This is an archive of past discussions with User:Someguy1221. 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.
If you don't know what you did, then it's because you access the internet through an IP address that is either dynamic (it changes user from time to time) or it is shared amongst multiple users including yourself. I say this because not only were the offending actions definitely performed from your IP (there are records of it), the offender and myself even had a conversation about it in April of 2009. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
New page patrol – Survey Invitation
Hello Someguy1221! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2680 submissions waiting to be reviewed.
Hi,
an user asked at WT:AFC why he wasn't informed on his talkpage about your review on his submission. Maybe use our AFC helper script (located at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js) and it will greatly help you in reviewing submissions, e.g: it informs the submitter, it creates talk pages (when submitting), update /recent (when submitting), etc. Simply include it in your skin.js and hit review at the top (similar to twinkle).
Regards, mabdul17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I am looking for references from other parties now. In the meantime, I understand that if the article is not edited, the review will be declined. However, after that will the article be removed? If so I need to back it up somewhere. Kaoru Hosokawa (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Someguy1221, just wondering if you could be more specific about what changes need to be made. Is there "puffery" here? Where do you get a sense of partiality? Thanks for your keen eye. DeQuendre — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeQuendre (talk • contribs) 00:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The article appears to be written from Blake's own point of view, and indeed you accredit him in many of the statements in the article, in addition to one entire section. The neutral point of view would be the point of view taken by independent sources, rather than his own biographer. The source of the problem may be that only two of the sources provided are independent of Blake (the rest are written by himself, or employees of organizations he has been involved in). You may want to collect a few more independent sources, see how they speak about Blake, and follow that same tone. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I can't say without seeing the sources myself. But there is no limit to how many times or how often you can submit the article, so feel free to add whatever sources you can find, and submit for another review. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This is my first attempt, and obviously I got it wrong, but I can;t see where - can you give me a pointer or two regarding your comment that it cannot be verified please? I have given references to other sources which confirm the name, location, school logs, change of name and other factors of the school, and it was my own primary school 1962-1965 so what I have written is from my own personal knowledge?
It would be a shame for the info to be lost, as the school has been moved to a new location but many thousands of people originated there.
I have read multiple articles about other people and I believe I've listed as many if not more "3rd party" references than most of the other articles. I just don't understand why everyone keeps rejecting my article about Ted Parkhurst. He is a prominent publisher in the USA, is a well-known artist with many paintings displayed throughout the country and is a major organizer when it comes to the well-known National Storytelling Network. He was the ONLY person honored as the distinguished alumni at U of AR in 1999. He is as notable as about 40% of the individuals who have articles written about them here. Sandilouwiki (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm a tool admin for the UTRS tool and can see that you've requested an account but you haven't made a confirmation edit on this page to prove that it is you who is requesting the account, please could you do so to allow me to approve your account? If you could leave a talkback on my user talk page when you've done this, I'd appreciate it.
Thank you, your account has been approved. Please create some test requests and act as if you are an admin handling the requests but please also look at it from the perspective of the blocked user. TheHelpfulOne23:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Because Joe the third has received independent news coverage. If Paul does as well, it has not been demonstrated. Simply standing for election does not make a man notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The only source that was added since the review was a single citation to his own foundation. Anyone is free to resubmit the article for review if you want a second opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
So because something is only being researched at the moment and hasn't been studied very far, its obviously made up? I'm sorry but having researched this along side some of the leading anatomists, I believe this page should be created, unless I should wait until more papers are published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.123.30 (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I read the sources you provided, and they don't mention anything about "traan", or any "bony processes" for that matter. In addition, there is nothing of the sort named "traan" described anywhere on the internet. If a thing is unverifiable, it cannot appear on Wikipedia. We do not put our trust in random people on the internet, and we do not ask our readers to trust them either. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Once again, I am confused as to why you are rejecting my submission. Explain what is wrong with my sources please. (Or just delete the ones you think dont work?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogbuehi (talk • contribs) 03:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
None of the sources work. Any company can start a website or file a trademark. These don't make them notable. You need sources that are published and written independently of the company itself, that actually discuss the company. The only independent source you used never mentions the company. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Protection request.
