User talk:Singularity42/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Singularity42. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Sebandreas/Horse (disambiguation)
I don't think that was an attack page but another admin deleted it before I could comment. The page was created by the user it redirected to and I think that they meant to create it in userspace rather than mainspace. I'll leave an explanatory note. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was still technically an attack page. It was basically comparing a living person with being as ugly as a horse. It's not even proper material for userspace. Singularity42 (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I apologize. I apparently failed to look at the earlier revisions of the page. Long day. —DoRD (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Ethel Abigail, Old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all
I've protected both titles - wonder what will happen next? Peridon (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Some other creative (or lack of) title for another copy/paste? Singularity42 (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Why do you delete my article, since it represent the correct information and not a dictionary definition? Do you stand for freedom of speech or for communist control? Please let alone the article. Greetings from London. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbynet (talk • contribs) 19:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm tagging your article for a community discussion to see if it meets WP:Deletion policy. In my opinion, it appears to be a dictionary definition, despite your assertion otherwise. However, my opinion is not final. That's why there is a discussion underway at WP:Articles for deletion/Dracu. After seven days of discussion, an administrator will apply the consensus. You should read WP:NOTDICTIONARY and then join that discussion. In the meantime, do not remove the WP:AFD tag from the article. Singularity42 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well then thanks for your info. Take whatever decision you want, however that'll be fairly enaugh to help me IMPROVE my article and not to delete it. It does not represent any threat or offense to anyone. It is pure information deemed to help. Cheers! Cabbynet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbynet (talk • contribs)
I am very thankful for your kind help. Will try to better prepare the articles before submit them. Kind Regards, (Curious apprentice (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC))
- No problem. Let me know if I can answer any of your questions, especially on the copyright issue. Singularity42 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Help?
YOu were going to help me on my talk page- well how about it?--CaptainKramer (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I got stuck on an important phone conversation. I believe another editor replied on your talk page, and I have also left some comments. Singularity42 (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
UNTITLED group
Untitled did release both mixtape on a major as we are set to appear on ludacris's ludaversal album — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untitl3dDTP (talk • contribs) 20:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Can you cite a reliable source that this band has released two or more albums on a major label (other than just an assertion)? If so, let the community know at WP:Articles for deletion/Untitled (group). Singularity42 (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Just letting you know that the creator has removed your prod tag. (No need to use a talkback template if replying.) Kiko4564 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I've nominated the article for AfD. Singularity42 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
RE: Second Heidi Montag Album
Hi, Heidi's album will be released soon and unfortunetly we don't know what the name is at the moment, so I would like to leave it as Second Heidi Montag Album, if that was alright with wikipedia etc. I have also added some verifyable links into the article to make it more trustworthy. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieranworboys (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please read WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSALBALL about why it is not okay. The links you have provided are twitter and blogs, which do meet the policy for reliable sources. If the name is not known yet, then it probably should not have an article yet. If you disagree, you can explain why at WP:Articles for deletion/Second Heidi Montag Album. Remember to read the linked policies first. 20:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Verizon Plus listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Verizon Plus. Since you had some involvement with the Verizon Plus redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 01:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Bedford v. Canada
nice catch on this article; cleanup is important. Integrity of WP is always an issue. --RichardMills65 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. It might still need some further work. The article has definitely recieved some attention from editors associated with the case, and there seems to be too much emphasis on the legal procedures than the actual decisions. I'll see if I can fix it up later this week. Singularity42 (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
DNA
Pls read my talk and help me to publish this absolutely greate info for all people! Thnks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNAengineer (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please read WP:NOT#OR about why that will not be happening. Singularity42 (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
excuse me-do not know what to do :( Tell - this page to open will not work? Its imposible or i do smth not good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNAengineer (talk • contribs) 19:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I do not understand. Do you mean you cannot open the page I have linked to above? Do you mean you do not understand what that page says? Do you mean something else? If the issue is lack of comprehension in English, might I suggest you try one of the other language Wikipedias? Singularity42 (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Thnks friend. I am very old man - sorry, for me it is difficult, but the information about this ansolutly new since is completely revolutionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNAengineer (talk • contribs) 19:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Have you read WP:NOT#OR? Singularity42 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
its impossible to read! you spoke to the greate history and didnt notice anything. dont worry it happens. everything is fine :) son — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNAengineer (talk • contribs) 20:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Fighting the good fight
Looks like you got to reporting what was going on in the .999 article right after me. Good to see someone's on my side :D Ducknish (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I keep 0.999... on my watchlist, as it is an article that is regularly vandalized. Singularity42 (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Bryan McGuire
Hi, I've removed the speedy tag at Bryan McGuire, as the article asserts notability with newspaper article links etc. You could take it to AFD, if you think he's not notable enough per WP:BIO. Thanks, Scopecreep (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether it meets A7. (Just because his name is mentioned in papers does not get past the A7 bar. It's why the name was mentioned in papers. There is nothing important or significant about being mentioned as the lawyer who argued a trial - that's a fairly regular occurence for a courtroom lawyer and/or barrister.) Anyway, I've nominated the article for AfD. Singularity42 (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Good PROD on that one. I almost think it would qualify for A1, because I have no idea what the article is about after reading it. Still, it looks like there is potential for notability once prose gets added, so the PROD was more beneficial. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Request
Hi Singularity42, I'd appreciate it very much if you would read the talk page of my recently added article: Coat of arms of Zaanstad. I can't find the deletion page where I can react to the deletion. On the Dutch wiki there is a deletion page where everybody is able to react and give reasons for or against deletion. Greetings, Dqfn13 (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've added a link to the site of the municipality of Zaanstad, page is about the coat of arms. I've also deleted the deletion proposal, as it's no longer valid. Dqfn13 (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry - I missed this comment before. Yes, the new addition solves the concerns I had. The reason you couldn't find the discussion page is becaused I proposed the article for deletion. That means if any editor disagrees, they can remove the tag (which is what you correctly did). Singularity42 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleting Discussion about Economic Constraints on Media Freedom
hey singularity42, I've just published my first wikipedia article "Economic Constraints on Media Freedom" and was wondering why you suggested to delete it. Do you mind explaining to me, why my entry would not be suitable for wikipedia? If I get some more detailed criticisms, I can try to improve the article. Thank you! all the best Nina — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinaLanger (talk • contribs) 17:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I nominated it because it comes across as an academic essay-like paper rather than any encyclopedia. See WP:NOTESSAY. However, the discussion for whether the article is to be deleted is taking place at WP:Articles for deletion/Economic Constraints on Media Freedom, so you should really respond there, and not on this page. Singularity42 (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey Singularity42 I've changed the article into a more encyclopedian style article. Do you still want to nominate it for deletion now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinaLanger (talk • contribs) 08:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Zhumengmeng (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey,how are you？First I'd like to thank you for your checking on my article! I'm indeed a beginner in Wikipedia,and this article is my seminar homework this semester. So if this article was deleted,I will not get the point..Could you please tell me where the problem is and I am definately willing to make the article better! Thank you again!
