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 |
The above are all rendered by your computer with different typefaces, but the paragraph widths should be exactly the same. This should remain true when you change where the line breaks are by varying the width of your browser window, and at every single possible 'zoom level'. Anything else is a result of something broken.
They are broken on my screen, with default browser settings, using the Vector skin. The worst looking part is that 1 is shorter than 2, but 3 is MUCH longer than 4. (Google Chrome on Linux, compiled for Unicode compliance)
Greetings Revent,
Thank you for your helpful tip on the templates for editing. I have printed them out and will use them today as I work on my very first Wikipedia article (The Rittenhouse Elementary School). All of you on Wikipedia have been so very kind and helpful, and I truly appreciate it.
Cheers, gagegs Gagegs ( talk) 16:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Howdy Revent,
Thanks for the information on citations. I'm finishing up a report for another course this morning, then will be jumping back into the citations this afternoon. I'm sure I'll have questions about those pesky citations. Enjoy your morning (well, it's morning here in Arizona), and talk to you soon gagegs Gagegs ( talk) 19:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
(moved to article talk page)
Howdy Revent,
I got my citations in, but somehow deleted the reference list at the end of the article. Help! How do I get it back? Is there a way to return to a previous version to restore my reference?
gagegs Gagegs ( talk) 22:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
now I've screwed up the infobox. I'm a mess LOL gagegs Gagegs ( talk) 22:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, thank you so much! You are my saviour :) gagegs Gagegs ( talk) 22:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
So, how do I give you said star? gagegs Gagegs ( talk) 22:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The Reviewer Barnstar | ||
Revent, you have been so helpful to me today, and I really appreciate your tremendous effort and time in walking me through my first article. You deserve all kinds of awards! gagegs Gagegs ( talk) 22:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC) |
Welcome back! You have a great sense of humor, by the way.
Thanks for the kind words about my writing. I usually write much better, but this is an end of the semester project (first year grad school...history), and I had little time to work on it during the semester. I look forward to helping it progress, and now that my semester is almost done (11:59 Nebraska time, 9:59 Arizona (my) time tonight), I'll have more time to perfect my so very limited Wikipedia skills and address your editing concerns.
I was at the Rittenhouse School/San Tan Museum yesterday, and I found out that there are two books coming out this summer about Queen Creek. I am excited to read them and see what other information they can provide about the school. This could potentially be my thesis project, so it's been fun to watch this article come to fruition. It needs a lot of work though...there's so much more I could put into it, but I am running out of time. Something to look forward to in the coming weeks.
Anyway, I have to run away for awhile (time to walk the dogs and pack lunch and gear for tomorrow's expedition). If I don't talk to you again tonight, I'll be back online tomorrow evening (assuming I survive the 100 degree heat and 30 mph winds expected at the project area).
It has been a hoot working with you this weekend, and I look forward to future happy collaborations.
Thanks again! Gina gagegs Gagegs ( talk) 01:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Howdy Revent,
The article looks great, and I love the changes you've made. How do I get rid of the comment box I created at the beginning of the article....the one that says essentially I'm new, please be nice and leave my article alone?
When do the other comment boxes come down, and who is responsible for removing them?
gagegs Gagegs ( talk) 04:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Self-trout You have been trouted for: Transcluded entire text of WP:BRD into my talk page. LOL! Revent ( talk) 04:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations! You have earned the
Welcome to the Teahouse Badge | |
Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the
Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to
learn how to edit Wikipedia. |
Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! ~ Anastasia ( talk) 19:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Here's a plate full of cookies to share! | |
Hi Revent/Archive 1, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{ subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! Revent ( talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
Hello there Revent! I'm noticing that a lot of your replies in the Teahouse have <span class="mw-headline-number">...</span> at the start of the edit summary. I'm curious as to how that is occurring and if it is a bug in a script or a gadget (which is a script) or what is going on. Do you know what is causing it? If not, can you answer some questions for me that might help me figure it out?
Thanks! sig was broken due to my code on page...was hiding new sections.. fixed it. Revent ( talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
It's from using the option 'auto-number headings' (here, advanced, sixth down) Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering I would assume. It showing up for other people would, of course, be a bug. :(
I'm using Google Chrome (Version 27.0.1453.15 beta) on Gentoo Linux (Linux lepton 3.7.10-gentoo #6 SMP PREEMPT Sat Mar 23 02:40:09 CDT 2013 i686 Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU P6200 @ 2.13GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux).
I'm not 'consistent' about using the 'edit' or 'reply to this discusssion', so if you only sometimes see it, that would probably be a good place to look.
I'm using Vector with DejaVu Sans, but not the javascript library. I have navigation popups, revision jumper, ask a question, reference tooltips, Dot's syntax highlighter, HotCat, wikEdDiff, ProveIt, and CharInsert turned on, but I don't use twinkle or the new 'visual editor'.
If you need me too, I can list my full settings, but hopefully you can find it from that. Revent ( talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You are invited to take place in a conversation happening Category_talk:American_novelists#Stalemate here about how to move forward with discussion on subcategories of by-country novelist categories.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Please don't add image-needed=y to every banner on the talk pages. Most don't have an image needed parameter. Don't add it to any banner. Instead, add {{ Image requested}} after the last banner and a bot will take care of things. Also add {{ Infobox requested}} after the last banner.
Don't added needs-persondata=y to the bio banner unless there is no infobox. Persondata becomes redundant with an infobox present. Plus, persondata is supposed to go away soon.
Please spell things out. Bots have a hard time when not spelled out, plus it adds time to render the page. It should be yes not y and WikiProject Biography or WikiProjectBannerShell.
If you are going to work on talk pages alot, there is a faster method. Use AutoHotKey and see my sample script. Bgwhite ( talk) 22:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I removed your referal to WikiProject Ohio from the Cameron Newbauer article. Ohio has nothing to do with anything in the article and vice versa. Newbauer is the new women's basketball coach at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee. The Indiana native previously coached at schools in New York, Georgia, and Kentucky. GWFrog ( talk) 06:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Revent, thanks for your advice Adamm ( talk • contribs) 08:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome! No worries; I'm pretty sure everyone accidentally sorts their talk page into one of the mainspace categories at least once. I know I've done it a couple of times... Sophus Bie ( talk) 20:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Revent, I've been watching Pee_Tern in the faint hope that he may return to answer a question at some point. So I spotted that you put a notification of misc/template deletion on his page. I think Pee_Tern may have completely abandoned Wikipedia (for whatever reason in September 2009) he seems to have been a pretty skilled template generator - (it's one of the things I'm hoping to ask him about), so I had a quick check on the thing you propose should be deleted, it looks like a big chunk of work, and it looks like it is something to do with wikiproject law enforcement, so I thought I'd go and mention it on that WikiProject in case someone there wants to rescue it. Perhaps it should be in main space? EdwardLane ( talk) 08:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Edit the pages and look at the 'code'...they're just copies of each other with a different parameter. They were just 'tests' of a sandbox version of {{ infobox law enforcement}}. The only reason I 'care' is because they show up as 'errors'. Revent ( talk) 09:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I did not understand your comment here. ---
Please sign your talk page messages.
3RR is a 'bright-line' rule.. i.e., if you violate this, you are definitely warring, not a 'definition' of what is unacceptable. If a person is acting like they are the 'owner' of an article and reverting multiple people's edits (to different areas) this can still be 'edit warring'..
