This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | Archive 5 |
In response to the assassination of Sokratis Giolias, Troktiko has gone offline indefinitely. A sad day for the free world...
Hello Eraserhead1, welcome to WikiProject Apple Inc.! We aim to create and improve articles related to Apple Inc. Feel free to post ideas at the general forums and look at our "how to help" list for things to do. Happy editing! — mono 20:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The redirect is redundant because our software or something automatically redirects the search phrase "main page" to the Main Page. Now the redirect seems to be irreversible (just try speedy deleting it). Marcus Qwertyus 20:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the racist attack on my talk page. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
the user is about to violate the 3RR if an admin doesn't block them in time. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
He has violated the 3RR, and I am about to get off Wikipedia so I don't risk one either (I'm at two reverts), can you help monitor the page from his POV edits, thanks. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Did you want to discuss it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.243.77 ( talk) 22:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you thegreyanomaly's little poodle? Ecko1o1 ( talk) 01:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I just stumbled over your additions on IPv6 packet, which consisted solely of {{cn}} insertions. The relevant reference is provided in the lead sentence of most sections (reference [1]). Seriously, what is the purpose of tagging articles like this, and later removing information that is completely right, rather than just adding the reference tag yourself? I'm really sick of these destructive "maintaining edits" lately. Feel free to comment. Nageh ( talk) 14:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Remark: Obviously you did not use these tags to dispute statements but rather to solely point out that additional referencing would be required. For this, there are other templates like {{refimprove}}. Nageh ( talk) 14:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I moved your temmplate to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad-FAQ-Images. Then, I again moved it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Muhammad-FAQ-Images. Now, there are two templates. Can you look at them? I made a mistake and I cannot solve it. Kavas ( talk) 12:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Conrad-hilton.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 15:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Project news
|
|
New articles
|
Featured article
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 01:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC).
I will try to work on that as well... talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC).
Don't even bother discussing these changes. The editor is clearly the sockpuppet of a banned user who has repeatedly attempted to evade his block to push his POV edits. Revert them on sight, as he isn't even allowed to edit in the first place. oknazevad ( talk) 17:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead1, there's an error in the ITN for 2010 Summer Youth Olympics. It states "...3,531 athletes from 205 National Olympic Committees." Should be 204, see explanation here. I will post this too on the errors page. ANGCHENRUI Talk ♨ 16:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead1
I was reading the discussion about the iTouch name in the iPod Touch article and I couldn't believe that mere contribution caused a lot of controversy. I have Googled the word "iTouch" and it does appear in several websites. Like I said in the aforementioned discussion I will refrain from putting the iTouch name back. Do you think it should be in the article? Also I apologise for my edit warring on the iPad article. Diamondblade2008 ( talk) 19:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yea thats fine by me. Shall I add it back to the article or should an RFC be done? Just thought I check with you first Diamondblade2008 ( talk) 18:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Yea that will be great if you can. I promise never to edit war again. Diamondblade2008 ( talk) 21:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I lost interest in the iPod Touch/iPad articles as well. Im too involved in other articles to even give a though. Diamondblade2008 ( talk) 18:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Eraserhead1,
Please advise me how to improve Kourosh Zolani’s article while few editors revert my edits constantly (see the page history). I understand that the final decision to keep or to delete the article is based on the article itself, but the article will not have a chance if some editors keep reverting the edits instead of improving the article.
1. I think this version was a fine version before being reverted. However, I still could improve it, if I had given a chance.
2. I added new references for radio interview and the online radio stations here which were also removed.
3. Plus, I found the English translation of the article in Iran Newspaper. Also, here is the link to the article in Farsi. I know the translation is not good quality but that is all I have for now. A couple of users wasted most of my time over the last few days, instead of leaving me some time to make a decent translation. I still have not figured out how to add this translation to the article as a footnote. Even if I add it to the page, my concern is that it will be removed right away.
What do you recommend me to do? Does it even worth it to continue editing this page, if my edits keep being removed? I am afraid, this page with my edits will not have a chance to be reviewed by the administrators who make the final decision. Thank you, Sozlati ( talk) 23:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the issues have been largely solved, I think you can continue to edit the article. I suggest you provide a date of birth and other details like that if you can. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 13:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I worked on the translation and I think it is more understandable now. As you suggested, I am looking for more details and gradually add them to the talk page. However, I will not add them to the article because of the sensitively of a couple of editors to my edits. I appreciate if you and other senior editors add these pieces of information to the article, if you find them useful. Thank you. Sozlati ( talk) 21:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
New Comment. Hello again, I just wanted to let you know that we added some new edits to Kourosh Zolani’s article and
the page looked very good before an editor turned it again to
the mess that it is now. Is there any policy in WP to stop users who make unconstructive changes to a page? Thank you for helping us with editing this article.
Sozlati (
talk)
06:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
About the christianity in India page, we should not put wild claims like St. Thomas converted Kings and tribes of North India to Christianity based on no claims. In fact in Muslims of South Asia and Middle-east, there is a popular belief that ENGLAND's ruler had converted to Islam during 7th century. Fables like St. Thomas Acts are not verified and accepted by most Christians. If you visit St. Thomas article, you will see that he has been linked with one or another king from Russia to India throughout middle-east. Also, the article itself has links to disprove these fables Eastern Christian writings state that Christianity was introduced to India by Thomas the Apostle, who visited Muziris in Kerala in 52 CE to proselytize amongst Kerala's Jewish settlements; however this is widely disputed due to lack of credible historical evidence. [1] [2] [3] I hope you uphold the standards of wikipedia. thanks note: such wild claims cause much pain to non-Christians of India. Please dont play with our history and culture. We should learn to respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varanwal ( talk • contribs) 26 April 2010 20:04 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia talk:ITNC. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia talk:ITNC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bsherr ( talk) 22:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for bothering you several times. A user has removed significant part of our contributions to Kourosh Zolani discussion deletion. Based on WP rules can a user delete others contributions to such discussion? Here is the link to what this user has deleted. Please advise me what to do? Sozlati ( talk) 18:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello again, I just realized that the same user had removed our contributions before. Here is the link to another incident on August 15. Is there a way to bring back the comments that were removed on August 15? Sozlati ( talk) 21:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind checking my edit on Kourosh Zolani's article lead section? I added three examples of his compositions. I want to be sure that they are OK. Thank you Thomasshane ( talk) 01:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead1, I wanted to sincerely thank you for your attempts to edit Kourosh Zolani’s article and your contributions to the AfD discussion. This article would not have had a chance to stay without your edits. You are a great editor and a truthful person. Good luck with all your WP projects. Thank you again, Sozlati ( talk) 16:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Didn't check the archive, no. Your edit summary said something like "nothing of value here". DionysosProteus ( talk) 00:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- FASTILY (TALK) 21:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I just found that you had reverted my edit to previous version. I cannot figure out what the problem is with my edit. Could you please show me? Thanks. Wo.luren ( talk) 22:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean move request? The title should be capitalized, just like most of the golf courses are. Tinton5 ( talk) 00:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I heard you stating that Austrians speak German as their mother tongue. As an Austrian (Viennese to be exact), I can tell you that this is false. The OFFICIAL language is German ( Austrian German to be exact), used in all official publications and announcements, in most media and is taught in schools, where it's expected to be spoken, and most Austrians (including all youth, unless really poorly educated) can speak it, but you don't go to Austria and hear the natives speaking Deutsch to each other, never. Instead, our native language (except in Vorarlberg, where Alemannic is spoken) is Austro-Bavarian, spoken with various dialects. And contrary to popular belief, Austro-Bavarian is NOT German (it is A German language, but not THE German language, since THE German language is a Central German language and Austro-Bavarian an Upper German language). Especially in larger cities, though, (Austrian) German is a second language to almost all of us; however, don't go to the Alps in the countryside of the Tyrol and expect a lady in her 70:s enjoying the beautiful mountains to speak a word of German or even understand it. The latter mostly applies to southern (and southwestern) Austria, where Southern Austro-Bavarian dialects are spoken. You know what I'm saying? The statement that German is the mother tongue of the Austrians is simply a misconception (even though Austro-Bavarian-speakers are listed as German-speakers in the statistics).