will the article be qualified when the criticism part and other subjective opinions are deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhumengmeng (talk • contribs)
- A couple points:
- The actual deletion discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian perspectives on media freedom, so you should really comment there why you think the article should be kept.
- This article comes across as an academic essay-like paper rather than an encyclopedic article (which I think is confirmed by your comments above). See WP:NOTESSAY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an academic journanal or analysis.
- Has your teacher looked at Wikipedia:School and university projects? Your teacher should keep in mind that Wikipedia has pretty strict policies about what it allows as articles, and we can't make exceptions for school projects.
- Personally, I think the whole article has the wrong tone for Wikipedia. It's more than a just a few subjective opinions and criticisms. It's actually taking what other people wrote, and puting them together to form new opinions, analysis, and conclusions. That's great for an academic paper (it's what you're supposed to do for most academic papers). It's wrong for an encyclopedia. See WP:SYNTH for more information. Singularity42 (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Problem
As was posted on my talk page, please post all complaints and otherwise on User talk:Bleakgh/complaints. If you don't have anything importynt or dyrti pyjamas then please don't post it on my main talk page. BLEAKGH - БЛЕАКЬ - بــلــكــغ - בּלכּג - 뱍가 - ᚷᚲᛇᛚᛒ 19:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- It was not a complaint. It was a notification to let you know that your article might be deleted.
- The tools used in Wikipedia automatically add such notifications to your talk page. That cannot be changed.
- Please do not post on my talkpage until your signature complies with WP:SIGNATURE. It is overly lengthy. Singularity42 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of the page Xtream Youth
I wan't to know why you deleted the page, Xtream Youth. Since it is a well know, popular magazine in Sri Lanka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankan9911 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- I tagged the article for deletion. JohnCD is the one who deleted the article. It was done for two reasons:
- There was no credible claim of significance or importance. Your statement that it is well known and popular is not enough. See WP:VERIFY for more information.
- It was a copy/paste of the the content from a website associated with the subject, and therefore a [WP:CV|copyright violation]].
- Singularity42 (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Heads-up
I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Nazir Ahemd Marri
please can u tell me why u put my artcile on delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooth (talk • contribs)
- For the reasons I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazir Ahmed Marri. Singularity42 (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
regarding the article manit dani
i have no relation with the subject but i am his huge fan . I also provided all he valid links and sources from the internet. Please remove the clean up tag from the page. thanks sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.140.206.210 (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I do not understand. Your only edit to to the article (at least, under this IP address) was to remove the conflict-of-interest tag. However, based on your comments, it is apparant that you are User:Sanjayp3 logged out. That account was formerly known as User:Mantidani, which would make it that you are the person who the article is about. Therefore, there is a conflict of interest in regards to your edits to that article. Singularity42 (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Singularity42. I mentioned your name and edits at User_talk:Peridon#When_Flying_Was_Easy. Feel free to join the discussion. Thanks :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I'm sure Peridon will sort it all out. Singularity42 (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey
Thanks for ur contrib. I will reedit the article and post again when completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damoon4all (talk • contribs) 19:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Fuukit
Why do you want to delete the article? The company does exist and there is atleast 1 news article found. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smarties1979 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Smarties, unfortunately proving the company's existence is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article about it. Wikipedia requires evidence of notability (as demonstrated by indepedent, reliable sources). The one news article you found was not judged to be sufficient to satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Therefore, unless other sources exist that weren't in the article, it is unlikely that Fuukit will get its own article in the near future. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 22:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Mohanji
Hi Singularity42,
I created a page on a person named Mohanji a month or so ago and it was deleted cos it was not an original writing but very similar to other texts from his website, and also I missed some third party references. Now, I re-created it and would like you to check if it's OK to go or if not, please help me correct it and make it eligible for wiki. Where can I show you the page from my sandbox so you can check it?
Thank you
Zlio2004 (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Zlio2004
- You could create it as a user-draft at User:Zilo2004/Mohanji. Singularity42 (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Mohanji wiki page
Thank you for the heads-up on the notability for the article on Mohanji. I would kindly ask you to give me some more time to find more reliable sources on the topic. Could you also please help me out with the editing? Where should I search for independent sources (online/offline)? Can you please tell me some examples of independent references on a person? Thank you! Zlio2004 (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Zlio2004
Hi Singularity42. Regarding the Mohanji article, I deleted most of the links that were directly connected to him such as blogs, and I added lots of third party coverage sources as you suggested. Can you please check it, and let me know if it's eligible for Wikipedia now, or it needs more corrections - if so please help me, and advise me further. Thank you. Zlio2004 (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Zlio2004
Astley_v._Verdun
Hi Singularity42,
Just to let you know I placed a POV-check template on this article which you had originally created. I hope you don't take it personally - you did a great job creating this article when there was very little to work from. Please let's discuss this at:Talk:Astley_v._Verdun#pov-check_template Ottawahitech (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Mohanji wiki page
Hi Singularity42. I made a lot of changes to the Mohanji wiki page as you suggested. Added third party sources, deleted directly linked sources, and made the text more biographic. Please take your time to check it and let me know if it now meets the criteria. Thanks. Zlio2004 (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Zlio2004
Striked comment on anti-Semetism page
Those was comments by sock hence they should be stricken.Please revert yourself thank you.(I am sorry I hadn't explained myself in edit summary)--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 04:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Done. I didn't notice the block, so just saw the unexplained refactoring. Singularity42 (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 19:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Youssef Allam Article
Dear Singularity42,
Could you please tell me why is Youssef Allam Article was nominated for deletion?
