletion criterion, A7 and you are aware that it was earlier deleted per the same criterion, why don't you restore the A7 tag (if you like notify me) rather than taking it to AfD? That means you are not even sure of your use of A7. I decided to grace you with a response so as not to appears rude. I really don't enjoying engaging in unnecessary discussion. Please focus on the AfD thread. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Because once another editor who isn't the original author of the article contests a speedy deletion, you are not supposed to tag it again, and you contested it twice, thus me replacing it for a third time would have been considered edit warring. This left me with no option other that to take it to AfD. All I ask is if you are going to say something has a claim to significance, then support that claim with evidence. The article has zero claims of significance in it, none whatsoever, why keep contesting a tag based on no evidence? It had nothing to do with me not being sure about the A7, and everything to do with following protocol. I have no problem with you contesting speedy deletions, as long as its done on good evidence, just like I'm sure you would ask me to only tag things for CSD based on good evidence. Then when I promptly asked you to tell me why you contested it, you instead ignored me, even though I could see you were still actively editing, even on your own talk page without even bothering to respond to me, which is not conducive to a constructive editing environment. So either be more careful about what you contest, or be prepared to support your contests with valid evidence rather than just ignoring people when they ask you why you contested it. Don't expect to make rash decisions and then just not respond to people when they ask about it, that is not WP:LAWERYING, and I'm sure you will find other editors other than myself annoyed by that type of behavior. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)