Sincerely /Andreas Schwarzenegger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.234.65.69 ( talk) 15:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Sincerely /Andreas Schwarzenegger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.234.65.69 ( talk) 17:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
/Andreas Schwarzenegger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.234.65.69 ( talk) 17:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to to look for a reliable source confirming German Wikipedia's statements /Andreas Schwarzenegger -- 90.234.65.69 < talk> 17:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, a reliable source at last: the Ethnologue (on External links on the Engllish-language artcle "Austro-Bavarian"). This fulfills the fact in bold. /Andreas Schwarzenegger -- 90.234.65.69 < talk> 18:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.6.118 ( talk)
On 31 August 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Francisco Varallo, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
On 1 September 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 Bratislava shootings, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IPad Home.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. WOSlinker ( talk) 11:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:IPad Home.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 12:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
On 10 September 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Bauchi prison break, which you single-handedly wrote from scratch. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--Nice work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Please read the discussion of the Tablet PC move request to Tablet Computer. You'll find the official result was:
No consensus for move
That means you should not relocate sections from the Tablet PC article to the Tablet Computer article. Vyx ( talk) 21:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
[2] ? – xeno talk 15:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Better safe than sorry. -- TS 22:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Just shot up. No-one really means iPads when he talks about Tablet PCs. And no-one searches for Tablet PC if he needs iPad info. Well, and "Microsoft Tablet PC" not even exists, never did. -- Jhartmann ( talk) 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I hope this will allow us to focus on more important issues. Vyx ( talk) 19:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion. I am quiet a new user of wikipedia as writer: so I think I lack the experience to evaluate other people work. I am not an English native speaker, so I cannot improve the grammar/language issues. I am proposing you the following: review yourself an article and I review myself the same article and then we can discuss about different point of view. Or let me know an article you reviewed and I will look at your comments and try to learn how to review. Can you show me the most relevant help pages about reviewing? Thanks a lot -- Pastore Italy ( talk) 12:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Erice statement requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Toddst1 (
talk)
20:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I see you performed an assessment of Stuxnet. What do you think needs to be improved before the article goes for FA review? Sephiroth storm ( talk) 21:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen that you've edited the semi-protected article Apple Inc. several times, so i thought I would bring this to your attention:
It seems that there is no one willing or able to change Apple's financial data for fiscal year 2010. Since the 2010 10-K Annual Report (filed October 25, 2010) is out now, it really would be appropriate to update the data. There is a big difference between 42.91 billion (for 2009) and 65,225 billion (for 2010) revenue. It means that Apple's revenue grew 52% in just 1 year. This is another company than before! And its revenue has become even bigger than that of Microsoft for the fiscal year 2010 (62.48b)! Here are the important figures: Revenue: 65,225 billion; Operating income: 22,971 billion; Profit: 14,013 billion (70% higher than 2009!); Total assets: 75,183 billion; Total equity: 47,791 billion; Employees: 46,600 full-time equivalent employees and an additional 2,800 full-time equivalent temporary employees and contractors. Source: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9Njc1MzN8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1 -- 85.1.134.247 ( talk) 19:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi there! I'd like to invite you to
WikiProject Apple Inc.'s collaboration! We're currently working on the project's flagship article,
Apple Inc. There's plenty to do, and goals on the talk page—all members are encouraged to participate. Additionally, collaboration participants will receive a barnstar after the article reaches
GA status. If you have a spare moment, please join in or tell your friends. Thanks! You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active participant in WikiProject Apple Inc. |
Monomium ( talk) 03:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, any reason why you have removed the Pros & Cons? we are organization that support the tablet pc in all aspects (technical , marketing , reviews , usability ...) our organization is none profit and try to bring different angles of tablet pc world. we are working with academic institutes to support our mission. we thought the pros and cons aspect was missing from the wiki and it too big to be inside (and yes we support homosexual marriages) please advice ? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.180.193 ( talk) 10:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I appreciated your message. Thankyou, and I apologise for being crude with my comment. Nightw 03:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Democrat Party (phrase. Since you had some involvement with the Democrat Party (phrase redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Loonymonkey ( talk) 02:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The source is on the same page. Please see Top goalscorers, Cristiano Ronaldo has only 14 goals. Regards!!!
Sorry it's was my mistake!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dictuser ( talk • contribs) 09:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice you gave me on my talk page re: the C shell article. I have a little more there. I think you're right! Msnicki ( talk) 22:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I nominated 2010 Spanish air traffic controller strike for maintenance speedy deletion ( CSD G6). Another article covering the event was created, and I feel it's slightly better developed than the one you created but don't have any more time to develop. Rather than redirecting, I nominated it for deletion so 2010 Spanish air traffic controllers strike can be moved to its location. Sorry to do this but one's got to go, right? Swarm X 07:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be helpful if you specified what it is you were expecting in the case of vandals that appear to be repeat offenders under other accounts. Your current comment to Rd232 gave me the impression that you're saying YM is banning vandals without any warnings all the time and that it is wrong; I don't see why that would be wrong in the case of repeat vandals. Perhaps you were wanting him, a functionary team member, to specify that it is a repeat vandal? Ncmvocalist ( talk) 19:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, about the by the IP user (anon), he had been reverted several times for vandalism for rollback feature, for which is considered as level 1 vandalism according Huggle. That is why I decided to revert these changes by preventing the article is potentially damaged. And about the edit sumary, the features of rollback can't change this, we only have a generic summary for all reverted editions, according to WP:ROLLBACK. D6h What's on your mind? 20:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh wow, clearly I didn't know what I was doing back then, I'm surprised that was left protected for so long. Sorry about the trouble, I've unprotected it. Cheers, · Andonic contact 01:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Now he is going completely crazy. I would assume that If he goes farther than he should theoretically be Blocked from editing. LutherVinci ( talk) 22:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
For the same reasons Arthur Rubin gave you:
This is the train of thought of Pmanderson, which has no place here on Wikipedia:
Either:
Or 2) only events with clearly indicated dates should remain in these articles.