Thank you for your cooperation --Nouny88 (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think my reasons were pretty clear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youssef Allam. Probably best just to read that then for me to type it out all over again. Singularity42 (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that you are quick to judge one's character. I was in the process of adding citations to more web-links that are provided. Phillip Nelson's music is released on iTunes and other formats. As for the documentary, the links are posted about "Out in America," which is NOT about himself, it is about gay rights! Quick to judge much! Phillip does not control his website, his agent with City Models does. About his acting, it states the features release dates on when they are coming out! His book is also mentioned. I was in the process of adding citation from VH1, Chicago Times, Catoosa Times, Perez Hilton, Fearless Radio, and many more. I think it is unfair to not allow me to finish the process, since I worked on it for 14 hours straight! P.S. Some IMDb credits are in the process mode of being added to his account. Meanwhile, there is other credits listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wm55 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is proof and reference number about Human Desires being submitted to IMDb.
|
Thank you for contributing to the IMDb. A detailed receipt for your update is included below. The information you supplied has been passed to the IMDb data managers for verification. Updates normally take around 7-10 days to appear online, but depending on the type of information submitted and various internal factors, it may take longer in some cases. For example additions involving titles or names new to the database require an additional 7 days to process. If your changes still have not appeared online after 28 days, it can mean we were unable to verify the information or it was in some way ineligible for inclusion. However, you should also check the processing times page for any unusual delays, particularly if your data was in one of the following categories: awards, alternate titles. For questions on the submission process we recommend visiting the Contributors Help message board. The reference number for this submission is 121001-005535-063000 and it has been added to your update history. Update summary
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wm55 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please refrain from making personal attacks and please assume good faith. saying that I "am quick to judge one's character" is completely uncalled for. I am, in fact, known as trying to take very objective positions within the Wikipedia community, and seeing arguments from both sides.
- I agree I made a mistake regarding the documentary. I have already corrected my nomination with that correction. It does not change my ultimate position.
- It does not really matter when his future works are going to be released. The question is whether he is notable now, [[WP:TOOSOON}not sometime in the future]].
- I would have assumed his music can be released on iTunes. Almost any musician can get their music released on iTunes. That is not a factor for notability for Wikipedia. For more information, please read WP:MUSICBIO.
- Feel free to finish the process. I did not realize you were still in the middle of editing. The community deletion discussion is usually seven days before an administrator makes a decision. (As an aside, rather than working 14 hours straight on a new article within the main article space, it is a better idea to create a user draft first. That would avoid an editor from nominating it for deletion without realizing it is still being worked on). Nonethess, I don't see how the additional references will change anything. He clearly does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR. Singularity42 (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I also seen your links of the "not searchable" files. One thing, Phillip Nelson's book is not yet released, as indicated in the biography it is in the editing process to be released Spring 2013. Two, here is a link to search for Phillip Nelson in Google images, as Singularity42 tried to display incorrectly. https://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=757&q=phillip+nelson&oq=phillip+nelson&gs_l=img.3..0i10i24l4j0i24j0i10i24l4j0i24.2201.3589.0.5509.14.13.0.0.0.0.93.833.13.13.0...0.0...1ac.1.OIYeiKQvC5I#hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=%22Phillip+Nelson%22&oq=%22Phillip+Nelson%22&gs_l=img.3..0i10i24l3j0i24j0i10i24l4j0i24j0i10i24.24957.28158.2.28343.16.15.0.0.0.0.102.1086.13j2.15.0.eesh..0.0...1.1.eZmzRD80bps&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=eaaf01f02b3bfeb&biw=1536&bih=757
--Wm55 (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why are you commenting here? This is not the discussion page for the possible deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Nelson. Singularity42 (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- I did not add any links. When a deletion discussion page is started, the software automatically creates Google links for the title of the article. Singularity42 (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Hatting legal threats
|
|---|
|
I have tried to comment on the deletion page, but I do not see where it indicates you "can" leave a comment. Also, I am a female. I represent Phillip Nelson through my modeling agency. You can delete this page to your liking, but facts indicate that is more than enough proof and links about his careers and accomplishments. It is clear that you have a grudge against my client. I would like to thank you for showing me exactly how Wikipedia works so I can inform all of my current and future clients about your "standards." Also, I have submitted the comments (on the deletion forum) to my lawyer revolving the defamation of character on Phillip Nelson. I will inform Phillip Nelson about these issues, since he had no knowledge of this Wikipedia page being created. With that said, you (Wikipedia) does not have permission to use any of the images and signatures that were displayed on the Wikipedia page. If you do I will proceed against you with legal action. I do not condone Wikipedia, nor will I allow the mockery of my client. I request that you take opinionated judgments elsewhere. --76.102.70.129 (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC) |
Usage of Anti-Semitism
Your reversion of the Usage of Anti-Semitism misses the entire point of the passage and so is not a valid reversion.
That "anti-semitism" is most widely used to refer to racism doirected at Jews is a point that has been made in the Lede and the previous paragraph. The phrase "but such usage is not widely accepted.[5][6]" is the third time this point has been made and has clearly been added to diminish the 2nd paragraph, so I have removed it in it's entirety.
Furthermore to claim something is "not widely accepted" is to make a value judgement. Citing a few authors who don't accept it can have other definitions does not provide evidence that it is "not widely accepted". In fact the David Matas paper cited provides stromng evidence for a widespread Arab opposition to a narrow definition of anti-semitism. The Matas paper is a polemnic. It represents the author's point of view. A balanced POV requires the inclusion of others views.
In order to have a neutral point of view it is important to highlight that the current usage does not reflect the original historical framing of the term "anti-semitism" nor is it appropriate etymologically or in the context of hatreds among Semitic peoples. Galerita (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Discuss on the article's talk page. You made a bold edit. I reverted with reasons stated in the edit summary. The next stage is to discuss on the article's talk page. Instead, you tried to reinsert the content. Another editor than reverted you a second time. You then posted here and on the other user's talk page without discussing it at the article's talk page. Then you immediately filed a WP:DRN report. If you feel strongly about the change, discuss it on the article's talk page and then wait to see what the emerging consensus is. Singularity42 (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok I will discuss this on the article's talk page. I was not familiar with the process. Thank you for providing an explanation. Galerita (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Antisemitism#Usage". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 13:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
reasons for deletion requested
Dear Singularity42, Could you please give reasons for the proposed of the article by Wafahh on Tipu Khan Bahadur
Dear Singularity42,
Could you please tell me why is Tipu Khan Bahadur Article was nominated for deletion?