Specifically, an editor might be trying to maintain an 'overall' bias, and essentially be fighting with multiple editors in multiple sections over it....you'd be allowing this, and changing the 'standard' that the definition of edit warring (unless it breaks the 'bright-line' rule) is a matter of admin discretion...this would just open the window to lawyering by people. Revent ( talk) 02:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anzia Yezierska may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 02:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Sanello, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages APA and MLA ( 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) 11:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all your assistance in wikipedia chat today! You gave me great advice and took action to correct several problems for me! Yen10k ( talk) 12:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Revent I need your help. The topic is always Francis Ford Coppola http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Francis_Ford_Coppola You removed the word 'American' from the lead, saying that it's not 'technically' correct. About that, I agree with you, Coppola has dual nationality. But Ring Cinema, that disagrees, modified the page. Take a look, please. -- Karanko ( talk) 12:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bishop Bell School. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 00:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For giving I dream of horses a trout topicon, (per "You can even do a total userpage makeover if you wish"), then trouting her.... Mat ty. 007 11:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC) |
Somebody was feeling thankful this morning ;) Theopolisme ( talk) 14:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have edited Jack Kirby in 2013 that there is a discussion on its talk page regarding the article's infobox image: Talk:Jack Kirby#Photo update. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 22:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello - I have opened an RfC about suggested guidelines in the Manual of Style for articles about living members of families whose ancestors were deposed as monarchs of various countries and the titles and "styles" attributed to these living people, at the moment often in a misleading and inaccurate way in my opinion. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies "Use of royal "Titles and styles" and honorific prefixes in articles and templates referring to pretenders to abolished royal titles and their families" [2]Regards, Smeat75 ( talk) 07:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I read your post on the talk page of Infinite Jest and I agree with you about Hal's final condition. I also suggested an idea of chaining the reference. But, I think what you changed was changed back. Maybe you could go take a look and see if that is so? I don't want to upset people by changing, but since you I agree, that give more weight to my theory and I provide a book that could be used instead of reference number 7 on Hal's mini Bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apriv40dj ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Hi, thank you for caring. I did not change the reference on Hal's mini bio on the infinite jest entry to my suggestion or to anything, I just left it on the talk page, because I did not want to rock the boat, but I thought if someone cares enough and maybe it could get changed? I did not want to mess with an important article, that people may care a lot about and make people angry. So, if you think, maybe changing the reference, but not the text. It could have been the mold, but the whole idea of the ghost of the father putting the mold on the toothbrush is not substantiated anywhere in the book, that is why I wanted to change the reference to something more creditable like a published book. Apriv40dj ( talk) 16:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I think you might have misunderstood my 'comments'... I had gotten drawn into trying to mediate an ongoing argument there about the Literary Criticism section that had taken over the talk page, so I had 'refactored' it and moved the twenty or so threads about that to a subpage on it and 'checklisted' the ancient stuff that wasn't about the current article. I think you misunderstood my sig at the 'top' of the section meaning I had started it... it was just when I sorted em out into sections. Revent ( talk) 09:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
We are sorry you are not happy that we are not satisfied with a propaganda page with our brand in it. We will not tolerate the intentional libel to smear our brand into some grudge match between "Russian Criminals" and a "Holy Spamhaus". The page was exceedingly biased and obviously written by someone with a deep consideration for Spamhaus and in opposition of STOPhaus. That, in itself is a Conflict of Interests and the edits that were negotiated were to clarify fallacy on Wikipedia.
TSM does not wish to be threatening, but we must protect the integrity of our mission and activities and using only citations from Spamhaus and Cloudflare's known PR team as well as quotes directly from Spamhaus, as if they are fact, wording that appears to make Spamhaus an authority figure and commander of what spam is, and your lack of regard to how this will cause drama with us, the only victim in this matter.
If the Wikipedia Community wishes to be respectable and offer a resolution to a one-sided propaganda entry concerning STOPhaus or our Operations, then we will certainly respond with the same level of respect. If the Wikipedia Community wishes to silence our attempts at a reasonable outcome for all parties, we will be unreasonable in return. We will not be stepped on, backed down, or rolled over without a fight.
We hope The WP Community understands that "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility". They have a Google PR9 and call themselves an "Encyclopedia" while providing information as a "reliable source". The moment that data is littered with inaccuracies, malicious libel, and hype-wording it become diluted. Any stress on Wikipedia due to a disregard for the victimization of STOPhaus will only strengthen both parties, but we do not want it to come to that.
The current edits seem to reflect a much more appropriate story than previous, however the Spamhaus Page is written like an advertisement and Google SEO effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.12.100.243 ( talk) 00:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite web|url= stophaus.com/showthread.php?3081-SUGGESTION-to-Wikipedia&p=3937#post3937}}</ref>
The allegations that STOPhaus has always maintained against Spamhaus is that they are "terrorists". There is a definition of terrorism that we allege Spamhaus meets. Your edits are minimizing our allegations while maintaining Spamhaus'. Other than that and the hyped-up wording used on the Spamhaus Page the entry seems okay. I think one of our members posted to that effect on your talk page to relieve your need to visit this forum because you expressed a disinterest in doing so.
The OpWikiWar Page still exists because Wikipedia calls itself an "Encyclopedia" of dynamic content, yet the content is moderated to be static and controlled. It is a deception to the public to say "anyone can edit Wikipedia" and the practice is completely different. It is an abomination to Academia to call Wikipedia an Encyclopedia when Pages are written and approved by those with Conflicts of Interests. The OpWikiWar will continue until Wikipedia stops the censorship and manipulation tactics that lead to the libel of individuals, companies, organizations, and institutions across the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.12.100.243 ( talk) 01:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
If there are policies to prevent libel and they worked then we would have never been involved. If Wikipedia had any empathy for censorship is would have been expressed in this situation. If Spamhaus is allowed to cite their own website as the reference to what they deem "spammers", "known spammers", "verified spam gangs" and such and never mention the fact that they do certain negative things, then Wikipedia is their propaganda page, not ours.
At this time OpWikiWar is in seed phases and will remain open until we have received the response from the general public concerning the matter. We thank you for taking the time to make the edits that you did and respect that you added a more neutral viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.12.100.243 ( talk) 11:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Appreciate the pointers. (2oceansvibe) ( 2oceansvibe ( talk) 10:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC))
(waves pointedly at IRC) Revent talk 07:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC) I'm revent on Freenode and requesting a rename on commons. Revent talk 07:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Revent,
Yes, you are right about the 2014 WNBA Finals. There needs to be an official page on the website giving good a description about it. You are also right about the comments you said. Thank you. Robert4565 ( talk) 16:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Veronica Vera. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi those who edit my revert and try to prove the King of Pop's Shadmehr have no evidence to prove that sometimes a word document with the interview Shadmehr. B.B.c persian make no mention of where the page the King of pop is not Shadmehr! They are just fan of shadmehr aghili and trying to supporting him.They are subversive! Mobayl73 ( talk) 11:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I request assistance for the protection of the screen against vandalism Mobayl73 ( talk) 00:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
You know that you were added to the checkpage and you can use AWB. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for helping to improve the article. Do you think the resulting article maintains NPOV well and is not promotional?
And, a small question, what tool should I use to format the references to a format such as this: "Bennett, Brian (3 June 2013). "HTC One Review". CNET. CBS Interactive. Archived from the original on 22 August 2013. Retrieved 12 September 2013." (It includes an archived link.) Dmatteng ( talk) 14:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Enjoy your trout slapping - maybe we should have a duel. The WA project has a few WikiTown processes which are evolving, to have a 2 edit person more or less say this doesnt exist vis a vis notability because it didnt win a heritage award (that in itself ia a misreading) needs some advice... Admittedly could have gone on the users talk page, but the ed has worked from an IP and the 2 edit user page - so instead of duplicating it stayed on the afd page. Your asumptions about the afd is obviously from the participation in afds previous. Imho - this one went this way due to a number of reasons, and personally, your reasoning is fine, and I have no debate with that. But if someone from New Zealand is thinking of single handedly starting a similar project from pulling another one apart (in a manner of speaking), I fail to see where the AGF comes in. satusuro 06:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Just letting you know, I have reverted your review of Draft:Amy Feldman and deleted the corresponding main space article.
Before you decline an AFC submission because a main space article already exists, please check the history of both articles. In the case of Draft:Amy Feldman, the main space article was just created today as a verbatim copy of the draft, which has yet to be approved. Obvious WP:COI concerns, as indicated by the edit history, suggest that the article should remain in user space or draft space pending closer scrutiny before approving it for publication in main space. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
See Template talk:EB1911#Wikisource, article and other unused parameters -- PBS ( talk) 11:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to note we had a similar page but there was a lot of confusion about names and sources. See [[Talk:Colonel Brown Cambridge School]. I had to 'fix' the stophaus url as our spamblocker was stopping me from saving any edits. Dougweller ( talk) 16:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/June_2014_Backlog_Elimination_Drive#We_need_a_conclusion that merits your consideration Fiddle Faddle 16:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to comment about what you said without derailing the proposal. I'd love to use MoS as a guide/push ahead and completely agree it should be encouraged. The reality, as I've recently experienced, is a lot different - I was even told (without ever bringing it up) that IAR wouldn't be reason enough. These days it seems to all be about policy.. JMJimmy ( talk) 05:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sabancı family. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Henry Townsend 22:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I was told that I was rejected twice, but it seems to have been accepted: My substitute article seems to have been completely accepted. I do not understand.
What should I have done?
Henry Townsend 22:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Henrytow: Yeah, my original comment in the 'decline notice' got wiped out, so you missed it. The 'decline' was more a 'technical' thing.... Articles for Creation is setup for new articles, not for improvements to existing ones. The tool isn't capable of merging improvements into an existing article and keeping the proper attribution of changes in the edit history. When I declined it, I left a message that you needed to 'cut-paste' your changes into the existing article (so they would be attributed to you), but then an admin woke up on the IRC channel and I was able to get him to do a history merge. You changes are a vast, vast improvement, and perfectly acceptable...just not through AfC.
