![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 14 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate&diff=513704483&oldid=513703347
I changed some data from 2009 to 2010 year, is it really vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.222.99.66 ( talk) 10:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey Psychonaut. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 12:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear Psychonaut, Please would you help me remove the picture for the Commans? I do not know how. Also, once done, please feel free to delete this talk section. Thanks and I appriciate this. My best regards, Geraldshields11 ( talk) 13:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lunar Leepers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arcade ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I removed the copyvio from the paragraph and then removed the template. Check it out yourself.-- I'm Titanium chat 13:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. You managed to edit-conflict me both at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 October 24 and at my talk page. I am still working on this: see my talk page. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season.
Viriditas (
talk)
07:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Aarushi_Chauhan, latest sock of Vibhas Kashyap. Thanks, Darth Sitges ( talk) 12:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
How about this? [1] and especially this which was once nominated for good articles something [2] -- I'm Titanium chat 05:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
As I remove the templates from Balaji and Yeh Rishta, I was not aware about that I just thought that when copyrighted text is removed then Problem is solved But it's not like that So I am really sorry about these all, But Slowly Slowly I will be aware about the rules and regulations of Wikipedia, Sorry and Thank You Greatuser ( talk) 13:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:CUGS.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 04:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
You have removed some images that i put up but i could not fully understand the reason. Could you explain a bit more in detail pls? Superfast1111 ( talk) 10:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
an overdue thanks to you for your comments. i completely understand your point of view. once again thanks. Superfast1111 ( talk) 10:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
[3]
Invite and Join in BUD.
--
I'm Titanium
chat
13:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Guidance Barnstar | |
Thanks for this. I had believed that userpages (not talk pages, though) could be protected at a simple request from the user regardless of the reason. Thanks for pointing that error out, and good luck! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 15:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC) |
I suppose Noor's sock is back in the form of User talk:Sagufa.angel. He has created Template:Gold Award for Best Actress, Template:TheGlobalIndianHonourBestActor and Template:Gold Award for Best Actor which were previoulsy deleted twice. Did you happen to notice any more commons points? §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 04:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I have been checking the Bangladeshi district articles in Wikipedia that I had started. Seems like I started most of the 64 district articles, but in most (if not all) cases, I had started them with only blank sections. However, later on, seems like some users have copied various statistics verbatim from Banglapedia. So, you might want to check those articles and/or remove the sections containing verbatim statistics. Regards. -- Ragib ( talk) 07:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
User talk:A Kiwi/draft-Borderline Personality Disorder, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:A Kiwi/draft-Borderline Personality Disorder and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:A Kiwi/draft-Borderline Personality Disorder during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Psychonaut ( talk) 14:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
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 " Talk:Boris Malagurski, Talk:The Weight of Chains". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I have filed a Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Boris_Malagurski.2C_Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains Dispute resolution case for Talk:Boris Malagurski and Talk:The Weight of Chains. Feel free to comment. Regards, -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 19:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Psychonaut,
I thought I'd ask you for your opinion on something, to see whether you think that I'm right or wrong. PRODUCER and Pincrete (who exclusively edits The Weight of Chains) want the addition of a sentence in The Weight of Chains article that would specifically list some organizations that donated towards the production of the film, using as a reference - The Weight of Chains official website, noting that under the Wikipedia film MOS, the article should list "the securing of financing and producers".
Now, from what I understand about films, film production companies fund films, while they can obtain money from film funds, sponsors and individual donations. In the end, the producer is the financier of the film - in this case, it's Malagurski Cinema, per IMDb. I checked how it works on Wikipedia and I couldn't find a single film article that listed sponsors that donated towards the production of the film, except for POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, which listed its sponsors simply because the film's topic is - film sponsors. For example, if Coca-Cola gave $1,000 towards the production of the film, and asked for product placement in return, I don't see how they'd earn a spot on an encyclopedia as a sponsor of the film, anybody could appear on Wikipedia that way - for the right price.