Thank you for your cooperation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafahh (talk • contribs)
- From your own talk page: "Cannot find any reliable sources that back up claim of notability." Beyond that, I cannot say. The article was deleted over a year ago by an administrator. Singularity42 (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Real Life Barnstar |
| For interceding in a particular off-wiki situation that could have long term implications, and doing it very very well. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC) |
- I was glad to hear that it all worked out! Singularity42 (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Belated Happy New Year
Hi Singularity42,
I have been too consumed with the fight to try and keep many Nortel articles from the chopping block and have neglected other areas of interest. So anyway, Happy New Year Ottawahitech (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Ref [1] is an FAQ needed? Otherwise the talk page stuff disappears into an archive and your comments will not work. There is one on Global Warming for topics where people keep coming in and editing common fallacies? --BozMo talk 18:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure a FAQ is required, as it is just the one issue. The archive on the talk page has been formatted in such a way so that people can specifically look up a topic (in this case the etymology of the work). I'm hoping the edit I made to the article will at least cause new editors to discuss first before making the same controversial edit over and over again. However, if that does not work, or if you or other editors think more is required on the talk page, I would definitely not object. Singularity42 (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Drg55 legal threat
Hi
I have put a reply to the discussion on the administrative noticeboards which mentions you, thanks for your support.
Reviewer granted
Hi Singularity42, I just wanted to let you know that I have granted the reviewer userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, please contact me and I will remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Removing my first post.
Thanks for leaving the message of why my contributon was removed. However I do not know why this is, since the cited source the material was from, was from a official and established valid news source, that even incuded other cited established resources throughout it's page. I also am very much aware of the stigma of how new users seem to nearly always have there first posts removed, simply because of being new and not necessarily because of valid reasons as were suggested. I mean no disrespect, but it would be of great help if you could point out exactly what was wrong with the information I added, which was entirely valid, relevant, and helpful to the topic. Please let me know the areas of how it was wrong so I can make appropriate adjustments to the content to submit again without this issue. I greatly appreciate any specific help on this you can provide me. Thank you much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veronica E1701 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- There were a couple issues I identified:
- I originally thought it was original research without a reliable source. I missed that there was a second page on the source you linked, which does have the information you cited. Therefore, I was incorrect on this point, but it raises significant concern on the third point below.
- The second point I raised on your talk page was that it was US-centric. Costs, reprucssions, bail, etc., that the link describes are not global phenomena. They are US-specific, and is therefore more appropriate in Drunk driving in the United States.
- After reviewing the link, I now believe you may be creating a copyright violation. For more information, you should review WP:COPYPASTE and WP:Close paraphrasing. Singularity42 (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for providing me more precise details of your concerns of why you felt it necessary to be removed. I can see your concern on point 2, on how that can be US-specific, and I can update whith new information so it global. Although on the third point and the information used, I cited the exact reference url to the original source, so I thought that would avoid such potential copyright issues you mentioned since I directly referenced it. However I do appreciate you helping me with the specifics of why you removed it and helping me become more aware of how to post it according to proper standards on here. I will attempt to make the appropriate edits to my post and try again based on this information you helped privide. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veronica E1701 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- You re-posted the same content again without really addressing the issues. First, the content is specific to drinking and driving in the U.S., and content of that nature should be at Drunk driving in the United States. Second, it is a WP:Copyright violation. A copyright violation is not solved by saying where you copied the content from. Unless you have the owner has given permission to license it for Wikipedia, it cannot be copied here. Singularity42 (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I reposted some of the same content, with the appropriate modifications as I said I would do, based upon from what you had suggested about it should be more about global phenomena. On that note, the edits on the repost included a more universal coverage of the topic, along with specific U.S. information. Addressing the socalled copyright concern, still makes no sense when excerpts are used from that page, but the proper reference link is credited of where it was sourced. Just about every piece of information on subtopics for this page submitted by others, has parts in it when they provided new information in which by the terms you just described to me, all would violate those policies as well. A good example of this would be for this user's added content that links to thi citenote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_under_the_influence#cite_note-5 Based on the guidelines you just explained to me about it having to be "global phenomena," how does that small piece of content this user added, in which clearly even says only applies to the U.S. and Canada, apply to the the "global phenomena" rules? Furthermore, that cited reference they used, is not linking to any authority site at all - but rather links to just a DUI lawyer site for getting attorney leads, andthe cited page is only for the state of Minnesota. So I would very much appreciate you explaining how that example I just provided you on this page, in anyway fits the rules in which you just told me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veronica E1701 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I cannot comment on whether other content is a copyright violation or not, but what you are adding is. Copying-and-pasting or changing a few words is a copyright violation, whether or not you cite where it comes from. For more information, read Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Instead, you must write it in your own words, and then cite what you have written to the source.
- The issue of whether the content is appropriate for that article or Drunk driving in the United States should be discussed at Talk:Driving under the influence so all interested editors can discuss, and a WP:Consensus can develop. For more information, please read this.