In the future, for a case like this, you can use WP:SUBSTITUTION to make a copy of the existing article into your sandbox, make your series of changes, and then substitute it back on top of the existing article (as long as there have not been any intervening edits). That way you can work on it in your sandbox, and all of the changes will show up in the actual article history as one single edit. In this case, you would have saved the wikitext {{subst::Hans Sachs (poster collector)}} into your sandbox... on saving, this would have been replaced with a copy of the existing article. Then, after making all of your changes, you would edit the existing article, and replace the /entire/ contents with the wikitext {{subst:User:Henrytow/sandbox}}. When you saved, that would be replaced with the contents of your sandbox before the 'edit diff' was calculated, and so it would create a single edit in the history showing only the changes you made.
The only difficulty with doing this is that if there have been intervening edits by other users, they will be wiped out in the process unless you make matching changes to your copy before substituting it back. Otherwise, you can simply cut-paste your changes into the existing article. Revent talk 22:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Like so much on WIkipedia, the right way to do this is unknown util one does it. Henry Townsend 23:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Henrytow: Yeah, lol. Normally you just make small bits-and-pieces changes, but when doing a total rewrite doing it in a sandbox makes more sense just to keep the page history sensible...most people would probably just cut-and-paste the bits and pieces back, but using subst is a ton less effort. Revent talk 23:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Revent, I saw your comment at CP's talkpage. While he is a new user, I assume you are not. By your comment it's pretty clear that you don't have enough knowledge of patrolling new pages. You said: Draftspace and user sandboxes exist for the purpose of bringing new articles to an acceptable condition before moving them to article space
- This are generally prescribed for new users but not to those who have started many GAs and hundreds of DYKs. It is
WP:COMMONSENSE that an article can take sometime to finish and that is the reason why we (after consensus) consider waiting for atleast 2 hours until the issues are big (Copyvio / attack page / hoax). While you are correct that adding the templates right away can be seen as 'bitey', an experienced editor should realize that mainspace is a collaborative editing enviroment
- Yes, it is an collaborative environment, but again you can't add improvement tags when the article is only 10mins old (Although there are some exception), I mean when the article is already undergoing improvements. Also, it's somewhat 'too much' to expect someone who comes across an article that needs improvement to always double check to see if it is 'new'
-Yes, it's a duty of a new page patroller to double check to see if it is new. See
the above box. and risk leaving the article in both a broken and untagged state.
- There are huge number of editors here so if you miss something, someone else will fix it. Since
it is not compulsory for anyone to worry so much. Once an article is in mainspace, you do not 'own' it, or even 'own' the temporary right to be to only person working on it.
- as I said you don't have enough knowledge of how we treat a new page. Now, don't think I'm
WP:HOUNDING. This is just an advice. Please be careful when you say or advice something. Nothing else, thank you for your understanding & have a nice day.
Jim Carter (from public cyber)
20:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Jim Carter - Public: In the interest of civility, I'm self-redacting most of what I originally typed before I save it. I'm just going to say this.... I've been editing Wikipedia for over seven years, I'm an Articles for Creation reviewer, and a regular on the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel where we deal with new article creation on a continuous basis. I'm also quite familiar with new editors bringing up 'otherstuff' arguements, based on crap articles that were created and left untagged. There is no 'policy', 'guideline', or 'consensus' that new mainspace articles cannot be tagged, and never has been. Experienced editors who create articles in mainspace are expected to make sure they are compliant with content guidelines when they hit the save button, and there are templates that can be used to ask, as a courtesy, that people not tag the new article. An experienced editor who doesn't do so has absolutely no basis to complain when the article is tagged.
Also, your way of quoting my statements is both annoying as hell and doesn't attribute them to me. Please never do that with what I have said again.
BTW, the article in question, as well at least three other new articles by the same editor, are blatant unattributed plagarism of public domain sources. Revent talk 21:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
There's some saying about no good deed shall go unpunished. You seem to be epitomizing that today. I'm sorry to see an editor I highly respect taking umbrage at you, unwarranted in my opinion, but my hope is you will treat it as simply a bad day by someone jumping to conclusions. (And no, I'm not talking about this page.) Let me know if you want to talk further, but I see an editor who is working hard to improve this place, and getting smacked around for it. If you are willing to let it go, that would be best. If you think some things were said that need addressing, let me know.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 16:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
You have been trouted for: Dragging me into another IRC channel :) Jab843 ( talk) 03:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I notice you were actually attempting to preempt Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Very well, shall we now list you as an involved party then? O:-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 01:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fields Medal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
On 7 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Conrad Glass, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that that in over two decades as Tristan da Cunha's only police officer, Conrad Glass has never had to put anyone in a holding cell? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Conrad Glass. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 10:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Olamikhx ( talk) 14:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you please enlightened me more on why my article (Kenna Partners) submission was declined despite citations and non inclusion of advertisement phrases. I'm written this for a client and I have tried as much as possible to write from third party's view while providing adequate citation to support my article( Olamikhx ( talk) 14:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC))
Can you please help me on why my articles was declined for submission even with all the citation I provided and the fact that I wrote from third party's view regarding the said articles.
Kindly guide me through as I am a beginner here.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olamikhx ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Olamikhx: I'm not sure what submission you are referring to. Can you please clarify? Revent talk 23:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
dear wikipedia, I am recently working at Notre Dame of Genio Edcor, Inc. as a school registrar. I was new to wikipedia articles and upon browsing the web on instructions on how to create one, I decided to create an article about our school. I started creating the article entitled " Notre Dame of Genio Edcor, Inc." After much anticipation on the approval of this article to be publish on the internet, I was very disappointed on learning that it was rejected due to this article being a duplicate and as far as I am concerned I was having hard time submitting this article and no other articles about this topic was made by other person except me. I really think that there is a mistake on this, perhaps a double submission on different dates. Sorry for this matter at hand. I am still hoping that this article would be reconsider. This article was given an effort, please do the same for me. Thank you so much and God Bless.
Ndgei (
talk)
05:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
{{SAFESUBST:Void|
Dear Revent,
Please review my article entitled " Notre Dame of Genio Edcor, Inc." It was rejected lately due to double submission and recently I was editing this article so that it will have a greater change of being accepted and hopefully I could see this article I created once I browse over the internet. Thank you and God Bless.
Ndgei ( talk) 08:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
{{SAFESUBST:Void|
Hi Ravent,
Please make a review of my article "DRAFT: Notre Dame of Genio Edcor, Inc.". I received just now a reply that my images in this article was not own by me. How is that possible if I was the one who uploaded that images. "ndgeilogo.png" and ndgeimary.png". Please help me with my article. Thank you so much.
Ndgei ( talk) 09:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you @Revent for your detailed explanation about why the article Mohak Meet is nominated for debate. From March to July 2011, Mohak Meet played the role of Aditya in Chandragupta Maurya (TV series) who was the friend of Chandragupta Maurya. His upcoming movie Vartak Nagar is presented by Kunal Kohli Productions. Isn't it notable? Should I collect more references? Kindly guide me through to improve this article as I am newbie and don't have experience of writing articles about living persons. Thank You. -- Khushiar ( talk) 19:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Please don't take this as heavy criticism, but simply as an observation: I feel it's rather unfair to give awards to other editors congratulating them on their ability to speak English fluently when they can't. If you are being sarcastic, they won't understand this, and if you're just doing it to be nice, it doesn't encourage them to improve. I'm a strong supported of our awards system, but it is important that these awards are made for reasons of genuine merit. Thanks. RomanSpa ( talk) 12:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if you saw my comment, but I've been completely uninvolved in all previous discussions of Polandball. I contacted Supernerd after finding his name somewhere and never followed up with him, and some IP address contacted me. It would be fair to say tha I'm so uninvolved that the threat of meatpuppetry accusations don't daunt me.
That being said, I saw your comments and the impression I get is that it's simply been disallowed. I was shocked by the extremism displayed by both users and even admins on the issue - it was almost a flame war against an absent adversary. But I want to ask you since you seem familiar with the topic: is there any avenue that wouldn't be a waste of time? It seems that reviving it on the deletion review log would get crushed and, so soon after that last discussion, would seem a bit pompous. Is there a forum where it can be discussed without the threat of anonymous IPs jumping in and this further inflaming those obsessed with blocking this article at all costs? Or should it just remain dead and buried?
MezzoMezzo (
talk)
04:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Thanks for your help with the VHA article. Pine ✉ 08:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC) |
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
Dear Revent, thanks for your extensive work on Template:Paid article! The template, with the new 'client' parameter is now ready for use! Keep up the good work! You are making a difference at Wikipedia! With regards, Anupam Talk 07:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | ||
You spent some considerable time giving me huge and specific help on the live chat on Saturday. My article about Alison Appleton has since been accepted. I really appreciate it. Thanks Revent!