I may be wrong, but from what I found on Wikipedia, this just doesn't seem right to me. The organizations that donated for The Weight of Chains are largely insignificant and mostly gave around $1,000 towards the production of the film (only one gave about $3,000), and I see no evidence of a co-production (which would mean that they have to be listed. For example, Eurimages is a film fund that signs a co-production agreement before it gives out money, and then it's another official financier of the film), or any secondary sources attesting to the significance of these organizations in funding the film. Well, what do you think?
Regards, -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 23:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your feedback regarding my recent edits. But I must point out that my so-called "berating" him for "ruining" the article was my third message on his talk page. Before that, both Dwaipayanc and I had posted messages telling him not to start an edit war, now that the article is running for FA. So, kindly look at the whole story before making me this vicious, uncivil editor. Thank you. -- S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Psychonaut. I wanted to let you know I've opened a discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard here. Feel free to chime in if you're so inclined. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 14:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Psychonaut,
I'm writing to you because I have a feeling like you're the only one who will listen, and I've had enough of how things work on Wikipedia. On one hand, there are more than reasonable rules and regulations on article building, user conduct and dispute resolution, and on the other hand not many people seem to care about any of those things unless if the topic in question is very popular. I've tried following the rules, I made a few mistakes (some because of lack on knowledge, some because I was lazy), apologized for them and did my best to correct them. I've followed advice on how to resolve issues that pop up, and yet, the issues have gotten even more complicated.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with Malagurski's films, I've seen some of them and, to be honest, mostly liked what I saw. There are some things I disagree with, but I think that person and his work are important. And it's not just me who thinks that - a lot of sources say that as well. Regarding the Boris Malagurski article and the articles about his films, I added stuff I found interesting from time to time (when I found reliable sources, of course) and I thought that was the point of Wikipedia - to see what interests you and edit that when you have free time. Of course, other stuff interests me too, I edited a few other articles as well, but I feel like there are a lot of people who already edit most of those other articles, so I did focus on the ones that I thought were neglected to an extent - Malagurski and his work. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that somebody would accuse me of being on Malagurski's payroll for doing that and for discussing the topic on the talk page of the Malagurski article and the articles of his films.
I hate arguing, and when I noticed that users like Opbeith were aggressively demanding the addition of blogs and fishy websites as sources, I assumed that unbiased, independent editors would show up and note that this can't be used on Wikipedia. You're the only one who reacted, and I thank you for your advice on my talk page. However, Opbeith wasn't alone, and several other users, who seem to really have issues (personal and ideological) with Malagurski and his films, quickly organized to subvert every single attempt I made at resolving issues in a civilized manned, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. I came close to giving up, because I respect Malagurski's work, but if I'm the only editor on Wikipedia that does, while the others just want to spread slander about him or even delete these articles, then why should I bother. Why should I defend Wikipedia regulations?
These editors, User:Opbeith, User:PRODUCER, User:Pincrete and User:Bobrayner, have as their only purpose, regarding the Boris Malagurski, The Weight of Chains and Kosovo: Can You Imagine? articles, to do any or all of the following:
This is a very well-coordinated attack mechanism aimed at slowly destroying the Malagurski article and all articles related to it. I could provide more references to back up these claims, but I don't want to bother you to that extent. I'd just add that I checked with the sources noticeboard, one editor commented agreeing with me that the absurd E-novine was not the kind of source we should use on Wikipedia [13]. Naturally, Producer jumped to defend the source, even calling User:Joy to lend his support. It seems that Malagurski and his films really bug a lot of editors on Wikipedia, yet I'm surprised that no one is stopping the POV pushing by these editors - at this point it is chronic and I doubt it will stop. I've tried contacting the film MOS, Dispute resolution, Sources noticeboard regarding the issues in question, but nothing has changed. Should I just leave and let these articles that I really enjoyed editing from time to time slip to the dark side where reality will be distorted with blog entry references and details about how Malagurski is actually a supporter of genocide because some Wikipedia editors say so? This is not what I signed up for when I decided to edit for Wikipedia. All these editors don't have any good faith when it comes to the articles in question - almost every single edit they made was motivated by any one of the points that I listed. I hope that you'll read what I wrote here and help, at least with some advice on what I should do. It seems you have more experience with these kinds of things, and I've always listened to people who are wiser than me. Thanks, -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 01:58, 13 November 2012 (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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 14 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate&diff=513704483&oldid=513703347
I changed some data from 2009 to 2010 year, is it really vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.222.99.66 ( talk) 10:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey Psychonaut. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 12:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear Psychonaut, Please would you help me remove the picture for the Commans? I do not know how. Also, once done, please feel free to delete this talk section. Thanks and I appriciate this. My best regards, Geraldshields11 ( talk) 13:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lunar Leepers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arcade ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I removed the copyvio from the paragraph and then removed the template. Check it out yourself.-- I'm Titanium chat 13:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. You managed to edit-conflict me both at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 October 24 and at my talk page. I am still working on this: see my talk page. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season.