Hello. Sorry to disturb you, but can you protect the articles Yu-Gi-Oh!: Bonds Beyond Time and Yu-Gi-Oh! The Movie: Pyramid of Light? An Irish vandal using addresses on the 86.43.*.* range keeps removing all Japanese references and credits from these pages. It seems that he doesn't want admit these two are Japanese films. He is doing his vandalism long-term. He is also adding hoax "Digimon Tigers" credits to several voice actor pages. BTW, they're listed in WP:RFPP right now, but I read that it is currently backlogged. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs08:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Would you know how to involve more people into discussion of elementary physics articles?
A number of articles on the elementary physical concepts (e.g. velocity, work...) are rather poorely written or organized. I made a few attempts at improvement, of different scope and with different outcomes. And what I find most frustrating is the lack of response at talk pages. Sometimes nothing at all. At best one or two people - and, naturally, we may not agree on the approach or execution. On one hand, these articles practically border with common knowledge, whereas on the other - they are the very basis for understanding of most other concepts, and therefore should be most carefully written. And because of this latter, they would require attention and collaboration of more that a couple of editors, as well as some protection after good editing. Is there some simple way to involve e.g. peoople from WikiProject Physics, if that is what they do?
I chose to ask you for advice (after your response to my center of gravity question) as you obviously are much more experienced on wiki than I am. For example:
In the Work (physics) article I made some edits to correct the most obvious mistakes. That went well (I even got some help regarding my English). Then I started a discussion about restructuring the article, which was going well for a while (and some progress was made). But the point came beyond which the other editor and I did not quite agree any more. So, I let him have his way (though not without some ill-concealed bitterness), whereas what I really wanted would have been several more opinions - but nobody else chose to participate.
Another example: I wrote anew the Net force article. I believe it is farly good, and much above the present start-class attribution. Then another editor, and an experienced one, messed it up a bit with some inapropriate diagrams. On my request (perhaps not a too polite one) at his talk page he gave a rather obscure explanation, and then I over-reacted at the article talk page. Though probably nobody will read that any time soon, I see that I am not handling this well.
My problem is that I spend considerable time and effort trying to produce a conceptually and methodologically good text before doing an edit. So I hate to see careless superficial interventions ("be bold") particularly by experienced editors. And I am not the type who would do reverts, re-edits and such stuff.
I was thinking about this, and...no. I have no advice. I have long noticed a problem with articles on general concepts like this. It's such a basic concept that everyone has something to add about it, but the experts who write the textbooks don't bother spending that much time discussing it. So you're left in this limbo state where more people feel they are qualified to write about the topic than is reasonable, but even those who are qualified have trouble getting sufficient sources to make a great article that's up to Wikipedia's standards. What I can do is help. If there's anything specific, I'd be glad to. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Let me first thank you for considering the issue. And then for an honest answer. Which, however, does not comfort much. How will Wikipedia EVER present general/basic concepts with reasonable reliability if no facilitating mechanism is developed to deal with the issues recognized, a mechanism that can be more or less routinely invoked? As for your offer on specifics, I shall take some time to decide if I can use it without dragging you into inappropriate disputes.--Ilevanat (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The only way to fix anything on Wikipedia is to find a critical mass of Wikipedians willing to help. There are entire categories of articles that have been terrible for years simply because no one is willing to work on them. And if there are ignorant editors resisting good changes, the few who want to help often burn out before there is critical mass. But things can get better. I've seen it. You just need enough people. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently the are 2680 submissions waiting to be reviewed.
Uncontroversial maintenance, such as deleting dated maintenance categories, deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages, or performing uncontroversial page moves. This also includes pages unambiguously created in error and/or in the incorrect namespace. If no special tag like {{db-move}} can be used and the reason for deletion is not self-evident, a reason for deletion should be supplied on the talk page or in the edit summary.