PS: Hope this works..... Linspark ( talk) 15:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC) |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
Just a little gift to thank you for being a great help in #wikipedia-en-help. I've observed some great conversations and assistance to contributors in need. Have a great day :) — JamesR ( talk) 07:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For all your help with marking categories, day and night, with templates and stuff, I hereby award you with this barnstar. (This is the barnstar all wikignome want, I heard!) ( t) Josve05a ( c) 01:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for the assistance!
Sanfordstreet ( talk) 12:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
Hello Revent, I just wondering about the reason why my article was rejected. I included three external references ( http://www.construction-machineryworld.com/faresin-industries-heavy-investment-research-and-a-clear-path-ahead/ - http://cabeteconstruction.ca/projects/sopa-square/ - http://www.sydneyfc.com/corporate/hye/1m36ed4770hjn13dc3r20wn9cs and I'm going to add another one http://issuu.com/ancr/docs/darlingquarter (pag 56) , that is a link to an article to Faresin projects. Maybe, in the first draft of my page there was an error in the link about Sydney FC. Now, it would be ok.
Thank you
Step
Step28 ( talk) 21:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Step28:Hi, happy to explain. The first link - [3] - Industry journal, independent source, about the article topic and gives signifigant coverage... all good. The second link - [4] Website of Cabete, about a project Cabete (and according to the draft, Faresin) worked on, doesn't actually mention Faresin at all, and would not indicate 'notability' if it did (it would merely demonstrate a single fact, that Faresin worked on that project The third link - [5] - Is not from an independent source, it is an acknowledgment from Sydney FC that Faresin gave them money, and does not indicate notability The new one - [6] - About Calconco, merely mentions they bought a product from Faresin... not about Faresin, not signifigant coverage, and is only a source for that particular fact
To show notability, you need to show that Faresin, itself, has been considered worthy of significant coverage by multiple independent sources... you can see the specific requirements at WP:CORP. Things such as magazine, newspaper, trade journal articles about the company, or books that discuss it in depth, meet this criteria... things like short news blurbs like you find in the business section of a newspaper covering specific events that give no background, or republished press releases don't. A source can be independent and reliable, but still not provide significant coverage, either because it is very brief (merely taking note of an event) or because it is merely a mention in something else. You have not shown notability.
In addition, the majority of the article should be cited to reliable independent sources, and anything that indicates the quality or importance of the company must be cited to such sources. Most the statements in your draft are completely unsourced, and thus are not verifiable by readers. This is also something that needs to be addressed.
Hope that helps. If not, or if you have further questions, feel free to ask. Revent talk 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thank you for the input on my user page - I'm a bit lost here (there's a pretty steep learning curve), so help from those more experienced than me is always welcome!
Gisou94 (
talk)
15:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
u r kewl. See also this, which is amongst the future of automated citation formatting in VE and part of the direction toward normalizing citations, eventually into wikidata. (dtm from IRC)
— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
T'was me. You are up to speed on what is allowed. Please see the article talk. I am rather nervous about this and feel quite guilty, but think I've done it right. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi FYI. 95.153.112.50 ( talk) 12:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Dsouzaronald (
talk)
17:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Dsouzaronald ( talk) 17:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Ronald This is my first submission. please tell me what's missing or point me to a guideline I need to follow
Hi I recently submitted an article for review, about a production group "The Order". It was declined. The original submission about "The Order" was made in error by a friend. That one should be disposed of and not considered. This recent submission is accurate in small detail subject matter and sources. What would be the proper steps to ensure that this gets fixed so that this submission is published. Thanks in advance.
Dcgreene88 ( talk) 00:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Revent,
Thank you for taking the time to review my first try at putting up a page. Also, thank you for the comments on the MightyCall draft.
My name is Edmund Tee and I am the VP of Comms at MightyCall.
I apologized for if I caused offense - my intention is not to promote the company, but to provide information on our company just like what our competitors have done on Wikipedia. What I did was studied what Grasshopper and RingCentral did, and emulated the tone and style they had. I figured if they were allowed to talk about their companies, we would to. I guess I missed something!
What can I do better?
1. Remove all reference to a rebranding? If so, done! 2. Remove product information? Here I referenced Grasshopper's product information, and followed suit. I can certainly remove our product information, but could you help me understand what Grasshopper did right, and what I did wrong? 3. Wait till we get more third party coverage to cite? If so, we'll try again in six months when we have grown up some more.
Thank you again for your time.
Edmund Tee Edmundtee ( talk) 05:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Your template work will help make all those Mexico TV lists so much better. Thanks for the advice and the templates! Raymie ( t • c) 08:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
Could you please help me with this one if you get a chance? [7] [8] Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
IMHO the copyvio re Nerilie Abram and http://www.antarctica.gov.au/science/climate-processes-and-change/antarctic-palaeoclimate/aurora-basin/people-in-the-field/nerilie-abram-driller-and-ice-core-chemist is still present. I haven't attempted to mark the article because of the deleted revisions. Mark Hurd ( talk) 14:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, you have helped me in the past to copyedit Bose SoundLink Bluetooth Mobile Speaker II. Could you please help me again? I have written an article at /info/en/?search=User:Dmatteng/sandbox. Since I'm a native Russian speaker I always make grammar and structural errors in English, though I'm constantly trying to improve. I have also tried my best to be NPOV, but if you see anything that should be changed in this regard, your advise would be much appreciated. (And you have also my full permission to change anything in my sandbox.) Dmatteng ( talk) 15:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
freenode seems to be down and I'm going the same way but please look at that userpsgae you had me draft, user readded some stuff ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The sock drawer is more than IPs:
Those are just the ones since August. This is a long term SPI obsessed fan. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. The page under User:Kushalchavan/sandbox was not meant to be a AfC and the page Luciano Vietto currently exists in mainspace. Any edits done in the sandbox was meant to improve the article under the editor's course work. Please remove all AfC tags and return the page to the sandbox to avoid a duplicate of an existing page. Thank you. LRD NO ( talk) 00:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The L235 quarterly everything barnstar | |
Hi revent. Please accept the quarterly L235 "Everything Barnstar" for being helpful on IRC, doing tons of maintenance work, like clearing out Category:Pending AfC submissions in userspace, and for being, in general, a great person. Thank you, and congrats. Cheers, Thanks, L235- Talk Ping when replying 04:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC) |
Hello Revent, thanks for your feedback on my article. As a newbie who's still learning to "walk, talk & breathe" around here, you helped clarify a lot for me. I am now currently working on the improvements you suggested. (PS: Sure hope I posted this in the right place! Haha)
WrittenInHeart ( talk) 21:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Revent, thanks for the feedback - I've updated my User Page now. Digitalandrew ( talk) 16:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on Evolution’s second law of thermodynamics fallacy. It is very helpful to have made clear the reasons for refusal. You are correct; the subject is covered in Entropy and life. The “open system” argument is given there to explain “Schrodinger’s paradox”. Lehninger’s argument “that the ‘order’ produced within cells… is more than compensated for by the ‘disorder’ they create…” (excess entropy) is also given to reconcile the second law and evolution. What is lacking is this new understanding, that the above arguments, while correct, are not sufficient to explain what they purport to do. This leads to an important misconception. That evolution is able to overcome the second law is worthy of full understanding. It is noteworthy that the author of the main reference and one of the references used for this submission are cited in Entropy and life. That there is only a single main reference can be attributed to the newness of the insight (February, 2014) and the information has not had time to be disseminated. Is not asking for more than a single peer reviewed journal reference a very high standard? LEBOLTZMANN2
The da Vinci Barnstar | ||
For the wonderful help you provide with all that code that I don't understand and never will. Thank you so much! Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 15:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
Just seen this - thank you :)
Think I may have just sent you another message on the same topic because I missed this response but I will try out your suggestions now.
Thanks again
LexieHoskins ( talk) 12:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The page got rejected because it already exists. I edited the existing page but the edits were rejected. Theroadislong suggested that I should draft the revised article before submitting and then ask him/her or another editor to proofread it. I thought using userspace drafts would be a way to do this but now the page has been rejected because it already exists.
Please could you look at the content I provided and tell me if it will be approved if I edit the existing 'Cambridge International Examinations' page?
Thank you
LexieHoskins ( talk) 07:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
You are true helper. Thanks for helping me at IRC. CutestPenguin ( Talk) 13:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
I am not "requesting a re-review"; I am asking for further guidance from the reviewer who declined my submission of "Sword-grip and Scabbard-grip" on 25th August 2014.
I thought that my article, which defines a pair of terms, which are applicable in many martial arts, and explains their derivation, was of a similar format to the articles on martial terms like "Horse stance", "Pinch grip tie" and "Knifehand strike" which already exist on Wikipedia. What need I do to get my article accepted ?