Viriditas (
talk)
07:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Aarushi_Chauhan, latest sock of Vibhas Kashyap. Thanks, Darth Sitges ( talk) 12:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
How about this? [1] and especially this which was once nominated for good articles something [2] -- I'm Titanium chat 05:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
As I remove the templates from Balaji and Yeh Rishta, I was not aware about that I just thought that when copyrighted text is removed then Problem is solved But it's not like that So I am really sorry about these all, But Slowly Slowly I will be aware about the rules and regulations of Wikipedia, Sorry and Thank You Greatuser ( talk) 13:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:CUGS.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 04:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
You have removed some images that i put up but i could not fully understand the reason. Could you explain a bit more in detail pls? Superfast1111 ( talk) 10:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
an overdue thanks to you for your comments. i completely understand your point of view. once again thanks. Superfast1111 ( talk) 10:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
[3]
Invite and Join in BUD.
--
I'm Titanium
chat
13:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Guidance Barnstar | |
Thanks for this. I had believed that userpages (not talk pages, though) could be protected at a simple request from the user regardless of the reason. Thanks for pointing that error out, and good luck! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 15:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC) |
I suppose Noor's sock is back in the form of User talk:Sagufa.angel. He has created Template:Gold Award for Best Actress, Template:TheGlobalIndianHonourBestActor and Template:Gold Award for Best Actor which were previoulsy deleted twice. Did you happen to notice any more commons points? §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 04:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I have been checking the Bangladeshi district articles in Wikipedia that I had started. Seems like I started most of the 64 district articles, but in most (if not all) cases, I had started them with only blank sections. However, later on, seems like some users have copied various statistics verbatim from Banglapedia. So, you might want to check those articles and/or remove the sections containing verbatim statistics. Regards. -- Ragib ( talk) 07:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
User talk:A Kiwi/draft-Borderline Personality Disorder, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:A Kiwi/draft-Borderline Personality Disorder and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:A Kiwi/draft-Borderline Personality Disorder during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Psychonaut ( talk) 14:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
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 " Talk:Boris Malagurski, Talk:The Weight of Chains". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I have filed a Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Boris_Malagurski.2C_Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains Dispute resolution case for Talk:Boris Malagurski and Talk:The Weight of Chains. Feel free to comment. Regards, -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 19:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Psychonaut,
I thought I'd ask you for your opinion on something, to see whether you think that I'm right or wrong. PRODUCER and Pincrete (who exclusively edits The Weight of Chains) want the addition of a sentence in The Weight of Chains article that would specifically list some organizations that donated towards the production of the film, using as a reference - The Weight of Chains official website, noting that under the Wikipedia film MOS, the article should list "the securing of financing and producers".
Now, from what I understand about films, film production companies fund films, while they can obtain money from film funds, sponsors and individual donations. In the end, the producer is the financier of the film - in this case, it's Malagurski Cinema, per IMDb. I checked how it works on Wikipedia and I couldn't find a single film article that listed sponsors that donated towards the production of the film, except for POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, which listed its sponsors simply because the film's topic is - film sponsors. For example, if Coca-Cola gave $1,000 towards the production of the film, and asked for product placement in return, I don't see how they'd earn a spot on an encyclopedia as a sponsor of the film, anybody could appear on Wikipedia that way - for the right price.