I've been trying to get my article accepted for publication on Wikipedia. You requested that I cite some third-party references which I've just done (ref #6 and #7).
I remain convinced that the overall topic (male birth control) as well as the specific topic of the article; the newest approach now available for men called "Pro-Vas occlusion" is highly significant and of interest to the public. Although the approach is fairly new, there are over 100 surgeons using the technique now and between 200 and 300 patients have been successfully treated with this new therapy. Last month nearly a thousand men searched online for doctors specifically to perform the procedure for them. You continue to question the "relevance" of the topic which I can't understand in light of some of the less relevant topics (in my view) that have made it onto Wikipedia.
This is a serious, real, legitimate, FDA approved, medical procedure that warrents a place in Wikipedia.
Ref: my article submission for Pro-Vas occlusion that you have been reviewing (and rejecting). I have carefully read and considered all your comments and I have decided to totally rewrite the article. I have also added two additional third party references specific to the Pro-Vas device that were previously not there. I have taken care to avoid any editorializing and have made every effort to be as objective and factual as I can be. I am hopeful that the article will meet with your approval this time.
Well, there are three reviewers who declined the article more recently than I did, so they would be the ones to ask. You can also ask at the articles for creation helpdesk, which is linked on the decline templates. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
YGM
Hello, Someguy1221. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.
For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
you said you have unprotected "Sudanese Armed Forces" but you did not do anything
the discussion was closed with "page unprotected" why didn't you do it then ? the article is still protected. ok from now on i will use my newly made account Hopelesscross (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent patch-up of two editors' botched attempts to restore by cut and paste BLP John Márquez back to where he had been 2006-three days ago. Despite the technical incompetence of what they did it seems they were acting in good faith and I'm guessing did it because they couldn't revert undiscussed move. Unfortunately the repair job has left the article at no-consensus move to John Marquez. I'm not sure per BLP requirement to act immediately in such matters has bearing on BLP names but we now have a clash with John E. Márquez | Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Márquez/133658556674003 has "John E. Márquez was a city council member of the city of Richmond, California, including a stint as vice mayor. He was originally ..."
FWIW I'm in favour of Spanish names on wp for Spanish BLPs and in general not for Spanish-Americans, however in this case he's a local politician representing the Latino community and first Latino on the Richmond council so his use of Márquez on banners and so on is evidently deliberate. This is just one user's opinion and I wasn't party to the discussion/changes. :) In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the talk page. That's fixed now. Anyway, I really don't care whether the title has a diacritic. I was only interested in making sure page histories were preserved properly. Once you get consensus, maybe via an RFC, and then request the proper move at WP:RM. For now, just consider it deliberately stuck at the wrong version. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
joe halenbeck
im still not getting the reasons why the page was not aloud
something to do with...notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.