Dave H Franks (
talk)
01:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and advice on the 2000 Yountville earthquake article that I created.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chevalier d'Eon. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 21 September 2014 (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 |
The above are all rendered by your computer with different typefaces, but the paragraph widths should be exactly the same. This should remain true when you change where the line breaks are by varying the width of your browser window, and at every single possible 'zoom level'. Anything else is a result of something broken.
They are broken on my screen, with default browser settings, using the Vector skin. The worst looking part is that 1 is shorter than 2, but 3 is MUCH longer than 4. (Google Chrome on Linux, compiled for Unicode compliance)
Greetings Revent,
Thank you for your helpful tip on the templates for editing. I have printed them out and will use them today as I work on my very first Wikipedia article (The Rittenhouse Elementary School). All of you on Wikipedia have been so very kind and helpful, and I truly appreciate it.
Cheers, gagegs Gagegs ( talk) 16:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Howdy Revent,
Thanks for the information on citations. I'm finishing up a report for another course this morning, then will be jumping back into the citations this afternoon. I'm sure I'll have questions about those pesky citations. Enjoy your morning (well, it's morning here in Arizona), and talk to you soon gagegs Gagegs ( talk) 19:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
(moved to article talk page)
Howdy Revent,
I got my citations in, but somehow deleted the reference list at the end of the article. Help! How do I get it back? Is there a way to return to a previous version to restore my reference?
gagegs Gagegs ( talk) 22:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
now I've screwed up the infobox. I'm a mess LOL gagegs Gagegs ( talk) 22:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, thank you so much! You are my saviour :) gagegs Gagegs ( talk) 22:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
So, how do I give you said star? gagegs Gagegs ( talk) 22:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The Reviewer Barnstar | ||
Revent, you have been so helpful to me today, and I really appreciate your tremendous effort and time in walking me through my first article. You deserve all kinds of awards! gagegs Gagegs ( talk) 22:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC) |
Welcome back! You have a great sense of humor, by the way.
Thanks for the kind words about my writing. I usually write much better, but this is an end of the semester project (first year grad school...history), and I had little time to work on it during the semester. I look forward to helping it progress, and now that my semester is almost done (11:59 Nebraska time, 9:59 Arizona (my) time tonight), I'll have more time to perfect my so very limited Wikipedia skills and address your editing concerns.
I was at the Rittenhouse School/San Tan Museum yesterday, and I found out that there are two books coming out this summer about Queen Creek. I am excited to read them and see what other information they can provide about the school. This could potentially be my thesis project, so it's been fun to watch this article come to fruition. It needs a lot of work though...there's so much more I could put into it, but I am running out of time. Something to look forward to in the coming weeks.
Anyway, I have to run away for awhile (time to walk the dogs and pack lunch and gear for tomorrow's expedition). If I don't talk to you again tonight, I'll be back online tomorrow evening (assuming I survive the 100 degree heat and 30 mph winds expected at the project area).
It has been a hoot working with you this weekend, and I look forward to future happy collaborations.
Thanks again! Gina gagegs Gagegs ( talk) 01:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Howdy Revent,
The article looks great, and I love the changes you've made. How do I get rid of the comment box I created at the beginning of the article....the one that says essentially I'm new, please be nice and leave my article alone?
When do the other comment boxes come down, and who is responsible for removing them?
gagegs Gagegs ( talk) 04:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Self-trout You have been trouted for: Transcluded entire text of WP:BRD into my talk page. LOL! Revent ( talk) 04:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations! You have earned the
Welcome to the Teahouse Badge | |
Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the
Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to
learn how to edit Wikipedia. |
Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! ~ Anastasia ( talk) 19:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Here's a plate full of cookies to share! | |
Hi Revent/Archive 1, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{ subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! Revent ( talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
Hello there Revent! I'm noticing that a lot of your replies in the Teahouse have <span class="mw-headline-number">...</span> at the start of the edit summary. I'm curious as to how that is occurring and if it is a bug in a script or a gadget (which is a script) or what is going on. Do you know what is causing it? If not, can you answer some questions for me that might help me figure it out?
Thanks! sig was broken due to my code on page...was hiding new sections.. fixed it. Revent ( talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
It's from using the option 'auto-number headings' (here, advanced, sixth down) Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering I would assume. It showing up for other people would, of course, be a bug. :(
I'm using Google Chrome (Version 27.0.1453.15 beta) on Gentoo Linux (Linux lepton 3.7.10-gentoo #6 SMP PREEMPT Sat Mar 23 02:40:09 CDT 2013 i686 Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU P6200 @ 2.13GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux).
I'm not 'consistent' about using the 'edit' or 'reply to this discusssion', so if you only sometimes see it, that would probably be a good place to look.
I'm using Vector with DejaVu Sans, but not the javascript library. I have navigation popups, revision jumper, ask a question, reference tooltips, Dot's syntax highlighter, HotCat, wikEdDiff, ProveIt, and CharInsert turned on, but I don't use twinkle or the new 'visual editor'.
If you need me too, I can list my full settings, but hopefully you can find it from that. Revent ( talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You are invited to take place in a conversation happening Category_talk:American_novelists#Stalemate here about how to move forward with discussion on subcategories of by-country novelist categories.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Please don't add image-needed=y to every banner on the talk pages. Most don't have an image needed parameter. Don't add it to any banner. Instead, add {{ Image requested}} after the last banner and a bot will take care of things. Also add {{ Infobox requested}} after the last banner.
Don't added needs-persondata=y to the bio banner unless there is no infobox. Persondata becomes redundant with an infobox present. Plus, persondata is supposed to go away soon.
Please spell things out. Bots have a hard time when not spelled out, plus it adds time to render the page. It should be yes not y and WikiProject Biography or WikiProjectBannerShell.
If you are going to work on talk pages alot, there is a faster method. Use AutoHotKey and see my sample script. Bgwhite ( talk) 22:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I removed your referal to WikiProject Ohio from the Cameron Newbauer article. Ohio has nothing to do with anything in the article and vice versa. Newbauer is the new women's basketball coach at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee. The Indiana native previously coached at schools in New York, Georgia, and Kentucky. GWFrog ( talk) 06:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Revent, thanks for your advice Adamm ( talk • contribs) 08:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome! No worries; I'm pretty sure everyone accidentally sorts their talk page into one of the mainspace categories at least once. I know I've done it a couple of times... Sophus Bie ( talk) 20:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Revent, I've been watching Pee_Tern in the faint hope that he may return to answer a question at some point. So I spotted that you put a notification of misc/template deletion on his page. I think Pee_Tern may have completely abandoned Wikipedia (for whatever reason in September 2009) he seems to have been a pretty skilled template generator - (it's one of the things I'm hoping to ask him about), so I had a quick check on the thing you propose should be deleted, it looks like a big chunk of work, and it looks like it is something to do with wikiproject law enforcement, so I thought I'd go and mention it on that WikiProject in case someone there wants to rescue it. Perhaps it should be in main space? EdwardLane ( talk) 08:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Edit the pages and look at the 'code'...they're just copies of each other with a different parameter. They were just 'tests' of a sandbox version of {{ infobox law enforcement}}. The only reason I 'care' is because they show up as 'errors'. Revent ( talk) 09:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I did not understand your comment here. ---
Please sign your talk page messages.
3RR is a 'bright-line' rule.. i.e., if you violate this, you are definitely warring, not a 'definition' of what is unacceptable. If a person is acting like they are the 'owner' of an article and reverting multiple people's edits (to different areas) this can still be 'edit warring'..