He cannot seem to decide between these two points. If the first point favors his situation, then:
If the second point favors his situation, then:
Most recently, he has threatened that I would be blocked if I attempt to enact a consensus [3]. LutherVinci ( talk) 21:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I have made a reply on the discussion page for 4th millennium BC. LutherVinci ( talk) 15:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
As long as the iPad 2 article exists we need to disambiguate. I have a draft ready in my my draftspace for the iPad (original) but I can't move it because of a bug in the system. It isn't necessary for the iPad 2 to be released. Marcus Qwertyus 22:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes, I wonder why we bother.... ;-) Happy Xmas/NY to you, by the way. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I saw that you gave rating to Kannada article. Thanks for doing that. I have seen that someone from IP address shown below is posting abusive comments for kannada and telugu languages articles and is using his own research to substantiate it. It may de deeply offensive since it can trigger hatredness among languages. I have tried to replay to him and removed some sections. I dont know how to warn them not to do so. Please see that something can be done in this case since I cannot do it all the time. What is the normal procedure in such cases. Can I even say about such things here? I dont know. Bring it to the attention of admins if possible. The said IP address is: { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/80.195.13.109 }
Thanks with regards. 27.57.113.210 ( talk) 14:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Eraserhead1,
You say that the Daily Mail and the Daily Express are not reliable sources,
First of all: Can you prove to me that they definitively are not, as I have not been able to find anything in Wikipedia that clarifies your stance.
Secondly: You state that the BBC is a reliable source when interestingly enough the Director General, Mark Thompson, has publicly admitted that the BBC has recently been guilty of strong left-wing bias and has purposefully not reported on certain sensitive topics such as immigration etc.
Even if you stand by your assertion that such news outlets are not in fact Reliable Sources, then I still see no problem with using them in a section entitled "Controversy". For example, if a famous celebrity had naked photos posted of them and this story was reported by the Daily Mail for example, then I assume it would be OK to reference the Daily Mail then. How is this situation any different?
The Daily Mail article referenced included a quote from an MP, do you think that they just made such a quote up, does the Daily Mail in fact have a history of deliberately and grossly misquoting public officials ?
As much as it seems that you would like to not have the Daily Mail recognized as a reliable source, you can certainly not argue that everything or even most things within its pages has been falsified, is slanderous or has a noticeable bias.
I understand that items that I had included in the Controversy section were ones that only criticized the DFID. However, how about instead of just deleting the whole section that I had written, why don't you attempt to find some items that praise the DFID and defends the high salaries of it's top employees. As much as you try to make it look like you are just upholding Wikipedias rules, I strongly suspect that you are in fact just irritated that I have added something that criticizes the DFID so strongly. To prove that this is not the case, I think it would be a good idea for you to find reliable sources for the section you deleted and add them as references instead so that it can be re-instated.
Milesstern ( talk) 00:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Wiki is sometimes fulfilling, but sometimes very aggravating! P.S. When it a topic I have an ounce of knowledge about, I fix citation and similar issues with articles, and then remove the tags. See Iceland spar for an example, and Sunstone (medieval) for couple of recent examples. I just don't know anything about the page in question, and ran across it somehow. I don't "drive by" tag or untag. JoeSperrazza ( talk) 22:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Please, are you going to ignore a reasonable comment just because you didn't like the way it was said? By doing what you did, you didn't solve any problems, you just left them in place because of some minor petty issue. By the way, could you just tell me what exactly makes the word "chink" racist? Is it not the simple fact that you want it to be - I never said it was racist, never intended it to be (if you don't agree, just point out exactly where I said the Chinese were inferior beings), and was just interpreting an observation. In fact the choice of word was completely pertinent, since, judging by your edit summary, you realised who I was talking about.
In light of all this, I have restored will re-restore my comment.
90.37.124.23 (
talk)
15:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI, your placement of a general cleanup tag on Metropolitan District Railway is under discussion since the tag is up for deletion - see right above the arbitrary break. Whether you're for the deletion or not (or neither), I'm guessing it would help if you provided some insight as to why you tagged the article using {{Cleanup}}. Thanks. -- Jtalledo (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Why would you tell the IP that they should wait to make their edit until the end of the semi-protection? The whole point of the "edit semi-protected" template is for legitimate users to be able to request changes to articles that we've had to lock because of vandalism. It seems awfully unfriendly to me to tell them that they're just out of luck for a few weeks. Qwyrxian ( talk) 07:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey
Bzuk (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Hello - thanks for the message. The IP is an open proxy - it allows someone to hide their identity while using the Internet. This particular IP is wide open on just about every port, including 80 and 443, which are used for HTTP.
There's no restriction against reading Wikipedia for them, but we do not allow open proxies, including Tor, to edit Wikipedia - we block them on sight. Even admins can't edit through Tor. It's a hard and fast rule, no exceptions, period.
There may be instances of good edits from OPs, but the damage they can do is far greater. We've got a guy right now who is harassing two good editors every day as often as he can. (I hope he doesn't stop, because every IP he edits from (so far) is an open proxy, and he's helping us block a lot of them.) Instead of blocking them indefinitely, we block them for very long periods of months or years.
If you see a block reason of {{ blocked proxy}}, we've manually confirmed that the IP is an open proxy or a Tor exit node. Thanks again for the message - if you have more questions or if I can help, just ask. :-) Krakatoa Katie 23:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, due to 'Yellow Monkey' being on 'Wikibreak', can you please remove 'Yellow Monkey's' revision
here:
[4] which states
"Protected Edge Church: vandalism" and renew this revision
[5] which was undone
by 'Ozdaren' here
[6]. 'Ozdaren'
stated on the same reference just stated that the reason for undoing revision number 393958939 was
due to "Vandalism. Pseudo reference to magistrate's court." Correctly, Ozdaren observed the reference was wrong -
however the correct reference for the specific transcript of the court case in question
which was included in revision number 393958939 is "AMC-09-4608", or the penalty number for
the defendant who won the case is "AMC-09-4608/1". Please contact the Adelaide Magistrate's
court on (08) 8204 2444 to confirm the validity of these references, and please
allow revision number 393958939 to be restored in relation to the 'controversy'
section, second paragraph, with the now updated and correct reference to court case number.