I may be wrong, but from what I found on Wikipedia, this just doesn't seem right to me. The organizations that donated for The Weight of Chains are largely insignificant and mostly gave around $1,000 towards the production of the film (only one gave about $3,000), and I see no evidence of a co-production (which would mean that they have to be listed. For example, Eurimages is a film fund that signs a co-production agreement before it gives out money, and then it's another official financier of the film), or any secondary sources attesting to the significance of these organizations in funding the film. Well, what do you think?
Regards, -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 23:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your feedback regarding my recent edits. But I must point out that my so-called "berating" him for "ruining" the article was my third message on his talk page. Before that, both Dwaipayanc and I had posted messages telling him not to start an edit war, now that the article is running for FA. So, kindly look at the whole story before making me this vicious, uncivil editor. Thank you. -- S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Psychonaut. I wanted to let you know I've opened a discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard here. Feel free to chime in if you're so inclined. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 14:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Psychonaut,
I'm writing to you because I have a feeling like you're the only one who will listen, and I've had enough of how things work on Wikipedia. On one hand, there are more than reasonable rules and regulations on article building, user conduct and dispute resolution, and on the other hand not many people seem to care about any of those things unless if the topic in question is very popular. I've tried following the rules, I made a few mistakes (some because of lack on knowledge, some because I was lazy), apologized for them and did my best to correct them. I've followed advice on how to resolve issues that pop up, and yet, the issues have gotten even more complicated.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with Malagurski's films, I've seen some of them and, to be honest, mostly liked what I saw. There are some things I disagree with, but I think that person and his work are important. And it's not just me who thinks that - a lot of sources say that as well. Regarding the Boris Malagurski article and the articles about his films, I added stuff I found interesting from time to time (when I found reliable sources, of course) and I thought that was the point of Wikipedia - to see what interests you and edit that when you have free time. Of course, other stuff interests me too, I edited a few other articles as well, but I feel like there are a lot of people who already edit most of those other articles, so I did focus on the ones that I thought were neglected to an extent - Malagurski and his work. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that somebody would accuse me of being on Malagurski's payroll for doing that and for discussing the topic on the talk page of the Malagurski article and the articles of his films.
I hate arguing, and when I noticed that users like Opbeith were aggressively demanding the addition of blogs and fishy websites as sources, I assumed that unbiased, independent editors would show up and note that this can't be used on Wikipedia. You're the only one who reacted, and I thank you for your advice on my talk page. However, Opbeith wasn't alone, and several other users, who seem to really have issues (personal and ideological) with Malagurski and his films, quickly organized to subvert every single attempt I made at resolving issues in a civilized manned, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. I came close to giving up, because I respect Malagurski's work, but if I'm the only editor on Wikipedia that does, while the others just want to spread slander about him or even delete these articles, then why should I bother. Why should I defend Wikipedia regulations?
These editors, User:Opbeith, User:PRODUCER, User:Pincrete and User:Bobrayner, have as their only purpose, regarding the Boris Malagurski, The Weight of Chains and Kosovo: Can You Imagine? articles, to do any or all of the following:
This is a very well-coordinated attack mechanism aimed at slowly destroying the Malagurski article and all articles related to it. I could provide more references to back up these claims, but I don't want to bother you to that extent. I'd just add that I checked with the sources noticeboard, one editor commented agreeing with me that the absurd E-novine was not the kind of source we should use on Wikipedia [13]. Naturally, Producer jumped to defend the source, even calling User:Joy to lend his support. It seems that Malagurski and his films really bug a lot of editors on Wikipedia, yet I'm surprised that no one is stopping the POV pushing by these editors - at this point it is chronic and I doubt it will stop. I've tried contacting the film MOS, Dispute resolution, Sources noticeboard regarding the issues in question, but nothing has changed. Should I just leave and let these articles that I really enjoyed editing from time to time slip to the dark side where reality will be distorted with blog entry references and details about how Malagurski is actually a supporter of genocide because some Wikipedia editors say so? This is not what I signed up for when I decided to edit for Wikipedia. All these editors don't have any good faith when it comes to the articles in question - almost every single edit they made was motivated by any one of the points that I listed. I hope that you'll read what I wrote here and help, at least with some advice on what I should do. It seems you have more experience with these kinds of things, and I've always listened to people who are wiser than me. Thanks, -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 01:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)