so famous is one of those key words i think a man who is ranked in the top 100 out of 15millions not to bad every year we hear and see the top 100 rich list and so on so if they make they cut one not joe
worhty of notice well seen as around 55millions people have played online and no his name and have played with him the no who he is and they have asked for us to make the page as they seem to notice him his twitter is sent msgs all day long asking for games by thousands they want to read it they asked for the page as they always wantd to no who he is where he came from sure we havent put up all the details we just wanted to make a starter page and add to it from there. the game he played was played by millions and made billions in sales his tactics where copied by hundreds of thousands of people around the world his ability to spot flaws in the game and prove them online has gave him huge followings but you say not worthy or notice just because you dont no him lol but if we made a page for garry glitter a man who was put on the Sex Offenders Register is worthy lol but a decent human being like joe is not lol i see makes sense that does a pedo gets a page but not someone in the online comunity
you also said "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" well his tactics have never been told or said even by him to this date how the hell do u think he got into the top 100 out of millions not by sending them kisses i can tell u he has workd as a games tester and we have yet to write this fully out in the page or working as a joiner building houses and a few other parts of his life including how he saved his girlfreind from a fire in the flats he once lived in but these are all things that no on even knows about yet we were hopeing to use the gamer side of things to catch the gamers attention and draw them to look at it
and yes to you youtube videos are of no interst but that doesnt mean its not to others not every one has the same intersts as you or me hell i dont even play computer games but youtube has hundreds of millions of fans and followers do they not deserv to read about some one they no
and the reson we stated this page for him was that due to an accident he is no longer able to fully play games dues to his injury and people are asking why where is he where has he gone we had hoped to write fully about this in detial so people would no
to millions of people he is known maybe not to you but in the online comunity he is when people go online to find out details about a person or game or film and so on they try google the askyahoo and of course wikipedia but instead of coming here to read about him they will go to someother site because you dont no him hes not henry bell or j r r tolkien... and millions of kids never heard of tolkien until they seen a film one day well millions of people never heard of joe until they went online to xbox youtube twitter where ever but now they have but you wont allow us to pst the page for him
an no i wont point out all the pointless wiki pages or false or incorrect statements we spotted as its not my job lol i only asked that joes page would be aloud as it was full facts proven facts nothing ilegal nothing wrong no advertising and in the online world he is of interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamjoehalenbeck (talk • contribs) 02:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful closing statement in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images. You and the other two administrators have made more difference to a contentious article than most editors might imagine, and for this you all deserve to be recognised. The Dispute Resolution Barnstar, which "may be awarded to an editor who makes a contribution to one of the dispute resolution forums that exceptionally furthers the aims of the project", is I think the most appropriate.
for you fast action involving Matty Magers. Or whatever. Somehow I feel that there is more to this story, that i just stumbled into something. Is that the case? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The Matty Magers referenced by the user has only existed on the internet for ~3 hours as of this moment. My guess is that this is simply Matty himself ineffectively trying to drive traffic to his youtube channel. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
You deleted my article that i did on somebody? I did an article on a girl i belive has great potentual, considering shes going to be on "60 Minutes" I would very much appreciate if you wouldnt delete the page ive created so i can show her, i put in ALOT of hard work, to try get her attention on facebook, and yous remove it before i can even show it?! have some heart, i put info down and can put plenty more! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youtubeer Aus (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why you think I had anything to do with your article's being deleted. That was Edgar181 (talk·contribs). If you're here to get attention for Jess, then you should go somewhere else. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. Advertisers are not welcome. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thank you for your quick close at this ANEW report. I'm afraid that a number of editors were not exactly handling that cleanly. Your quick actions kept several editors from getting themselves in hot water as well. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your decision at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
Repost from that page.
Both at fault??? Did you look at the talk page? I explained there that the first bullet point, which has 3 sources, violates WP:OR. The first two sources don't even mention progressive taxation, the topic of the article. The third source doesn't list a page number. The next 2 bullet points don't even mention progressive taxation, another violation of WP:OR which User:173.74.164.212 has stuck back into the article. He also reverted material that had been incorporated into the article from the section tagged with a "pro and con list" tag. Don't take my word for it, investigate it. I am very disappointed in how you guys have handled this. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC) --- I have added another comment to the article talk page. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I read the talk page and the the diffs and even looked at the sources for the contested content (not including the books). And what I saw was a legitimate content dispute between two editors (one of them quite rude). While I certainly understand the argument that this is original research, it does not rise to the level of the IP acting in bad faith. While I think his contributions would not prevail in an RfC, they're not bad enough to warrant blocking him and only him. Even if we assume you were reverting addition of original research, keep in mind that doing so is not a recognized exception to the policy against edit warring (that is restricted to BLP violations, copyright violations, and actual vandalism). The job of an administrator with regard to blocking users is to enforce conduct policies, not to be the arbiter of truth in a content dispute. Now believe me, I know how frustrating it is when you're so god damn sure you're right, and you just need that other guy blocked. But believe me, you'll be a lot less stressed out if you just get some third opinions on this so you're not alone. And to be fair, you really don't want 1000+ admins with different interpretations of WP:NOR (let alone every other policy) running around blocking everyone they feel like. One of them might actually agree with the IP. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Take it up at the WP:NOR/N. Make sure to point to out which sources are in dispute, and how they are being misinterpreted. Put a notice on the article's talk page that you have opened the discussion. Then wait. Response time there varies between a few hours and a week. You could also open a request for common, but response on that can be a month. But don't worry about the time. There is no deadline. Work on something else while you're waiting for responses. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Re: OTRS noticeboard
Essentially Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive231#ban discussion from ANI. If you look through the history of the OTRS notice board you're notice a lot of statements very much like the one I reverted. They just don't get it and hence the ban. Most of the people that watch that noticeboard are aware of it although I accept I probably should have left a better edit summary as someone not familiar may still have spotted it (which appears to have happened). Dpmuk (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Someguy1221. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
thank you!