Specifically, an editor might be trying to maintain an 'overall' bias, and essentially be fighting with multiple editors in multiple sections over it....you'd be allowing this, and changing the 'standard' that the definition of edit warring (unless it breaks the 'bright-line' rule) is a matter of admin discretion...this would just open the window to lawyering by people. Revent ( talk) 02:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anzia Yezierska may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 02:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Sanello, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages APA and MLA ( 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) 11:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all your assistance in wikipedia chat today! You gave me great advice and took action to correct several problems for me! Yen10k ( talk) 12:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Revent I need your help. The topic is always Francis Ford Coppola http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Francis_Ford_Coppola You removed the word 'American' from the lead, saying that it's not 'technically' correct. About that, I agree with you, Coppola has dual nationality. But Ring Cinema, that disagrees, modified the page. Take a look, please. -- Karanko ( talk) 12:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bishop Bell School. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 00:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For giving I dream of horses a trout topicon, (per "You can even do a total userpage makeover if you wish"), then trouting her.... Mat ty. 007 11:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC) |
Somebody was feeling thankful this morning ;) Theopolisme ( talk) 14:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have edited Jack Kirby in 2013 that there is a discussion on its talk page regarding the article's infobox image: Talk:Jack Kirby#Photo update. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 22:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello - I have opened an RfC about suggested guidelines in the Manual of Style for articles about living members of families whose ancestors were deposed as monarchs of various countries and the titles and "styles" attributed to these living people, at the moment often in a misleading and inaccurate way in my opinion. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies "Use of royal "Titles and styles" and honorific prefixes in articles and templates referring to pretenders to abolished royal titles and their families" [2]Regards, Smeat75 ( talk) 07:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I read your post on the talk page of Infinite Jest and I agree with you about Hal's final condition. I also suggested an idea of chaining the reference. But, I think what you changed was changed back. Maybe you could go take a look and see if that is so? I don't want to upset people by changing, but since you I agree, that give more weight to my theory and I provide a book that could be used instead of reference number 7 on Hal's mini Bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apriv40dj ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Hi, thank you for caring. I did not change the reference on Hal's mini bio on the infinite jest entry to my suggestion or to anything, I just left it on the talk page, because I did not want to rock the boat, but I thought if someone cares enough and maybe it could get changed? I did not want to mess with an important article, that people may care a lot about and make people angry. So, if you think, maybe changing the reference, but not the text. It could have been the mold, but the whole idea of the ghost of the father putting the mold on the toothbrush is not substantiated anywhere in the book, that is why I wanted to change the reference to something more creditable like a published book. Apriv40dj ( talk) 16:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I think you might have misunderstood my 'comments'... I had gotten drawn into trying to mediate an ongoing argument there about the Literary Criticism section that had taken over the talk page, so I had 'refactored' it and moved the twenty or so threads about that to a subpage on it and 'checklisted' the ancient stuff that wasn't about the current article. I think you misunderstood my sig at the 'top' of the section meaning I had started it... it was just when I sorted em out into sections. Revent ( talk) 09:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
We are sorry you are not happy that we are not satisfied with a propaganda page with our brand in it. We will not tolerate the intentional libel to smear our brand into some grudge match between "Russian Criminals" and a "Holy Spamhaus". The page was exceedingly biased and obviously written by someone with a deep consideration for Spamhaus and in opposition of STOPhaus. That, in itself is a Conflict of Interests and the edits that were negotiated were to clarify fallacy on Wikipedia.
TSM does not wish to be threatening, but we must protect the integrity of our mission and activities and using only citations from Spamhaus and Cloudflare's known PR team as well as quotes directly from Spamhaus, as if they are fact, wording that appears to make Spamhaus an authority figure and commander of what spam is, and your lack of regard to how this will cause drama with us, the only victim in this matter.
If the Wikipedia Community wishes to be respectable and offer a resolution to a one-sided propaganda entry concerning STOPhaus or our Operations, then we will certainly respond with the same level of respect. If the Wikipedia Community wishes to silence our attempts at a reasonable outcome for all parties, we will be unreasonable in return. We will not be stepped on, backed down, or rolled over without a fight.
We hope The WP Community understands that "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility". They have a Google PR9 and call themselves an "Encyclopedia" while providing information as a "reliable source". The moment that data is littered with inaccuracies, malicious libel, and hype-wording it become diluted. Any stress on Wikipedia due to a disregard for the victimization of STOPhaus will only strengthen both parties, but we do not want it to come to that.
The current edits seem to reflect a much more appropriate story than previous, however the Spamhaus Page is written like an advertisement and Google SEO effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.12.100.243 ( talk) 00:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite web|url= stophaus.com/showthread.php?3081-SUGGESTION-to-Wikipedia&p=3937#post3937}}</ref>
The allegations that STOPhaus has always maintained against Spamhaus is that they are "terrorists". There is a definition of terrorism that we allege Spamhaus meets. Your edits are minimizing our allegations while maintaining Spamhaus'. Other than that and the hyped-up wording used on the Spamhaus Page the entry seems okay. I think one of our members posted to that effect on your talk page to relieve your need to visit this forum because you expressed a disinterest in doing so.
The OpWikiWar Page still exists because Wikipedia calls itself an "Encyclopedia" of dynamic content, yet the content is moderated to be static and controlled. It is a deception to the public to say "anyone can edit Wikipedia" and the practice is completely different. It is an abomination to Academia to call Wikipedia an Encyclopedia when Pages are written and approved by those with Conflicts of Interests. The OpWikiWar will continue until Wikipedia stops the censorship and manipulation tactics that lead to the libel of individuals, companies, organizations, and institutions across the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.12.100.243 ( talk) 01:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
If there are policies to prevent libel and they worked then we would have never been involved. If Wikipedia had any empathy for censorship is would have been expressed in this situation. If Spamhaus is allowed to cite their own website as the reference to what they deem "spammers", "known spammers", "verified spam gangs" and such and never mention the fact that they do certain negative things, then Wikipedia is their propaganda page, not ours.
At this time OpWikiWar is in seed phases and will remain open until we have received the response from the general public concerning the matter. We thank you for taking the time to make the edits that you did and respect that you added a more neutral viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.12.100.243 ( talk) 11:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Appreciate the pointers. (2oceansvibe) ( 2oceansvibe ( talk) 10:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC))
(waves pointedly at IRC) Revent talk 07:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC) I'm revent on Freenode and requesting a rename on commons. Revent talk 07:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Revent,
Yes, you are right about the 2014 WNBA Finals. There needs to be an official page on the website giving good a description about it. You are also right about the comments you said. Thank you. Robert4565 ( talk) 16:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Veronica Vera. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi those who edit my revert and try to prove the King of Pop's Shadmehr have no evidence to prove that sometimes a word document with the interview Shadmehr. B.B.c persian make no mention of where the page the King of pop is not Shadmehr! They are just fan of shadmehr aghili and trying to supporting him.They are subversive! Mobayl73 ( talk) 11:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I request assistance for the protection of the screen against vandalism Mobayl73 ( talk) 00:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
You know that you were added to the checkpage and you can use AWB. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for helping to improve the article. Do you think the resulting article maintains NPOV well and is not promotional?
And, a small question, what tool should I use to format the references to a format such as this: "Bennett, Brian (3 June 2013). "HTC One Review". CNET. CBS Interactive. Archived from the original on 22 August 2013. Retrieved 12 September 2013." (It includes an archived link.) Dmatteng ( talk) 14:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Enjoy your trout slapping - maybe we should have a duel. The WA project has a few WikiTown processes which are evolving, to have a 2 edit person more or less say this doesnt exist vis a vis notability because it didnt win a heritage award (that in itself ia a misreading) needs some advice... Admittedly could have gone on the users talk page, but the ed has worked from an IP and the 2 edit user page - so instead of duplicating it stayed on the afd page. Your asumptions about the afd is obviously from the participation in afds previous. Imho - this one went this way due to a number of reasons, and personally, your reasoning is fine, and I have no debate with that. But if someone from New Zealand is thinking of single handedly starting a similar project from pulling another one apart (in a manner of speaking), I fail to see where the AGF comes in. satusuro 06:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Just letting you know, I have reverted your review of Draft:Amy Feldman and deleted the corresponding main space article.
Before you decline an AFC submission because a main space article already exists, please check the history of both articles. In the case of Draft:Amy Feldman, the main space article was just created today as a verbatim copy of the draft, which has yet to be approved. Obvious WP:COI concerns, as indicated by the edit history, suggest that the article should remain in user space or draft space pending closer scrutiny before approving it for publication in main space. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
See Template talk:EB1911#Wikisource, article and other unused parameters -- PBS ( talk) 11:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to note we had a similar page but there was a lot of confusion about names and sources. See [[Talk:Colonel Brown Cambridge School]. I had to 'fix' the stophaus url as our spamblocker was stopping me from saving any edits. Dougweller ( talk) 16:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/June_2014_Backlog_Elimination_Drive#We_need_a_conclusion that merits your consideration Fiddle Faddle 16:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to comment about what you said without derailing the proposal. I'd love to use MoS as a guide/push ahead and completely agree it should be encouraged. The reality, as I've recently experienced, is a lot different - I was even told (without ever bringing it up) that IAR wouldn't be reason enough. These days it seems to all be about policy.. JMJimmy ( talk) 05:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sabancı family. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Henry Townsend 22:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I was told that I was rejected twice, but it seems to have been accepted: My substitute article seems to have been completely accepted. I do not understand.
What should I have done?
Henry Townsend 22:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Henrytow: Yeah, my original comment in the 'decline notice' got wiped out, so you missed it. The 'decline' was more a 'technical' thing.... Articles for Creation is setup for new articles, not for improvements to existing ones. The tool isn't capable of merging improvements into an existing article and keeping the proper attribution of changes in the edit history. When I declined it, I left a message that you needed to 'cut-paste' your changes into the existing article (so they would be attributed to you), but then an admin woke up on the IRC channel and I was able to get him to do a history merge. You changes are a vast, vast improvement, and perfectly acceptable...just not through AfC.