Sincere Regards, have a nice day. Ps, I hope I edited this ok, I'm new to 'usertalk'.
Truthforme (
talk)
12:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello again, unforunately there are no newspaper reports concerning the arrest. I managed to find the group that protests against the church
though, one video and one article online. The preacher who was arrested is from this group. Perhaps it would be better to word it this way
under the controversy section: ie,
["A rival local church group has protested against the Edge church firstly concerning Mike
Guglielmucci,[Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH6yVNEOd7M] and secondly concerning the cliche' message
preached at Edge Church, stating "Edge Church Adelaide is notorious for these types
of clichés along with the rest of the apostate congregations in Adelaide,
it is the doctrine of the devil to say that we as believers cannot correct people
in sin providing we do it in love and with a motive to see the person repent
and turn to Christ." [Source:
http://www.churchadelaide.com/edge-church-adelaide-cliches]"]
The above reflects elements of an ongoing controversy between the two church groups & may be helpful. Kind Regards. Ps, excuse my
ignoramus 'wikichat' editing - I am very sorry I am still learning :)
Truthforme (
talk)
12:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Ps, An addition to the 'Youth Alive' wiki-page (semi-protected due to "vandalism")
in a 'controversy' heading would be appropriate
in the following text:
"Youth Alive attracts opposition from conservative Christians in both Brisbane
[Source:
http://josh-williamson.xanga.com/562587796/battlefied-report/
and South Australia
[Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOPZsZklqcI]."
If this could be added in a controversy section?
Kind Regards
Truthforme (
talk)
13:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, just a quick word of thanks for your support over there. 121.102.41.166 ( talk) 12:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed this edit of yours. Please do not move the relisting statement like this - the relisting statement (or at least the time stamp of it) has to go before the original timestamp as otherwise the bot won't pick up the relisting. Dpmuk ( talk) 14:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
On 1 February 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article John Barry (composer), which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The best thing you can do regarding YMs talk page is to leave it alone. You can certainly leave my comments there alone. If I wanted to contribute further to the RfC - and I don't - I would post there directly. Please refrain from posting there on my behalf. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 10:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
As the IP that published the letter, I am mildly in favour of at least linking the discussion from the RfC page. However, I do want my open letter to stay in YM's talk page, because (contrary to most other comments) YM was and still is the intended recipient. Cheers 220.100.103.162 ( talk) 11:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just done that, I hope that's OK with everyone. 220.100.103.162 ( talk) 12:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
You might be interested in WP:ANI#Canvassing. JJB 04:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I made no personal attack. This is fact and I just want to let other know. If you don't like, report it to ANI. I'm willing to answer all questions. BTW, I'm not unfamiliar with WP policies so don't template me. Thank you.-- 115.75.150.184 ( talk) 09:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to discuss with you personally and politely. You might remove this massage if you want. I don't know what you are thinking when you considered this letter only possibly a little rude. In my opinion, a letter which asked person to quit Wikipedia forever and is posted very close to this person's most important holiday is very rude. And the writer is also very smart to choose such a right time and right place to make the situation more dramatic. What are your opinions? -- 115.75.150.184 ( talk) 12:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, if you are going to move the oppose vote out of the hat which says the superbowl is too american then please move this support vote out of the hat which argues the game is financially significant. Thanks. μηδείς ( talk) 22:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I dropped a note here. 124.147.78.105 ( talk) 13:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, I won't revert your edit, but I've created a section for discussing the criticism section of this article on the talkpage: see Talk:Third Way (think tank)#Criticism section. Robofish ( talk) 23:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. See this for example. It keeps doing it. Can you please either fix or escalate? Thanks. 113.197.209.20 ( talk) 12:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
After several years of discussion the consensus was to split the Reading to Plymouth Line article into three articles - Bristol to Exeter line, Reading to Taunton line, and Exeter to Plymouth line. The split has now been done, though fairly crudely as I am not an expert on the subject. It will need an expert eye to look at it and smooth out the edges. SilkTork * YES! 15:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you and YM may have inadvertently highlighted the biggest problem with indefinite protections. Looking at many of the articles you've brought to RfUP, I don't think YM meant for the articles to be protected forever and until the end of time but, what it's easy to forget when you press the button, is that that's exactly what indef is unless someone with the capacity to get it unprotected stumbles across it. In many of these cases, protection for a week or a month (or even a year) would have been perfectly justified and I probably would have declined the unprotection requests. The trouble with indef is that 2 years on, we can't tell if the issue is still an issue and, with the protecting admin unfortunately inactive, we have very little information on which to base decisions on unprotection. Anyway, I just wanted to share my thoughts with someone! I might request a database report of indefinitely semi'd articles that have been protected for a very long time. I'm sure there'd be many articles where unprotection would be inconceivable, but I think there might be a few where unprotection or pending changes could be a realistic option.
On another note, I don't suppose you can make it to any of
these? And, yet another digression, have you ever considered requesting your own mop?
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts?
21:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
conventional wisdom when YM became an admin.
I just noticed this conversation and I have something to add. I would notify HJ Mitchell, but his talk page is protected and I have the impression that his alternative page is not watched. Eraserhead1, if you could ping him on this I would be grateful.
I was the person who made this proposal about one year ago, which, together with the ensuing discussion (including an eye-opening comment from YM), is very relevant to the above. However, it was unfortunately largely ignored.
I hope this YM incident will make the proposal more actual and understood.
As for "Casliber's argument ages ago that indefinite protections are better than timed ones", what are you referring to? I confess that I have a strong prejudice about anything Casliber may have said at the time, because he proved many times over:
My understanding is that PC's trial has finished and further PCs should be granted very sparingly. Also, PC suffers from the same problem of indefinite protections, in that it gets forgotten. On this topic, I think it would make sense to introduce termed PCs (as opposed to automatically indefinite/infinite terms).
I think blanket-demoting the rest of YM's indef-semis to PC and call it even would be a mistake, not only for the issues with PC I just mentioned, but also because I am positive that there are still plenty of instances that can and will be unprotected on sight as soon as we get a chance to analyse and bring them to WP:RUP like Eraserhead1 and I did for so many cases during the last weekend. Personally, I am just getting started.
Finally, does the indefinite protection monitoring tool mentioned above take into account the fact that semiprotections used to be indefinite by default a few years ago (like PCs are now)? That might be the reason why that tool reports the earliest indefinite semi to have been granted in 2007, which I am sure is incorrect.