Thank you mate. As new user the user interface is slightly confusing to me. Thanks for helping me to find the right person though!
Arun Shankar (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
You edited the Abigar page and in the edit summary you said "removed stray space" but removed what what i had added to the article, not sure if this was intentional or not. Manofgun (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Someguy1221. You have new messages at WP:RX. Message added 19:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Oh, that was about an account creation IP block I found out I had when I accidentally clicked the "create account" instead of "Log In" button. I'm guessing either NawlinWiki thought my filter trigger for female reproductive organs was deliberate or I managed to get the past IP of somebody who DID do a thing like that (that's possible with a dynamic IP). Not that it matters to me anyway, since I try to avoid editing from my IP, but just thought that was important for Nawlin to know. --Lorem Ipsum Generator (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Someguy1221. I wanted to offer my congratulations as I just saw that your now an Oversighter. Well done. And since I'm here. I wanted to thank you for your help at WP:AFC many long years ago, which I don't expect you'll remember but I certainly do. Your help was much appreciated. Best regards. 64.40.57.81 (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Someguy1221. You have new messages at WP:RX. Message added 16:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It was because the wiki markup box was ticked in the preferences. I had removed the custom sig pending a rename but not unchecked the box. ThanksEdinburgh Wanderer (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI
No action needed on your part; I just thought you might like to know about the latest development in the Nenpog Soap Opera...
Nawlin Wiki deleted a page of mine and I'd to inquire why... maybe you could help. This is the note I sent.
I'd like to inquire why Dr. Marisa Weiss' page was 'speedily deleted' this past Monday... she is the founder of Breastcancer.org, which is the leading online resource (site reaches 28 million people globally) for breast cancer and breast health.
Your reason for deletion was 'personal promotion' and G.11... however if Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion of any person, then why does (for example) Nancy Brinker have a wikipedia page? She is the founder of the Susan G. Komen foundation, which is no different than the content/page we attempted to upload....
If we are missing any information or you feel the page needs to be fundamentally rewritten, please specify what, and describe what additional content we need. I cannot accept that the page was taken down simply for 'unambigious' promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMeibach (talk • contribs) 19:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Language such as "world's most utilized online resource for expert medical and personal information", "visionary advocate for her innovative and steadfast approach", "author of four critically acclaimed books", "a key focus" and "renowned leader" killed that article. Also: who is this "we" on whose behalf you seem to speak? --Orange Mike | Talk19:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks very much for your email. I do take your point about the mirrors, but at least we have done what we can do be helpful on this site. Many thanks for your help with this. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Cayne
I've not put anything that is not completely true on the Cayne page. For him to hire 5 of the U.S.'s greatest players and then to finish in ninth place is, just as I said, disappointing. Wikipedia and other unknowing media have perpetuated the impression of Cayne as a "world class" bridge player - he simply isn't. Each and every one of those victories portrayed on his bio resulted from him hiring world class players - not from his ability - and the fact that this goes unmentioned misleads the reading public. See William Cohan, "House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street," p. 69 where Cohan discusses Cayne’s hiring of bridge professionals. [2]
I noticed you deleted this page again - Per Orange Mike's feedback for why it got deleted the first time (G.11), I edited the article accordingly and took out the promotional language. Could you please identify which phrases are still promotional - I will fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMeibach (talk • contribs) 15:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
"...and guiding force behind Breastcancer.org, a leading resource for expert medical and personal information..."