- You need to sign your posts and indent. You can sign your posts by typing
~~~~. You can indent by typing:for each level of indenting. That way the a discussion can be followed. Singularity42 (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, the results of the duplication detector shows a pretty high amount of duplication between page two of the source and your last edit to the article, and that was after I set it a pretty conservative cut-off for analysis. That's a pretty good sign that the content is probably a copyright violation. Singularity42 (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
On the first point of the cited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_under_the_influence#cite_note-5, I was not asking if it was copyrighted material or not. I was asking a quite valid question of how that particluar cited source can honestly be used as a socalled reliable source. That is the question I had asked about, and I even stated the reasons why it is definitely not a valid source. On that source which is currently still displayed on this page, the copyright issue was not the point, the invalid cited source was the issue. Yet somehow that still remains on here and do not see how it should according to the rules as mentioned. On the other issues about my contributions, I will in the future make sure I try to better follow the guidelines you explained. Thanks for answering my inquiries though, I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veronica E1701 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio
Way back when, you made this edit, inserting copyrighted text from S.229 here, the reuse of which is subject to these terms and conditions which are incompatible with its verbatim use on WP. While you cited the source, you failed to attribute it as a direct quotation. That text was subsequently split off to Murder (Canadian law), but it remains a copyvio. Please either reword it or show it as a direct quotation. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree that this is a copyright violation, as it is the reproduction of a law, which is public domain. The DOJ page you specifically notes the following that pursuant to federal regulation: "Anyone may, without charge or request for permission, reproduce enactments and consolidations of enactments of the Government of Canada... provided due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced and the reproduction is not represented as an official version." The page later notes: "The legal material on this site may be reproduced, in whole or in part and by any means, without further permission from the Department of Justice. No such reproduction shall indicate that the Department of Justice is in any way responsible for the accuracy or reliability of the reproduction; nor shall any such reproduction indicate that it was made with the endorsement of, or in affiliation with, the Department of Justice." Singularity42 (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Replied at article talkpage. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the edit made on the Sentence (law) page
I'm a new editor of wikipedia, therefore i'm not quite sure how a response to a revert goes. Regardless, the edit I made under the rehabilitation portion of the philosophies section of the Sentence (law) page is from academic research I did from the UC Berkeley scholarly resources for a class project. The edit was made to elucidate some court rulings made where women and men are sentenced to be forcibly sterilized, therefore I see that the edit I made adding "forced sterilization" as acceptable. Also I'm not quite sure what you mean by gaining consensus, and also you should discuss as to why you don't want the edit on the page.
thanks. KB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karly Behncke (talk • contribs) 21:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Karly! Welcome to Wikipedia. I can speak from experience that it can be a bit daunting a first to understand the various guidelines and policies regarding editing Wikipedia, but you'll soon get the hang of it.
- By the time you've read this, I will have added some links to your talk page that help explain a lot of how to edit Wikipedia. But here's a few you should concentrate on (which will help explain the situation with your proposed edit to Sentence (law):
- WP:Five pillars. These are the five pillars (or principles) of Wikipedia. While not specific to the situation, it is always a good starting point for any new editor.
- Wikipedia:No original research. This is a policy that prevents editors from using Wikipedia to present their own original research. This is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, based on a policy of WP:Verifiability. Editors should only add content that is is sourced to secondary, WP:Reliable sources. I'm mentioning this because you mention that you are adding content based on your own research...
- WP:Consensus. Wikipedia is consensus-driven. This means that the content, guidelines, etc., is based on consensus. Content-specific issues are based on policy-based consensus. There are various ways to determine the community's consensus - one of them I have described below.
- WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. This essay describes one of the most common ways consensus is determined. An editor (such as yourself) makes a bold addition, deletion, or change to an article. Another editor (such as myself) reverts the edit for certain reasons usually described in the edit summary (I'll explain my concerns more below). The original editor then discusses why the change should made on the article's talk page (in this case, Talk:Sentence (law)). Various editors chime in, and the change is made if there is a consensus for that change.
- I'll keep my reasons for the revert brief here, as it should really be discussed at the article's talk page. However, in a nutshell, I took two issues with it. First, forced sterilization seems to be an unusual type of criminal sentence, especially in the modern area. I would want to seem some reliable, secondary sources supporting that this is common enough for inclusion in this general article. Second, it seems odd to call forced sterilization "rehabilitation", which is the heading you were including it under. Again, reliable sources would help in this area.
- Please let me know if you have any questions. Singularity42 (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Civility Barnstar |
| Thank you very much for jumping in and helping to calm an uncivil situation. Taking the time to launch a sock puppet investigation and even revert nasty grams - is all very much appreciated! Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks. Glad I could help out the situation. Singularity42 (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
link to RPA
Thank you very much for the link to the related info. I see what you mean about those personal comments not qualifying. I think its ok to remove my own reactionary comments which I will now do, but if that is not ok, please revert my removal. Thanks again, May122013 (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. I think you can probably see why removing criticism directed at you that is not an unquestionable personal attack could be seen as problematic, which is why it is best left for someone more objective.
- Also, I should add that although I found that the comments were not personal attacks, someone with more experience or an administrator could disagree with me, and I will take no offence to that. The reason why I did not think it was a personal attack is that I think raising the issue of whether a substantial editor has a COI is a valid concern that can be raised on the article's talk page. The other editors' comments seem to consisist of a) showing (in a back-handed type of way) that there is no COI, and b) raising civility concerns about how you responded to the initial question. But as I said, I take no offence if someone disagrees with me. Singularity42 (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Delete these images please.
Hi, I uploaded these images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shitansh_Sinha.JPG http://en.mobile.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shitansh_Sinha.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ShitanshSinha.jpg
But, now want to delete and I am unable to delete. So, if possible, kindly delete these images. Thanks. shitansh sinha 11:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shitansh (talk • contribs)
- I've added {{db-g7}} to both files to notify an administrator that the author and only substantial contributer to that page has requested deletion. An administrator will now review the files to see if they meet the speedy deletion policies. Singularity42 (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shitansh (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Comments re Montana Ghost Town Society page
The following discussion 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.
I have read your comments re removing text and I have no idea what you are trying to say. You seem to think I am stealing text from a copyrighted source - on what basis do you say this? I am a MGTPS member and with the permission of the society president I am creating his page. As far as I know there is no copyrighted material on it. Please explain what you are finding to be wrong. And btw I have no idea how to reply on "my" talk page. Explain that to me too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckflood (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Chuckflood! Welcome to Wikipedia. I know from experience when I first started editing back in 2007 that it be daunting at first volunteering to edit an online encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. However, here are some points and policies that I think you should be aware of:
- Your talk page can be found by clicking Talk at the top of your screen. To edit it, click the "Edit" tab at the top, or click "edit" on any section you specifically want to add comments to. Your talk page is a place where other editors can interact with you regarding your edits to Wikipedia. Similarly, every article has a Talk page where editors can discuss changes, improvements, or concerns about the article.
- Wikipedia only has articles on notable subjects. "Notability" is specifically definied at WP:Notability. To be notable, an organization usually needs to be discussed in a non-trivial way by multiple, independent, reliable sources. Has the Montana Ghost Town Society been the subject of independent reliable sources? If so, please link to them. If not, I'm afraid the Society is not yet notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia.
- Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted content. This includes copy-pastes from a website, even if there is a claim that the owner of the content has given permission. See WP:COPYPASTE. If the owner of the content wishes to license the content so that Wikipedia and other websites can reproduce it, please ask the owner of the content to review Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
- You should read WP:Conflict of interest as it appears you are very closely connected to the subject of the article. Editors with such close connections should exercise caution when editing articles about those subjects.
- You can (and should) sign your posts to a talk page (so that we can keep track of who says what, etc.). You can do that by typing
~~~~at the end of your comments.
- Let me know if I can assist further! Singularity42 (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Tell me this: if the Montana Ghost Town Preservation Society page is not acceptable, then what about the New England Antiquities Research Association page??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEARA. I modeled my prototype MGTPS page after NEARa - virtually identical except NEARA has a References section. Is that all it takes or what is going on?
I am finding it absolutely impossible to get anything done because no sooner do I create a page and start to populate it than someone come along and deletes it. Do you really expect absolute perfection in published pages? --Chuckflood (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not really concerned with other articles at the moment (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). What I'm concerned about right now is helping you get the article up to Wikipedia's acceptance standards - otherwise it might have to be tagged for deletion. No one is sayin the article needs to be perfect. But it does need to meet the acceptance guidelines at WP:Notability. Right now, all I'm asking is if you have any links to independent, reliable sources that have covered this organization in a non-trivial way? Singularity42 (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for my ignorance. But the page I mentioned by comparison is for an organization of virtually identical credibility - 501c3, focus on a particular aspect of American history. The NEARA page has two references: one to their website, one to a web archive. Are you saying that a web archive article constitutes a reputable source?
--Chuckflood (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I will address the other article later. For now, I am focusing on trying to help your article avoid deletion. To do that, I will ask for a third time: do you have any links to independent, reliable sources that have covered this organization in a non-trivial way? Singularity42 (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I certainly believe I do, but until I have a clear definition of what "non-trivial" means, why bother trying? For instance, I could reference newspaper articles that discuss how the society has been active in preserving historical sites, only to have someone behind-the-scenes decide that newspaper articles don't constitute non-triviality. It's like trying to fight fog -
And by the way, what specifically do you mean by "links"? References, sure; to articles which have not been digitized and exist only in hardcopy. But links to online sources - is the the criterion? Which is why I asked - for the second time - about the reference to a web archive article. If a web archive article isn't originated by a trusted, reliable source, how can a mere link to it be considered adequate and acceptable? --Chuckflood (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please read WP:Notability and WP:Reliable sources. They answer all of your questions, and I have referred you to those pages already. Singularity42 (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Response --
"Usually, when a notable author has a book or collection - and the book/collection itself is not independently notable of the author - we redirect the article on the book/collection to the article about the author."
1. There are few who know Denise Levertov's bibliography better than I -- and that includes whoever posted the original article. My extensive additions to the "Reference" section, as example, is of Bibliographies, Interviews, and Criticism ALL but a very few of which volumes are in my own library.
As for the original page set-up: Under "Collections" -- properly "Primary Works" -- were not only listed primary works but also individual poems -- individual poems not being "Collections". "Collections" are volumes of poems edited together by others than the author -- the several "Selected" poems being examples.
2. The book cited -- The Great Unknowing: Last Poems -- is "notable to" Levertov: it is BY Levertov. The manuscript was published as she left it, overseen by an executor, as she had arranged before dying.
Levertov died in 1997. The executor, Paul A. Lacey, edited the Selected Poems -- listed under "Collections" -- posthumously, and it was published in 2002. That volume is properly "credited" to him -- as editor, and as I did in the "Collections" listing.
3. I didn't add an "article"; I added the "Contents" of The Great Unknowing, copying the method used by whomever to add "Contents" to several of the other of Levertov's primary works in the list.
4. The article itself provides biography of the author; there is no need for any "redirect" from an actual volume written by Levertov to anything other than the "Contents" of the volume which I added. No need for a "redirect" from a page to the very same page one is already on.
5. You might ask what a person is doing before screwing with it and mucking it up. Set it back to reading the "Contents". Until then, I'll not be able to continue adding the "Contents" of other volumes, as intended.
JNagarya 23:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNagarya (talk • contribs)
- Please read the policy and guideline links I provided to you on your talk page. The guidelines make clear that a book does not meet the notability requirements just because the author is notable. It is normal practice to redirect a book to the author's article in those circumstances. An author's article is not just their biography. It can include a summary of their works as well. Singularity42 (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Montana Ghost Town Preservation Society
Hi, I just wanted to say I was a bit unattentive when new-page patrolling and marked the Montana Ghost Town Preservation Society page as patrolled, and tagged it for its lack of sources, among other things. I didn't see you were already trying to help Chuckflood to get it sorted out, unfortunately. Chuckflood asked me for some help as well, but I mainly referred to what you've already said. You can trace our conversation at my talk page if you like, though. I hope I didn't step on any toes - sorry if so.
All the best, Yakikaki (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- No problem - replied there. The new notification system apparantely lets us know now if we are discussed on another talk page. I think Chuckflood may not be happy with me for deleting some copyvio content, so it probably did not hurt having another editor come in to assist. Singularity42 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't so much being unhappy as puzzled. A lot of companies and organizations put time and efort into creating a clear, correct and concise statement of what they are and their goals and objectives. These words often get repurposed for whatever outlet the organizations wants to make itself known, whether printed masterial (brochures, marketing tools, annual statements) or online (blogs, social media, etc) but there is usually an itent to maintain consistency of the message however presented. wiki seems to go against that model - rather than allowing the mission statement to be re-used, an entirely new description needs to be put totether. Even though the organization "owns" its descriptive write-up, it can't be used verbatim on a wiki page without violation of copyright. I think this is rather odd and potentially troublesome, since it's possible, I guess, for any wahoo to create, edit or modify an organization's page without that org's control or input; with the possibility of the org's carefully-crafted mesage being distorted by the hand of a less proficient writer. This seems to run contra to wiki's otherwise rule-bound enforcement of consistency and quality. But if that's the way it is, that's the way it is. Sorry for being long-winded but I wanted to explain. --Chuckflood (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess I've learned my lesson. I'll put it into my own words next time.
Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inimbrium (talk • contribs) 23:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Edit question
Hello, I am new on Wikipedia and trying to make useful edits to the "Driving Under Influence" page, and had a question about the edits of mine you undid. That page was relevant to the subject addressing the costs, and was just confused as to what the problem was. If you could please elaborate just so I know in the future, I would appreciate it. Also, when you mentioned the website was not objective, could you please explain how citenote #5 and citenote #12 are objective - when they are only lawyer advertising sites, and in addition limited to only the specific region they are advertising in? It is for these reasons I am quite confused how to determine what is actually considered a reliable or objective source, when websites like those specific citenotes just mentioned are able to remain. Any information or help on this you could explain would be greatly appreciated for me going forward, and thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megan85a (talk • contribs) 23:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Megan85a! Welcome to Wikipedia. Here are a couple points:
- You need to avoid engaging in an edit war. You boldly added a reference, and it was reverted with a reason. You disagreed with the reason provided, and started a discussion here (which I am moving to Talk:Driving under the influence#Insurance reference, for reasons I explain below). That's all very good, and part of the process for dispute resolution. However, before adding it back, it is important to continue the discussion. Repeated reversions before letting a WP:CONSENSUS emerge, is edit-warring (which is considered disrputive editing).
- It is usually a good idea to discuss issues related to a specific article on that article's talk page so that other editors who contribute to the article can also join the discussion, and so that a consensus can be determined. I have started that discussion for you on the talk page.
- Let me know if you have any other questions about editing on Wikipedia. Singularity42 (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
good work
Good work on Cloud Service Brokerage. When someone doesn't understand, it's much better to refer to someone else who can take a try at explaining, than to keep tagging and deleting until the new ed gets blocked. Not that I know I've been successful in explaining, of course, but if we have to block it's useful to be able to say that several editors tried . If it shows up in similar state, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- I commented further at the eds. talk p. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Deprod IFunny
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from IFunny, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFunny, which overrides the need for a {{prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nilender Prakash Punj may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- |concern = [[WP:N|Notability]] is not inherited (especially from a company does that does not have its own article. Cannot find '''independent''', [
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Just about ready to go.
Nomination is done, so this your last chance to run away in terror. See here for what else needs to happen before it goes live. Good Luck! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Saw the the "Here be dragons" message, and said "I want to see those dragons!" Not sure if that entirely made sense, but thanks very much for the nomination, Beeblebrox! Singularity42 (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Question about wp:notifications - not urgent
Hi,
Thank you for responding to my question at your rfa. When you get a chance can you take the time to explain "the pros generally outweigh the cons on the pinging process" to me. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Professionals - notice of discussion
You may be interested in this deletion proposal: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_22#Professionals. Regards, XOttawahitech (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
RfA
Thank you for answering my question on your RfA. I was also hoping to hear how your friendship with another Admin might complicate your response to an inept Editor who was annoying her but your response to the Editor was very thorough. Liz Read! Talk! 16:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this account, Uncle Milty was correct that this is a spambot. It has been going on for some time now. The patterns are easy to pick out once you see a few examples like:
Or just look at all of the accounts that I have blocked labeled as spambots. See also m:NTSAMR. In this particular case, I think they were spamming a link related to The Jessica Simpson Collection shoes. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Victor Mochere
Just so you know, Victor Mochere (talk · contribs), a brand-new editor, filed an RfA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Victor Mochere and plagiarized the answers to the questions from your recent RfA. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
RFA
Congratulations, I've just closed your RFA as successful. Good luck with your first few steps as an admin, feel free to contact any of us if you need some "wise words"! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats, Singularity42. I was very happy with your work from the outset, and am glad to see you now equipped with a mop in hand! I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, that went <so> well I can hardly believe it. Welcome to the cabal. Your handlers will be along shortly to teach you the secret handshake and supply keys to the admin's lounge.
Hazinguh, I mean, initiation will begin forthwith. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Happy to have been your first support. Please feel free to ping me if you need any advice. And congrats! Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats of your RfA!! You've earned it! Remember to add Template:Administrator topicon! ///EuroCarGT 19:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations. I'm not entirely sure how I missed this RfA, but it doesn't look like my support was needed :) Black Kite (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone! That went quite well. Now I need to figure out all these new tools... Singularity42 (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Good Luck! cyrfaw (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations and good luck for your future Wikipedia endeavours! Jianhui67 Talk 09:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats from me too. Sorry I missed the vote. I think you will be a wonderful admin. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- What Anna said. I've got to start watching the RfAs again. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
| Congratulations! Here are some words of wisdom I received after my successful RFA from my favorite puppy: |
|
| DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be better. All rights released under GFDL. |
- Now what am I going to say? :-/ KrakatoaKatie, you stole my advice to new admins!! :-P Well, at least you gave me credit. Singularity42, congrats, and everything as on User:KillerChihuahua/congrats, which KrakatoaKatie has shamelessly stolen from me. KillerChihuahua 20:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Disruptive editing
I would like to inform you that I used edit summaries two times regarding this issue. The ip didn't respond to that and he kept his disruptive edits. I was of the opinion that, when an editor doesn't respond to edit summaries, to several warnings and keeps making his own changes, it constitutes blatant vandalism. I explained why I reversed his edits and he ignored me completely. Gtrbolivar (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I have now advised both of you to discuss it on the talk page. If you try to discuss it there, but the IP continues to edit war without discussion, then I will apply the appropriate administrative remedy. Singularity42 (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)I would add that edit summaries are not a "discussion" at all. See WP:BRD. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
blocking spam usernames