Sorry about the long post, and thanks for being sensitive about a topic I care a lot about. 113.197.209.20 ( talk) 13:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | Archive 5 |
In response to the assassination of Sokratis Giolias, Troktiko has gone offline indefinitely. A sad day for the free world...
Hello Eraserhead1, welcome to WikiProject Apple Inc.! We aim to create and improve articles related to Apple Inc. Feel free to post ideas at the general forums and look at our "how to help" list for things to do. Happy editing! — mono 20:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The redirect is redundant because our software or something automatically redirects the search phrase "main page" to the Main Page. Now the redirect seems to be irreversible (just try speedy deleting it). Marcus Qwertyus 20:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the racist attack on my talk page. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
the user is about to violate the 3RR if an admin doesn't block them in time. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
He has violated the 3RR, and I am about to get off Wikipedia so I don't risk one either (I'm at two reverts), can you help monitor the page from his POV edits, thanks. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Did you want to discuss it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.243.77 ( talk) 22:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you thegreyanomaly's little poodle? Ecko1o1 ( talk) 01:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I just stumbled over your additions on IPv6 packet, which consisted solely of {{cn}} insertions. The relevant reference is provided in the lead sentence of most sections (reference [1]). Seriously, what is the purpose of tagging articles like this, and later removing information that is completely right, rather than just adding the reference tag yourself? I'm really sick of these destructive "maintaining edits" lately. Feel free to comment. Nageh ( talk) 14:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Remark: Obviously you did not use these tags to dispute statements but rather to solely point out that additional referencing would be required. For this, there are other templates like {{refimprove}}. Nageh ( talk) 14:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I moved your temmplate to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad-FAQ-Images. Then, I again moved it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Muhammad-FAQ-Images. Now, there are two templates. Can you look at them? I made a mistake and I cannot solve it. Kavas ( talk) 12:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Conrad-hilton.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 15:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Project news
|
|
New articles
|
Featured article
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 01:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC).
I will try to work on that as well... talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC).
Don't even bother discussing these changes. The editor is clearly the sockpuppet of a banned user who has repeatedly attempted to evade his block to push his POV edits. Revert them on sight, as he isn't even allowed to edit in the first place. oknazevad ( talk) 17:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead1, there's an error in the ITN for 2010 Summer Youth Olympics. It states "...3,531 athletes from 205 National Olympic Committees." Should be 204, see explanation here. I will post this too on the errors page. ANGCHENRUI Talk ♨ 16:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead1
I was reading the discussion about the iTouch name in the iPod Touch article and I couldn't believe that mere contribution caused a lot of controversy. I have Googled the word "iTouch" and it does appear in several websites. Like I said in the aforementioned discussion I will refrain from putting the iTouch name back. Do you think it should be in the article? Also I apologise for my edit warring on the iPad article. Diamondblade2008 ( talk) 19:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yea thats fine by me. Shall I add it back to the article or should an RFC be done? Just thought I check with you first Diamondblade2008 ( talk) 18:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Yea that will be great if you can. I promise never to edit war again. Diamondblade2008 ( talk) 21:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I lost interest in the iPod Touch/iPad articles as well. Im too involved in other articles to even give a though. Diamondblade2008 ( talk) 18:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Eraserhead1,
Please advise me how to improve Kourosh Zolani’s article while few editors revert my edits constantly (see the page history). I understand that the final decision to keep or to delete the article is based on the article itself, but the article will not have a chance if some editors keep reverting the edits instead of improving the article.
1. I think this version was a fine version before being reverted. However, I still could improve it, if I had given a chance.
2. I added new references for radio interview and the online radio stations here which were also removed.
3. Plus, I found the English translation of the article in Iran Newspaper. Also, here is the link to the article in Farsi. I know the translation is not good quality but that is all I have for now. A couple of users wasted most of my time over the last few days, instead of leaving me some time to make a decent translation. I still have not figured out how to add this translation to the article as a footnote. Even if I add it to the page, my concern is that it will be removed right away.
What do you recommend me to do? Does it even worth it to continue editing this page, if my edits keep being removed? I am afraid, this page with my edits will not have a chance to be reviewed by the administrators who make the final decision. Thank you, Sozlati ( talk) 23:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the issues have been largely solved, I think you can continue to edit the article. I suggest you provide a date of birth and other details like that if you can. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 13:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I worked on the translation and I think it is more understandable now. As you suggested, I am looking for more details and gradually add them to the talk page. However, I will not add them to the article because of the sensitively of a couple of editors to my edits. I appreciate if you and other senior editors add these pieces of information to the article, if you find them useful. Thank you. Sozlati ( talk) 21:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
New Comment. Hello again, I just wanted to let you know that we added some new edits to Kourosh Zolani’s article and
the page looked very good before an editor turned it again to
the mess that it is now. Is there any policy in WP to stop users who make unconstructive changes to a page? Thank you for helping us with editing this article.
Sozlati (
talk)
06:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
About the christianity in India page, we should not put wild claims like St. Thomas converted Kings and tribes of North India to Christianity based on no claims. In fact in Muslims of South Asia and Middle-east, there is a popular belief that ENGLAND's ruler had converted to Islam during 7th century. Fables like St. Thomas Acts are not verified and accepted by most Christians. If you visit St. Thomas article, you will see that he has been linked with one or another king from Russia to India throughout middle-east. Also, the article itself has links to disprove these fables Eastern Christian writings state that Christianity was introduced to India by Thomas the Apostle, who visited Muziris in Kerala in 52 CE to proselytize amongst Kerala's Jewish settlements; however this is widely disputed due to lack of credible historical evidence. [1] [2] [3] I hope you uphold the standards of wikipedia. thanks note: such wild claims cause much pain to non-Christians of India. Please dont play with our history and culture. We should learn to respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varanwal ( talk • contribs) 26 April 2010 20:04 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia talk:ITNC. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia talk:ITNC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bsherr ( talk) 22:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for bothering you several times. A user has removed significant part of our contributions to Kourosh Zolani discussion deletion. Based on WP rules can a user delete others contributions to such discussion? Here is the link to what this user has deleted. Please advise me what to do? Sozlati ( talk) 18:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello again, I just realized that the same user had removed our contributions before. Here is the link to another incident on August 15. Is there a way to bring back the comments that were removed on August 15? Sozlati ( talk) 21:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind checking my edit on Kourosh Zolani's article lead section? I added three examples of his compositions. I want to be sure that they are OK. Thank you Thomasshane ( talk) 01:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead1, I wanted to sincerely thank you for your attempts to edit Kourosh Zolani’s article and your contributions to the AfD discussion. This article would not have had a chance to stay without your edits. You are a great editor and a truthful person. Good luck with all your WP projects. Thank you again, Sozlati ( talk) 16:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Didn't check the archive, no. Your edit summary said something like "nothing of value here". DionysosProteus ( talk) 00:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- FASTILY (TALK) 21:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I just found that you had reverted my edit to previous version. I cannot figure out what the problem is with my edit. Could you please show me? Thanks. Wo.luren ( talk) 22:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean move request? The title should be capitalized, just like most of the golf courses are. Tinton5 ( talk) 00:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I heard you stating that Austrians speak German as their mother tongue. As an Austrian (Viennese to be exact), I can tell you that this is false. The OFFICIAL language is German ( Austrian German to be exact), used in all official publications and announcements, in most media and is taught in schools, where it's expected to be spoken, and most Austrians (including all youth, unless really poorly educated) can speak it, but you don't go to Austria and hear the natives speaking Deutsch to each other, never. Instead, our native language (except in Vorarlberg, where Alemannic is spoken) is Austro-Bavarian, spoken with various dialects. And contrary to popular belief, Austro-Bavarian is NOT German (it is A German language, but not THE German language, since THE German language is a Central German language and Austro-Bavarian an Upper German language). Especially in larger cities, though, (Austrian) German is a second language to almost all of us; however, don't go to the Alps in the countryside of the Tyrol and expect a lady in her 70:s enjoying the beautiful mountains to speak a word of German or even understand it. The latter mostly applies to southern (and southwestern) Austria, where Southern Austro-Bavarian dialects are spoken. You know what I'm saying? The statement that German is the mother tongue of the Austrians is simply a misconception (even though Austro-Bavarian-speakers are listed as German-speakers in the statistics).