"...has developed an innovative and steadfast approach..."
"...overcome the challenges of breast cancer..."
"...a leader in the field of breast cancer, Dr. Weiss is frequently called on by both print and broadcast media..."
It sounds like you're writing an piece of inspirational writing, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. We don't try to evoke emotional responses in our readers, and we don't color biographies with unnecessary flattery. The advice I always give people is to literally forget everything you know about the subject before you start writing. Then collect reliable sources written about the subject, and not by the subject or her colleagues. Build the article from those sources, writing in the same tone that they use. If this continues to be a difficulty, it might be best to simply let someone else write the biography, which is inevitable if Dr. Weiss is truly notable. Another option is to, instead of posting new attempts at the biography, submit a draft to WP:AFC, where it can be worked on without being deleted. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the AIV report on that IP? I'm actually at work and am unable to get anything done because I've been constantly checking for more disruption. RyanVeseyReview me!18:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been keeping my eye on him, actually, seeing what he'll do next. I'm hoping he's just a terribly confused newbie, but he's not entitled to any more warnings, either. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I considered hopelessly confused regarding his edits to the Aurora shooting incident, but then I realized he was using the talk page on other articles. It makes me more angry than anything because his vandalism is subtle (reverting to an old version of the page). That way, editors who don't look closely don't notice it. RyanVeseyReview me!18:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion of Pinsex
You noted that the article did not contain an explanation of why the subject matter should be included on Pinsex.
Well, don't add something like, "Pinsex should have an article because..." It's simply that the article you wrote demonstrates nothing more than that the site exists. See WP:WEB for ways to show that it should have an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
A. Is this the right place/way to respond you after you left a note on my page?
B. Why exactly would it be ME who would be banned by this 3 Revert Rule when other people are the ones vandalising the page making incorrect errors? shouldnt THEY be the ones being reported and banned?
C. What is your exact affiliation with Wikipedia and how do I report vandalism in the future???
- Danratedrko
A: Yes.
B: Because everyone else only touched the article once or twice. You have touched it many times. See WP:EW. While you are permitted to revert vandalism as many times as you want, the edits you are reverting are not vandalism. The other editors are not going by what IMDB says, but by which comic book character Jen is meant to represent, as speculated in this article. Regardless of how you feel about this speculation, adding it is not vandalism, and thus you have no permission to revert it endlessly. Pursue dispute resolution if this is important to you.
C: I am a administrator and functionary on the English Wikipedia, which means I can block people, amongst other things. WP:AIV, the page you made the report at, is the appropriate place to report vandalism, but as I said, what you reverted was not vandalism.
Okay, well thanks for the info. I'm more than aware of who the character is supposed to be and even thought myself she would be named after the comic book version but it seems foolish going against what the official IMDB cast info lists her as not to mention every other official document will list the character by that name too. If theres a way to protect the page from changes like this or automatically revert them back I would appreciate any info you could give. EDIT: - Danratedrko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danratedrko (talk • contribs) 19:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The best advice, for pretty much every problem on Wikipedia, is "don't try to do things alone". Try to talk to the editors who have added the info, tell them why you think they are wrong. You can ask for help at the help desk, or on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed on the talk page. Now, there is a silver lining to this. If someone is blindly reverting you, and ignoring your efforts to discuss the matter, and you are not alone, that person will almost certainly be blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
EDIT - No worries, I just saw on the history page that the protection levels bee changed due to too many edits. - danratedrko
Civility issue from user Danratedrko
Since you have interacted with this particular user already, I will bring it up here. I just issued a level three civility warning for User:DanratedrkoUser talk:Danratedrko in reference to an edit summary he made on article Juno Temple referring to other editors as morons. He has been warned on this issue previously. I don't think any formal action is needed against him at this time, but if he continues, he may need a look from an administrator. Thanks for your attention. Safiel (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for block
That guy should become a constructive editor, after another year's reflection.