This is a matter of personal preference rather than any sort of rule, but I think it is usually better to go for a "soft" block on all but the most egregious cases of spammers who are also violating WP:ORGNAME. . If you do the hard block and and add that humungous {{uw-spamublock}} template it often just seems to confuse them. They don't read the whole notice and just want to argue that they weren't really trying to spam. It has been my experience that most first-time spammers honestly had no idea that what they were doing is not how we do things here. If you give them a soft block (account creation allowed, autoblock disabled) and use {{uw-softerblock}} and remove any spam they have added the get the idea that we take this seriously and spamming is not acceptable, but we are willing to give them another chance iff they are willing to stop using an ORGNAME. They don't need to appeal the block, they can just open a new account and endeavor to write in a more neutral tone. It doesn't always work but I find it works better than hardblocking. I do use it sometimes when a user is being really agressive with their spamming or when I gave them the soft block and they come back with a new ORGNAME and just start back up again. Most spammers are just ignorant of what Wikipedia is and how it works, but a few of them are just clueless jerks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- I was trying to get a feel between the two. I was using softerblock if the editor's edits went beyond just promoting their organization, etc., and spamublock if they were just making inappropriate edits about their organization, etc. However, I am still working out a style, so I can definitely err more towards using softerblock. Singularity42 (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Re: ISU Username
Ah, okay. Thank you for pointing that out. I'll try to keep an eye out for that and not report it to the "blatant" board. Thanks for taking the time to message me too! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- I thought it a courtesy to stop by about this report -- I've been away from Wikipedia lately but was just browsing UAA when I saw it. There's actually precedent that names of the "Work Post of Company" variety are promotional, and certainly that is confusing I know, as it seems to fit perfectly under the WP:ISU category, which as you indicated, are often not names we want to block right away. So "Work Post of Company" names are kind of an exception to that principle... this was definitely not clear however so I've just made an edit [2] to the UAAI page to clarify. Meanwhile I moved that particular report to the holding pen. Good luck. NTox · talk 01:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you
Hi Singularity42
I just wanted to say thank you for helping to move the article. I'm a bit of a new user so I'm still figuring things out! Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesOAdams (talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Phase 1 Medicine at Durham
It was within administrative discretion to block the account and I won't object, although I wouldn't have myself as not only was there not an exact match, the edit itself was not blatantly promotional (as in, had it come from another editor with an acceptable username we would have considered it intended (at least) to be helpful). Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- It was for that last reason I made sure it was a softblock than a spamublock. I also see why you wouldn't have blocked the account. One of those cases where reasonable people (or reasonable administrators?) will disagree. :)
Want to know the problem on the page
Hi,
I need your support on a page. Can you please review the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexsin and let me know the error. Wikipedia is showing error on the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiranjitPaul (talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- I am about the delete the new version of the article. I will explain why on your talk page.
Help
Can you help me move Disney XD United Kingdom to Disney XD (UK & Ireland)?Mouseinphilly (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Re: WP:UAA
Hi Singularity42! Sorry for the trouble. I was told that I should not report usernames unless they have edited (per User talk:EvergreenFir#How I interpret the username policy discussion with Daniel Case on my talk page). For names that are clear violations but have no edits, I sometimes template them (per discussion with Daniel Case on my talk page). Typically I wait for a while to see if they edit so that I can avoid those mixed messages, but admit I've templated too soon before. What would you recommend I do/change to be more constructive? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Example of the kind of names I'll template if no edits: User_talk:Desert_king_waterproofing. Just to give you some context. :) EvergreenFir (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- I just realized that this was an account another editor templated before you reported to UAA (rather than you doing both). (I'm thinking of User:Bfc furniture group. No worries. Singularity42 (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Help
Can you help me find the new version of the Marcel Legre that I can assign to my student so that she can edit it. I got confused by the merge. I just need an editable link. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Responded on your userpage. All the new material is at User:Crtew/Ivory Coast press incidents 2010-2011 with the original revision history preserved. Singularity42 (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
|
I think i owe this baklava to you!!! Thank you for straightening my confusion up. Crtew (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
You got five minutes to look at a page history?
Congratulations on your shiny new mop. Good for you and the pedia. Nice to see we got some good candidates through the process without too much shrapnel damage.
I noticed a page recreation recently (DriveSavers). I asked User:CorporateM to look at it, since it's up his alley, and he's done a nice job of winnowing the wheat from chaff. But the Template:Old AfD multi shows the page was deleted in 2006 then recreated and kept in a later procedure. It's clear there was a later deletion (since the page was recreated again this week) but I don't see a third AFD. With your new toolkit, could you look at page history and remind me what happened? Thanks, and again, congratulations. BusterD (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Here's a summary of the page history:
- October 7, 2005 - page created by an IP (which was possible back then). It was a two-sentence promotional piece.
- Two minutes later - page deleted (no specifc reason given, as policies not as set back then, but it would have been G11 these days).
- January 30, 2006 - page created by User:Montrealy. Initially a two-sentence stub with no references, it was expanded on while the AFD was in process, and a few references were added.
- February 5, 2006 - page deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DriveSavers.
- April 2, 2009 - page created by User:Mfisherkirshner. Very lengthy article with numerous references.
- April 4, 2009 - page nominated for deletion.
- April 10, 2009 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DriveSavers (2nd nomination) results in a keep decision. As you can see, though, there was still some concern at the AFD about the promotional nature of the article. Over the next few years, attempts are made to remove the promotional content, and there's some back and forth between regular editors and SPAs about whether the promotional tags still apply.
- May 3, 2012 - User:Peridon deletes the article under WP:A7 (which I think could be a bit controversial regarding the earlier AFD result).
- September 16, 2013 - User:Jaosnimpson creates the article. That's the version you have been working with.
- If you want, I can restore the revision history for the version that was deleted in 2012. Singularity42 (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- When I deleted it, the contents was
"DriveSavers is a privately held company in Northern California that provides data recovery services, and is approved by hardware manufacturers including Alienware, Apple, HP, Maxell, Samsung, Sony, and Western Digital.[1]
The company's data recovery engineers are trained and certified by various encryption software vendors so they can recover data from encrypted hard drives,[2] software and peripheral devices.[3]"
Which to my mind didn't show any significance. Apart from "It has a positive and well-respected reputation", which may be true but looks promo, the current version looks a lot better. I don't remember the article, but with the volume I delete, that's not surprising. I don't claim to be perfect, and I'm always happy for something to be revived and sorted out. Peridon (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks both of you for the clarification. No objections here, just curiosity. The history looks much as I remember it. I'm only aware of the company because I've been forced to use them, and I'm happy to see they've gotten the press they deserve. User:CorporateM deserves the lion's share for the tone on the page at this moment. Knowing his interest in company pages and seeing the new page well-anchored but still overly promotional, I invited him to give it a look. Here's the diff. Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)