Sincerely /Andreas Schwarzenegger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.234.65.69 ( talk) 15:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Sincerely /Andreas Schwarzenegger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.234.65.69 ( talk) 17:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
/Andreas Schwarzenegger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.234.65.69 ( talk) 17:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to to look for a reliable source confirming German Wikipedia's statements /Andreas Schwarzenegger -- 90.234.65.69 < talk> 17:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, a reliable source at last: the Ethnologue (on External links on the Engllish-language artcle "Austro-Bavarian"). This fulfills the fact in bold. /Andreas Schwarzenegger -- 90.234.65.69 < talk> 18:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.6.118 ( talk)
On 31 August 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Francisco Varallo, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
On 1 September 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 Bratislava shootings, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IPad Home.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. WOSlinker ( talk) 11:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:IPad Home.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 12:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
On 10 September 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Bauchi prison break, which you single-handedly wrote from scratch. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--Nice work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Please read the discussion of the Tablet PC move request to Tablet Computer. You'll find the official result was:
No consensus for move
That means you should not relocate sections from the Tablet PC article to the Tablet Computer article. Vyx ( talk) 21:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
[2] ? – xeno talk 15:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Better safe than sorry. -- TS 22:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Just shot up. No-one really means iPads when he talks about Tablet PCs. And no-one searches for Tablet PC if he needs iPad info. Well, and "Microsoft Tablet PC" not even exists, never did. -- Jhartmann ( talk) 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I hope this will allow us to focus on more important issues. Vyx ( talk) 19:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion. I am quiet a new user of wikipedia as writer: so I think I lack the experience to evaluate other people work. I am not an English native speaker, so I cannot improve the grammar/language issues. I am proposing you the following: review yourself an article and I review myself the same article and then we can discuss about different point of view. Or let me know an article you reviewed and I will look at your comments and try to learn how to review. Can you show me the most relevant help pages about reviewing? Thanks a lot -- Pastore Italy ( talk) 12:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Erice statement requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Toddst1 (
talk)
20:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I see you performed an assessment of Stuxnet. What do you think needs to be improved before the article goes for FA review? Sephiroth storm ( talk) 21:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen that you've edited the semi-protected article Apple Inc. several times, so i thought I would bring this to your attention:
It seems that there is no one willing or able to change Apple's financial data for fiscal year 2010. Since the 2010 10-K Annual Report (filed October 25, 2010) is out now, it really would be appropriate to update the data. There is a big difference between 42.91 billion (for 2009) and 65,225 billion (for 2010) revenue. It means that Apple's revenue grew 52% in just 1 year. This is another company than before! And its revenue has become even bigger than that of Microsoft for the fiscal year 2010 (62.48b)! Here are the important figures: Revenue: 65,225 billion; Operating income: 22,971 billion; Profit: 14,013 billion (70% higher than 2009!); Total assets: 75,183 billion; Total equity: 47,791 billion; Employees: 46,600 full-time equivalent employees and an additional 2,800 full-time equivalent temporary employees and contractors. Source: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9Njc1MzN8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1 -- 85.1.134.247 ( talk) 19:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi there! I'd like to invite you to
WikiProject Apple Inc.'s collaboration! We're currently working on the project's flagship article,
Apple Inc. There's plenty to do, and goals on the talk page—all members are encouraged to participate. Additionally, collaboration participants will receive a barnstar after the article reaches
GA status. If you have a spare moment, please join in or tell your friends. Thanks! You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active participant in WikiProject Apple Inc. |
Monomium ( talk) 03:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, any reason why you have removed the Pros & Cons? we are organization that support the tablet pc in all aspects (technical , marketing , reviews , usability ...) our organization is none profit and try to bring different angles of tablet pc world. we are working with academic institutes to support our mission. we thought the pros and cons aspect was missing from the wiki and it too big to be inside (and yes we support homosexual marriages) please advice ? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.180.193 ( talk) 10:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I appreciated your message. Thankyou, and I apologise for being crude with my comment. Nightw 03:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Democrat Party (phrase. Since you had some involvement with the Democrat Party (phrase redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Loonymonkey ( talk) 02:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The source is on the same page. Please see Top goalscorers, Cristiano Ronaldo has only 14 goals. Regards!!!
Sorry it's was my mistake!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dictuser ( talk • contribs) 09:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice you gave me on my talk page re: the C shell article. I have a little more there. I think you're right! Msnicki ( talk) 22:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I nominated 2010 Spanish air traffic controller strike for maintenance speedy deletion ( CSD G6). Another article covering the event was created, and I feel it's slightly better developed than the one you created but don't have any more time to develop. Rather than redirecting, I nominated it for deletion so 2010 Spanish air traffic controllers strike can be moved to its location. Sorry to do this but one's got to go, right? Swarm X 07:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be helpful if you specified what it is you were expecting in the case of vandals that appear to be repeat offenders under other accounts. Your current comment to Rd232 gave me the impression that you're saying YM is banning vandals without any warnings all the time and that it is wrong; I don't see why that would be wrong in the case of repeat vandals. Perhaps you were wanting him, a functionary team member, to specify that it is a repeat vandal? Ncmvocalist ( talk) 19:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, about the by the IP user (anon), he had been reverted several times for vandalism for rollback feature, for which is considered as level 1 vandalism according Huggle. That is why I decided to revert these changes by preventing the article is potentially damaged. And about the edit sumary, the features of rollback can't change this, we only have a generic summary for all reverted editions, according to WP:ROLLBACK. D6h What's on your mind? 20:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh wow, clearly I didn't know what I was doing back then, I'm surprised that was left protected for so long. Sorry about the trouble, I've unprotected it. Cheers, · Andonic contact 01:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Now he is going completely crazy. I would assume that If he goes farther than he should theoretically be Blocked from editing. LutherVinci ( talk) 22:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
For the same reasons Arthur Rubin gave you:
This is the train of thought of Pmanderson, which has no place here on Wikipedia:
Either:
Or 2) only events with clearly indicated dates should remain in these articles.