The first and third sources are definitely unreliable. The second one contains a citation to the source that should actually be used in its place. I'll look that one up when I'm at work tomorrow, since proxying to the library service from home is a pain in the butt. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've come to the conclusion that coffeefaq is actually a reliable source, as despite being self-published, it seems to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and does not make any controversial claims. The other two sources there are crap, though, and the "comments" section is of course good for nothing. I modified the article accordingly. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Cobiotic article at AfC
Hi. I received the question below from you:
Comment: The cited references do once use the term "cobiotic". Is this a phrase you invented yourself? There are almost no scholarly papers that use the word.
Yes. I invented the term. I am a scientist interested in the GI microbiome. Prebiotics are well defined and I reference them. However, a term is needed for a food ingredient that alters the microbiome by working together with a prebiotic. I originally chose synbiotic since the nutritional ingredients work together but that was already invented to mean a probiotic with a prebiotic. Thus, the term cobiotic was invented. I have used the term in a patent application but it is not published yet. I do use it in lectures. It has been used on a web site: www.numehealth.com. I expect the term to be picked up by others and so am trying to speed that process by publishing it in the Wiki. Is there no way to introduce a new word in the Wiki?
No, there is no way. Wikipedia only publishes what has already been described in detail by independent secondary sources, and is not a vehicle for publishing original content, including new words. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Too lazy to post a "talkback" template, too energized to say nothing
I would not have removed the first ANI on ANI (which Robby did). After your response, I would have closed it, but I dithered on whether to restore it. However, the next one was just harassment. Does anything more need to be done in your view? I felt like posting a warning on DePiep's Talk page but didn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
DePiep overreacts like this every now and then. I'm hoping it stops at Floquen's recent post to his talk page. Judging by past behavior, he'll give up and go back to productive editing, so I think everyone should just leave him alone. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Based on the content of his third ANI thread, I think you were right to revert it. I think Robby was wrong to revert the opening of the second, however. Although Piep needs to be told that he's the only one interested in pursuing the original problem, he should have at least been permitted to keep his dignity. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Floquen is trying - very nicely I might add but with little success - to educate Robby. Quite some time ago I recommended to Robby that he spend less time at ANI. He didn't heed my advice, and it doesn't sound like he will heed Floquen's either. Thanks for your insight.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! I was wondering if you could take a look at this article. I've been tagging it for a while, because the author refuses to wikify it and rejects help in doing so. It is not in any format I've recognized before.
I don't want to be accused of "piling on" and "harrassing" the author. Maybe a word from an admin might move him/her in the right direction? The subject is clearly notable, but the formatting of the article is atrocious and that's apparently the way they want it to look.
Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2680submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.
We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial.
On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, TheSpecialUserTSU
My RfA
I think I already thanked you, but I just wanted to make sure.
Ahem...
Thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate your sentiments and I hope I'll continue to see your name pop up around Wikipedia.