In the future, for a case like this, you can use WP:SUBSTITUTION to make a copy of the existing article into your sandbox, make your series of changes, and then substitute it back on top of the existing article (as long as there have not been any intervening edits). That way you can work on it in your sandbox, and all of the changes will show up in the actual article history as one single edit. In this case, you would have saved the wikitext {{subst::Hans Sachs (poster collector)}} into your sandbox... on saving, this would have been replaced with a copy of the existing article. Then, after making all of your changes, you would edit the existing article, and replace the /entire/ contents with the wikitext {{subst:User:Henrytow/sandbox}}. When you saved, that would be replaced with the contents of your sandbox before the 'edit diff' was calculated, and so it would create a single edit in the history showing only the changes you made.
The only difficulty with doing this is that if there have been intervening edits by other users, they will be wiped out in the process unless you make matching changes to your copy before substituting it back. Otherwise, you can simply cut-paste your changes into the existing article. Revent talk 22:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Like so much on WIkipedia, the right way to do this is unknown util one does it. Henry Townsend 23:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Henrytow: Yeah, lol. Normally you just make small bits-and-pieces changes, but when doing a total rewrite doing it in a sandbox makes more sense just to keep the page history sensible...most people would probably just cut-and-paste the bits and pieces back, but using subst is a ton less effort. Revent talk 23:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Revent, I saw your comment at CP's talkpage. While he is a new user, I assume you are not. By your comment it's pretty clear that you don't have enough knowledge of patrolling new pages. You said: Draftspace and user sandboxes exist for the purpose of bringing new articles to an acceptable condition before moving them to article space
- This are generally prescribed for new users but not to those who have started many GAs and hundreds of DYKs. It is
WP:COMMONSENSE that an article can take sometime to finish and that is the reason why we (after consensus) consider waiting for atleast 2 hours until the issues are big (Copyvio / attack page / hoax). While you are correct that adding the templates right away can be seen as 'bitey', an experienced editor should realize that mainspace is a collaborative editing enviroment
- Yes, it is an collaborative environment, but again you can't add improvement tags when the article is only 10mins old (Although there are some exception), I mean when the article is already undergoing improvements. Also, it's somewhat 'too much' to expect someone who comes across an article that needs improvement to always double check to see if it is 'new'
-Yes, it's a duty of a new page patroller to double check to see if it is new. See
the above box. and risk leaving the article in both a broken and untagged state.
- There are huge number of editors here so if you miss something, someone else will fix it. Since
it is not compulsory for anyone to worry so much. Once an article is in mainspace, you do not 'own' it, or even 'own' the temporary right to be to only person working on it.
- as I said you don't have enough knowledge of how we treat a new page. Now, don't think I'm
WP:HOUNDING. This is just an advice. Please be careful when you say or advice something. Nothing else, thank you for your understanding & have a nice day.
Jim Carter (from public cyber)
20:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Jim Carter - Public: In the interest of civility, I'm self-redacting most of what I originally typed before I save it. I'm just going to say this.... I've been editing Wikipedia for over seven years, I'm an Articles for Creation reviewer, and a regular on the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel where we deal with new article creation on a continuous basis. I'm also quite familiar with new editors bringing up 'otherstuff' arguements, based on crap articles that were created and left untagged. There is no 'policy', 'guideline', or 'consensus' that new mainspace articles cannot be tagged, and never has been. Experienced editors who create articles in mainspace are expected to make sure they are compliant with content guidelines when they hit the save button, and there are templates that can be used to ask, as a courtesy, that people not tag the new article. An experienced editor who doesn't do so has absolutely no basis to complain when the article is tagged.
Also, your way of quoting my statements is both annoying as hell and doesn't attribute them to me. Please never do that with what I have said again.
BTW, the article in question, as well at least three other new articles by the same editor, are blatant unattributed plagarism of public domain sources. Revent talk 21:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
There's some saying about no good deed shall go unpunished. You seem to be epitomizing that today. I'm sorry to see an editor I highly respect taking umbrage at you, unwarranted in my opinion, but my hope is you will treat it as simply a bad day by someone jumping to conclusions. (And no, I'm not talking about this page.) Let me know if you want to talk further, but I see an editor who is working hard to improve this place, and getting smacked around for it. If you are willing to let it go, that would be best. If you think some things were said that need addressing, let me know.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 16:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
You have been trouted for: Dragging me into another IRC channel :) Jab843 ( talk) 03:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I notice you were actually attempting to preempt Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Very well, shall we now list you as an involved party then? O:-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 01:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fields Medal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
On 7 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Conrad Glass, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that that in over two decades as Tristan da Cunha's only police officer, Conrad Glass has never had to put anyone in a holding cell? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Conrad Glass. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 10:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Olamikhx ( talk) 14:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you please enlightened me more on why my article (Kenna Partners) submission was declined despite citations and non inclusion of advertisement phrases. I'm written this for a client and I have tried as much as possible to write from third party's view while providing adequate citation to support my article( Olamikhx ( talk) 14:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC))
Can you please help me on why my articles was declined for submission even with all the citation I provided and the fact that I wrote from third party's view regarding the said articles.
Kindly guide me through as I am a beginner here.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olamikhx ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Olamikhx: I'm not sure what submission you are referring to. Can you please clarify? Revent talk 23:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
dear wikipedia, I am recently working at Notre Dame of Genio Edcor, Inc. as a school registrar. I was new to wikipedia articles and upon browsing the web on instructions on how to create one, I decided to create an article about our school. I started creating the article entitled " Notre Dame of Genio Edcor, Inc." After much anticipation on the approval of this article to be publish on the internet, I was very disappointed on learning that it was rejected due to this article being a duplicate and as far as I am concerned I was having hard time submitting this article and no other articles about this topic was made by other person except me. I really think that there is a mistake on this, perhaps a double submission on different dates. Sorry for this matter at hand. I am still hoping that this article would be reconsider. This article was given an effort, please do the same for me. Thank you so much and God Bless.
Ndgei (
talk)
05:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
{{SAFESUBST:Void|
Dear Revent,
Please review my article entitled " Notre Dame of Genio Edcor, Inc." It was rejected lately due to double submission and recently I was editing this article so that it will have a greater change of being accepted and hopefully I could see this article I created once I browse over the internet. Thank you and God Bless.
Ndgei ( talk) 08:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
{{SAFESUBST:Void|
Hi Ravent,
Please make a review of my article "DRAFT: Notre Dame of Genio Edcor, Inc.". I received just now a reply that my images in this article was not own by me. How is that possible if I was the one who uploaded that images. "ndgeilogo.png" and ndgeimary.png". Please help me with my article. Thank you so much.
Ndgei ( talk) 09:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you @Revent for your detailed explanation about why the article Mohak Meet is nominated for debate. From March to July 2011, Mohak Meet played the role of Aditya in Chandragupta Maurya (TV series) who was the friend of Chandragupta Maurya. His upcoming movie Vartak Nagar is presented by Kunal Kohli Productions. Isn't it notable? Should I collect more references? Kindly guide me through to improve this article as I am newbie and don't have experience of writing articles about living persons. Thank You. -- Khushiar ( talk) 19:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Please don't take this as heavy criticism, but simply as an observation: I feel it's rather unfair to give awards to other editors congratulating them on their ability to speak English fluently when they can't. If you are being sarcastic, they won't understand this, and if you're just doing it to be nice, it doesn't encourage them to improve. I'm a strong supported of our awards system, but it is important that these awards are made for reasons of genuine merit. Thanks. RomanSpa ( talk) 12:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if you saw my comment, but I've been completely uninvolved in all previous discussions of Polandball. I contacted Supernerd after finding his name somewhere and never followed up with him, and some IP address contacted me. It would be fair to say tha I'm so uninvolved that the threat of meatpuppetry accusations don't daunt me.
That being said, I saw your comments and the impression I get is that it's simply been disallowed. I was shocked by the extremism displayed by both users and even admins on the issue - it was almost a flame war against an absent adversary. But I want to ask you since you seem familiar with the topic: is there any avenue that wouldn't be a waste of time? It seems that reviving it on the deletion review log would get crushed and, so soon after that last discussion, would seem a bit pompous. Is there a forum where it can be discussed without the threat of anonymous IPs jumping in and this further inflaming those obsessed with blocking this article at all costs? Or should it just remain dead and buried?
MezzoMezzo (
talk)
04:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Thanks for your help with the VHA article. Pine ✉ 08:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC) |
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
Dear Revent, thanks for your extensive work on Template:Paid article! The template, with the new 'client' parameter is now ready for use! Keep up the good work! You are making a difference at Wikipedia! With regards, Anupam Talk 07:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | ||
You spent some considerable time giving me huge and specific help on the live chat on Saturday. My article about Alison Appleton has since been accepted. I really appreciate it. Thanks Revent!