He cannot seem to decide between these two points. If the first point favors his situation, then:
If the second point favors his situation, then:
Most recently, he has threatened that I would be blocked if I attempt to enact a consensus [3]. LutherVinci ( talk) 21:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I have made a reply on the discussion page for 4th millennium BC. LutherVinci ( talk) 15:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
As long as the iPad 2 article exists we need to disambiguate. I have a draft ready in my my draftspace for the iPad (original) but I can't move it because of a bug in the system. It isn't necessary for the iPad 2 to be released. Marcus Qwertyus 22:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes, I wonder why we bother.... ;-) Happy Xmas/NY to you, by the way. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I saw that you gave rating to Kannada article. Thanks for doing that. I have seen that someone from IP address shown below is posting abusive comments for kannada and telugu languages articles and is using his own research to substantiate it. It may de deeply offensive since it can trigger hatredness among languages. I have tried to replay to him and removed some sections. I dont know how to warn them not to do so. Please see that something can be done in this case since I cannot do it all the time. What is the normal procedure in such cases. Can I even say about such things here? I dont know. Bring it to the attention of admins if possible. The said IP address is: { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/80.195.13.109 }
Thanks with regards. 27.57.113.210 ( talk) 14:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Eraserhead1,
You say that the Daily Mail and the Daily Express are not reliable sources,
First of all: Can you prove to me that they definitively are not, as I have not been able to find anything in Wikipedia that clarifies your stance.
Secondly: You state that the BBC is a reliable source when interestingly enough the Director General, Mark Thompson, has publicly admitted that the BBC has recently been guilty of strong left-wing bias and has purposefully not reported on certain sensitive topics such as immigration etc.
Even if you stand by your assertion that such news outlets are not in fact Reliable Sources, then I still see no problem with using them in a section entitled "Controversy". For example, if a famous celebrity had naked photos posted of them and this story was reported by the Daily Mail for example, then I assume it would be OK to reference the Daily Mail then. How is this situation any different?
The Daily Mail article referenced included a quote from an MP, do you think that they just made such a quote up, does the Daily Mail in fact have a history of deliberately and grossly misquoting public officials ?
As much as it seems that you would like to not have the Daily Mail recognized as a reliable source, you can certainly not argue that everything or even most things within its pages has been falsified, is slanderous or has a noticeable bias.
I understand that items that I had included in the Controversy section were ones that only criticized the DFID. However, how about instead of just deleting the whole section that I had written, why don't you attempt to find some items that praise the DFID and defends the high salaries of it's top employees. As much as you try to make it look like you are just upholding Wikipedias rules, I strongly suspect that you are in fact just irritated that I have added something that criticizes the DFID so strongly. To prove that this is not the case, I think it would be a good idea for you to find reliable sources for the section you deleted and add them as references instead so that it can be re-instated.
Milesstern ( talk) 00:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Wiki is sometimes fulfilling, but sometimes very aggravating! P.S. When it a topic I have an ounce of knowledge about, I fix citation and similar issues with articles, and then remove the tags. See Iceland spar for an example, and Sunstone (medieval) for couple of recent examples. I just don't know anything about the page in question, and ran across it somehow. I don't "drive by" tag or untag. JoeSperrazza ( talk) 22:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Please, are you going to ignore a reasonable comment just because you didn't like the way it was said? By doing what you did, you didn't solve any problems, you just left them in place because of some minor petty issue. By the way, could you just tell me what exactly makes the word "chink" racist? Is it not the simple fact that you want it to be - I never said it was racist, never intended it to be (if you don't agree, just point out exactly where I said the Chinese were inferior beings), and was just interpreting an observation. In fact the choice of word was completely pertinent, since, judging by your edit summary, you realised who I was talking about.
In light of all this, I have restored will re-restore my comment.
90.37.124.23 (
talk)
15:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI, your placement of a general cleanup tag on Metropolitan District Railway is under discussion since the tag is up for deletion - see right above the arbitrary break. Whether you're for the deletion or not (or neither), I'm guessing it would help if you provided some insight as to why you tagged the article using {{Cleanup}}. Thanks. -- Jtalledo (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Why would you tell the IP that they should wait to make their edit until the end of the semi-protection? The whole point of the "edit semi-protected" template is for legitimate users to be able to request changes to articles that we've had to lock because of vandalism. It seems awfully unfriendly to me to tell them that they're just out of luck for a few weeks. Qwyrxian ( talk) 07:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey
Bzuk (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Hello - thanks for the message. The IP is an open proxy - it allows someone to hide their identity while using the Internet. This particular IP is wide open on just about every port, including 80 and 443, which are used for HTTP.
There's no restriction against reading Wikipedia for them, but we do not allow open proxies, including Tor, to edit Wikipedia - we block them on sight. Even admins can't edit through Tor. It's a hard and fast rule, no exceptions, period.
There may be instances of good edits from OPs, but the damage they can do is far greater. We've got a guy right now who is harassing two good editors every day as often as he can. (I hope he doesn't stop, because every IP he edits from (so far) is an open proxy, and he's helping us block a lot of them.) Instead of blocking them indefinitely, we block them for very long periods of months or years.
If you see a block reason of {{ blocked proxy}}, we've manually confirmed that the IP is an open proxy or a Tor exit node. Thanks again for the message - if you have more questions or if I can help, just ask. :-) Krakatoa Katie 23:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, due to 'Yellow Monkey' being on 'Wikibreak', can you please remove 'Yellow Monkey's' revision
here:
[4] which states
"Protected Edge Church: vandalism" and renew this revision
[5] which was undone
by 'Ozdaren' here
[6]. 'Ozdaren'
stated on the same reference just stated that the reason for undoing revision number 393958939 was
due to "Vandalism. Pseudo reference to magistrate's court." Correctly, Ozdaren observed the reference was wrong -
however the correct reference for the specific transcript of the court case in question
which was included in revision number 393958939 is "AMC-09-4608", or the penalty number for
the defendant who won the case is "AMC-09-4608/1". Please contact the Adelaide Magistrate's
court on (08) 8204 2444 to confirm the validity of these references, and please
allow revision number 393958939 to be restored in relation to the 'controversy'
section, second paragraph, with the now updated and correct reference to court case number.
Sincere Regards, have a nice day. Ps, I hope I edited this ok, I'm new to 'usertalk'.
Truthforme (
talk)
12:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello again, unforunately there are no newspaper reports concerning the arrest. I managed to find the group that protests against the church
though, one video and one article online. The preacher who was arrested is from this group. Perhaps it would be better to word it this way
under the controversy section: ie,
["A rival local church group has protested against the Edge church firstly concerning Mike
Guglielmucci,[Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH6yVNEOd7M] and secondly concerning the cliche' message
preached at Edge Church, stating "Edge Church Adelaide is notorious for these types
of clichés along with the rest of the apostate congregations in Adelaide,
it is the doctrine of the devil to say that we as believers cannot correct people
in sin providing we do it in love and with a motive to see the person repent
and turn to Christ." [Source:
http://www.churchadelaide.com/edge-church-adelaide-cliches]"]
The above reflects elements of an ongoing controversy between the two church groups & may be helpful. Kind Regards. Ps, excuse my
ignoramus 'wikichat' editing - I am very sorry I am still learning :)
Truthforme (
talk)
12:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Ps, An addition to the 'Youth Alive' wiki-page (semi-protected due to "vandalism")
in a 'controversy' heading would be appropriate
in the following text:
"Youth Alive attracts opposition from conservative Christians in both Brisbane
[Source:
http://josh-williamson.xanga.com/562587796/battlefied-report/
and South Australia
[Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOPZsZklqcI]."
If this could be added in a controversy section?
Kind Regards
Truthforme (
talk)
13:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, just a quick word of thanks for your support over there. 121.102.41.166 ( talk) 12:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed this edit of yours. Please do not move the relisting statement like this - the relisting statement (or at least the time stamp of it) has to go before the original timestamp as otherwise the bot won't pick up the relisting. Dpmuk ( talk) 14:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
On 1 February 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article John Barry (composer), which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The best thing you can do regarding YMs talk page is to leave it alone. You can certainly leave my comments there alone. If I wanted to contribute further to the RfC - and I don't - I would post there directly. Please refrain from posting there on my behalf. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 10:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
As the IP that published the letter, I am mildly in favour of at least linking the discussion from the RfC page. However, I do want my open letter to stay in YM's talk page, because (contrary to most other comments) YM was and still is the intended recipient. Cheers 220.100.103.162 ( talk) 11:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just done that, I hope that's OK with everyone. 220.100.103.162 ( talk) 12:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
You might be interested in WP:ANI#Canvassing. JJB 04:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I made no personal attack. This is fact and I just want to let other know. If you don't like, report it to ANI. I'm willing to answer all questions. BTW, I'm not unfamiliar with WP policies so don't template me. Thank you.-- 115.75.150.184 ( talk) 09:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to discuss with you personally and politely. You might remove this massage if you want. I don't know what you are thinking when you considered this letter only possibly a little rude. In my opinion, a letter which asked person to quit Wikipedia forever and is posted very close to this person's most important holiday is very rude. And the writer is also very smart to choose such a right time and right place to make the situation more dramatic. What are your opinions? -- 115.75.150.184 ( talk) 12:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, if you are going to move the oppose vote out of the hat which says the superbowl is too american then please move this support vote out of the hat which argues the game is financially significant. Thanks. μηδείς ( talk) 22:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I dropped a note here. 124.147.78.105 ( talk) 13:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, I won't revert your edit, but I've created a section for discussing the criticism section of this article on the talkpage: see Talk:Third Way (think tank)#Criticism section. Robofish ( talk) 23:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. See this for example. It keeps doing it. Can you please either fix or escalate? Thanks. 113.197.209.20 ( talk) 12:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
After several years of discussion the consensus was to split the Reading to Plymouth Line article into three articles - Bristol to Exeter line, Reading to Taunton line, and Exeter to Plymouth line. The split has now been done, though fairly crudely as I am not an expert on the subject. It will need an expert eye to look at it and smooth out the edges. SilkTork * YES! 15:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you and YM may have inadvertently highlighted the biggest problem with indefinite protections. Looking at many of the articles you've brought to RfUP, I don't think YM meant for the articles to be protected forever and until the end of time but, what it's easy to forget when you press the button, is that that's exactly what indef is unless someone with the capacity to get it unprotected stumbles across it. In many of these cases, protection for a week or a month (or even a year) would have been perfectly justified and I probably would have declined the unprotection requests. The trouble with indef is that 2 years on, we can't tell if the issue is still an issue and, with the protecting admin unfortunately inactive, we have very little information on which to base decisions on unprotection. Anyway, I just wanted to share my thoughts with someone! I might request a database report of indefinitely semi'd articles that have been protected for a very long time. I'm sure there'd be many articles where unprotection would be inconceivable, but I think there might be a few where unprotection or pending changes could be a realistic option.
On another note, I don't suppose you can make it to any of
these? And, yet another digression, have you ever considered requesting your own mop?
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts?
21:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
conventional wisdom when YM became an admin.
I just noticed this conversation and I have something to add. I would notify HJ Mitchell, but his talk page is protected and I have the impression that his alternative page is not watched. Eraserhead1, if you could ping him on this I would be grateful.
I was the person who made this proposal about one year ago, which, together with the ensuing discussion (including an eye-opening comment from YM), is very relevant to the above. However, it was unfortunately largely ignored.
I hope this YM incident will make the proposal more actual and understood.
As for "Casliber's argument ages ago that indefinite protections are better than timed ones", what are you referring to? I confess that I have a strong prejudice about anything Casliber may have said at the time, because he proved many times over:
My understanding is that PC's trial has finished and further PCs should be granted very sparingly. Also, PC suffers from the same problem of indefinite protections, in that it gets forgotten. On this topic, I think it would make sense to introduce termed PCs (as opposed to automatically indefinite/infinite terms).
I think blanket-demoting the rest of YM's indef-semis to PC and call it even would be a mistake, not only for the issues with PC I just mentioned, but also because I am positive that there are still plenty of instances that can and will be unprotected on sight as soon as we get a chance to analyse and bring them to WP:RUP like Eraserhead1 and I did for so many cases during the last weekend. Personally, I am just getting started.
Finally, does the indefinite protection monitoring tool mentioned above take into account the fact that semiprotections used to be indefinite by default a few years ago (like PCs are now)? That might be the reason why that tool reports the earliest indefinite semi to have been granted in 2007, which I am sure is incorrect.
Sorry about the long post, and thanks for being sensitive about a topic I care a lot about. 113.197.209.20 ( talk) 13:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)