PS: Hope this works..... Linspark ( talk) 15:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC) |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
Just a little gift to thank you for being a great help in #wikipedia-en-help. I've observed some great conversations and assistance to contributors in need. Have a great day :) — JamesR ( talk) 07:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For all your help with marking categories, day and night, with templates and stuff, I hereby award you with this barnstar. (This is the barnstar all wikignome want, I heard!) ( t) Josve05a ( c) 01:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for the assistance!
Sanfordstreet ( talk) 12:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
Hello Revent, I just wondering about the reason why my article was rejected. I included three external references ( http://www.construction-machineryworld.com/faresin-industries-heavy-investment-research-and-a-clear-path-ahead/ - http://cabeteconstruction.ca/projects/sopa-square/ - http://www.sydneyfc.com/corporate/hye/1m36ed4770hjn13dc3r20wn9cs and I'm going to add another one http://issuu.com/ancr/docs/darlingquarter (pag 56) , that is a link to an article to Faresin projects. Maybe, in the first draft of my page there was an error in the link about Sydney FC. Now, it would be ok.
Thank you
Step
Step28 ( talk) 21:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Step28:Hi, happy to explain. The first link - [3] - Industry journal, independent source, about the article topic and gives signifigant coverage... all good. The second link - [4] Website of Cabete, about a project Cabete (and according to the draft, Faresin) worked on, doesn't actually mention Faresin at all, and would not indicate 'notability' if it did (it would merely demonstrate a single fact, that Faresin worked on that project The third link - [5] - Is not from an independent source, it is an acknowledgment from Sydney FC that Faresin gave them money, and does not indicate notability The new one - [6] - About Calconco, merely mentions they bought a product from Faresin... not about Faresin, not signifigant coverage, and is only a source for that particular fact
To show notability, you need to show that Faresin, itself, has been considered worthy of significant coverage by multiple independent sources... you can see the specific requirements at WP:CORP. Things such as magazine, newspaper, trade journal articles about the company, or books that discuss it in depth, meet this criteria... things like short news blurbs like you find in the business section of a newspaper covering specific events that give no background, or republished press releases don't. A source can be independent and reliable, but still not provide significant coverage, either because it is very brief (merely taking note of an event) or because it is merely a mention in something else. You have not shown notability.
In addition, the majority of the article should be cited to reliable independent sources, and anything that indicates the quality or importance of the company must be cited to such sources. Most the statements in your draft are completely unsourced, and thus are not verifiable by readers. This is also something that needs to be addressed.
Hope that helps. If not, or if you have further questions, feel free to ask. Revent talk 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thank you for the input on my user page - I'm a bit lost here (there's a pretty steep learning curve), so help from those more experienced than me is always welcome!
Gisou94 (
talk)
15:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
u r kewl. See also this, which is amongst the future of automated citation formatting in VE and part of the direction toward normalizing citations, eventually into wikidata. (dtm from IRC)
— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
T'was me. You are up to speed on what is allowed. Please see the article talk. I am rather nervous about this and feel quite guilty, but think I've done it right. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi FYI. 95.153.112.50 ( talk) 12:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Dsouzaronald (
talk)
17:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Dsouzaronald ( talk) 17:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Ronald This is my first submission. please tell me what's missing or point me to a guideline I need to follow
Hi I recently submitted an article for review, about a production group "The Order". It was declined. The original submission about "The Order" was made in error by a friend. That one should be disposed of and not considered. This recent submission is accurate in small detail subject matter and sources. What would be the proper steps to ensure that this gets fixed so that this submission is published. Thanks in advance.
Dcgreene88 ( talk) 00:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Revent,
Thank you for taking the time to review my first try at putting up a page. Also, thank you for the comments on the MightyCall draft.
My name is Edmund Tee and I am the VP of Comms at MightyCall.
I apologized for if I caused offense - my intention is not to promote the company, but to provide information on our company just like what our competitors have done on Wikipedia. What I did was studied what Grasshopper and RingCentral did, and emulated the tone and style they had. I figured if they were allowed to talk about their companies, we would to. I guess I missed something!
What can I do better?
1. Remove all reference to a rebranding? If so, done! 2. Remove product information? Here I referenced Grasshopper's product information, and followed suit. I can certainly remove our product information, but could you help me understand what Grasshopper did right, and what I did wrong? 3. Wait till we get more third party coverage to cite? If so, we'll try again in six months when we have grown up some more.
Thank you again for your time.
Edmund Tee Edmundtee ( talk) 05:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Your template work will help make all those Mexico TV lists so much better. Thanks for the advice and the templates! Raymie ( t • c) 08:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
Could you please help me with this one if you get a chance? [7] [8] Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
IMHO the copyvio re Nerilie Abram and http://www.antarctica.gov.au/science/climate-processes-and-change/antarctic-palaeoclimate/aurora-basin/people-in-the-field/nerilie-abram-driller-and-ice-core-chemist is still present. I haven't attempted to mark the article because of the deleted revisions. Mark Hurd ( talk) 14:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, you have helped me in the past to copyedit Bose SoundLink Bluetooth Mobile Speaker II. Could you please help me again? I have written an article at /info/en/?search=User:Dmatteng/sandbox. Since I'm a native Russian speaker I always make grammar and structural errors in English, though I'm constantly trying to improve. I have also tried my best to be NPOV, but if you see anything that should be changed in this regard, your advise would be much appreciated. (And you have also my full permission to change anything in my sandbox.) Dmatteng ( talk) 15:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
freenode seems to be down and I'm going the same way but please look at that userpsgae you had me draft, user readded some stuff ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The sock drawer is more than IPs:
Those are just the ones since August. This is a long term SPI obsessed fan. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. The page under User:Kushalchavan/sandbox was not meant to be a AfC and the page Luciano Vietto currently exists in mainspace. Any edits done in the sandbox was meant to improve the article under the editor's course work. Please remove all AfC tags and return the page to the sandbox to avoid a duplicate of an existing page. Thank you. LRD NO ( talk) 00:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The L235 quarterly everything barnstar | |
Hi revent. Please accept the quarterly L235 "Everything Barnstar" for being helpful on IRC, doing tons of maintenance work, like clearing out Category:Pending AfC submissions in userspace, and for being, in general, a great person. Thank you, and congrats. Cheers, Thanks, L235- Talk Ping when replying 04:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC) |
Hello Revent, thanks for your feedback on my article. As a newbie who's still learning to "walk, talk & breathe" around here, you helped clarify a lot for me. I am now currently working on the improvements you suggested. (PS: Sure hope I posted this in the right place! Haha)
WrittenInHeart ( talk) 21:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Revent, thanks for the feedback - I've updated my User Page now. Digitalandrew ( talk) 16:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on Evolution’s second law of thermodynamics fallacy. It is very helpful to have made clear the reasons for refusal. You are correct; the subject is covered in Entropy and life. The “open system” argument is given there to explain “Schrodinger’s paradox”. Lehninger’s argument “that the ‘order’ produced within cells… is more than compensated for by the ‘disorder’ they create…” (excess entropy) is also given to reconcile the second law and evolution. What is lacking is this new understanding, that the above arguments, while correct, are not sufficient to explain what they purport to do. This leads to an important misconception. That evolution is able to overcome the second law is worthy of full understanding. It is noteworthy that the author of the main reference and one of the references used for this submission are cited in Entropy and life. That there is only a single main reference can be attributed to the newness of the insight (February, 2014) and the information has not had time to be disseminated. Is not asking for more than a single peer reviewed journal reference a very high standard? LEBOLTZMANN2
The da Vinci Barnstar | ||
For the wonderful help you provide with all that code that I don't understand and never will. Thank you so much! Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 15:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
Just seen this - thank you :)
Think I may have just sent you another message on the same topic because I missed this response but I will try out your suggestions now.
Thanks again
LexieHoskins ( talk) 12:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The page got rejected because it already exists. I edited the existing page but the edits were rejected. Theroadislong suggested that I should draft the revised article before submitting and then ask him/her or another editor to proofread it. I thought using userspace drafts would be a way to do this but now the page has been rejected because it already exists.
Please could you look at the content I provided and tell me if it will be approved if I edit the existing 'Cambridge International Examinations' page?
Thank you
LexieHoskins ( talk) 07:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
You are true helper. Thanks for helping me at IRC. CutestPenguin ( Talk) 13:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
I am not "requesting a re-review"; I am asking for further guidance from the reviewer who declined my submission of "Sword-grip and Scabbard-grip" on 25th August 2014.
I thought that my article, which defines a pair of terms, which are applicable in many martial arts, and explains their derivation, was of a similar format to the articles on martial terms like "Horse stance", "Pinch grip tie" and "Knifehand strike" which already exist on Wikipedia. What need I do to get my article accepted ?
Dave H Franks (
talk)
01:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and advice on the 2000 Yountville earthquake article that I created.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chevalier d'Eon. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)