If you had done a little investigation (with a link I even showed you to Alexa,) you too would have realized that Mr. Hocevar does in fact own some shock-sites. If you cover this message up as well, then I'll know that Wikipedia is involved in a massive, conspiratorial cover-up to protect Mr. Hocevar. Sorry. --70.179.167.78 (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
We don't care for your original research, and we definitely don't care for the kind of personal information you included. Do it again and you're blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Obvious vandals can be reported to WP:AIV. Not-so-obvious vandals can be reported to WP:ANI, but in the latter case you need to inform the reported party that you filed a complaint. If this is a case of your merely disagreeing with someone, you need to seek dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Just a heads-up FYI. I read the note you left for this user regarding your intention to permablock him for creating spammy articles -- as I was leaving the usual note after having tagged an article he created for spam. That ball is now in your court, but I thought you would want to know. Cheers. UbelowmeUMe13:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Because the permissions attached to the image were insufficient. Permission was given to one person to republish with certain conditions, but the image was otherwise all-rights-reserved, which precluded its use on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment on Innocence of Muslims
While I understand, and share, some of your irritation, we try to keep our interpersonal feelings off the Ref Desk, or at least restrict them to the talk page. Would you consider removing the last sentence of your remark? Thanks Bielle (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for being the better person and editing yourself here, [3], but if the truth be told, you were spot on in your assessment. They've been stirring up unnecessary levels of trouble and attacking question askers for some time. I had to remind them a few days ago to tone it down after they attacked two good-faith question askers for no discernable reason. --Jayron3203:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear Someguy,
writing to you regarding declined submission on Branimir Farkas :
I am a senior Dutch journalist. I don't wish to disclose my name, but I would be modest to say I am within 50 best known in Nederland.
I met Branimir Farkas, a Croatian TV reporter in Den Haag since he was covering the ICTY proceedings here.
I was impressed with his work. He also did some longer reports on different subject from Dutch society, economics, education,EU issues and such and send me a copy afterwards and I was impresed even more.
I googled him and found him present on the net. I decided to write a wikipedia submission on him, my first submission ever, particulary because I wanted to support worthy individuals from lesser known and smaller countries.
I was dissapointed to find a declined submission. I am aware of a number of less "encyclopedical" submissions on people from bigger western countries that stand unshaken on wikipedia, and that raised my eyebrow.
I use wikipedia quite frequently, and I trully believed in its concept.
But this was a disappointing expirience. I hate double standards in life and work and would not like to consider this as such. It would change the way I view wikipedia altogether.
My submission was, I considered, well cited and fair.
Please write exactly would should be changed in it and why, to correct me if I am wrong, and reconsider this submission, because I believe it IS in the original spirit of wikipedia as I see it.
You can send me private email if you wish to <redacted>
Best regards,
"A journalist" 81.21.141.161 (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
particulary, you didn't give any concrete guidance what to change in order to meet the standards...
In case you have any doubts: I am NOT Farkas. I am just a collegue old enough. When you reach a certain age you learn to appreciate tallents of other people. You seem too young and bitter for that.
This is obviously not my first priority assignement, this is why I only turned to it after long time only to be disappointed. I doubt I will continue this exchange, but I might really change my views on wikipedia and share it with my collegues.
Best regards,
A journalist
No speaking Croatian, it's hard for me to read these as well. The most concrete guidance I can provide you is to read the guidelines linked in the two decline templates placed on the submission. There is also a link to the help desk on those templates at which you can ask for the opinions of more reviewers. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2680 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout02:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
wikiepedia's Somalia map (request to add Armo town)
wikiepedia's Somalia map (request to add Armo town)
Firstly I want to thank you for your valueble work in general and specially on Somalia, I am hereby requesting you to include your Somalia maps an important town named Carmo (Armo in english), which is 100KM south of Bosaso city of Puntland, Somalia,on the road between Bosaso and Gardo, the town was nearly founded in 1995, but has been rapidly gorwing and became an official distirct capital in 2003. by now it is well-designed large town,also it is home to UNDP sponsored Armo Somali Police Accademy, which is the largest in Somalia. the town had been on your maps of Somalia since 2009 and 2010, but after that you did not include it on your maps, could please include it again. I can understand that your maps show as much as possible of the towns and the villages of Somalia, but I think that Armo/Carmo town deserves to be shown on yours maps according to its relatively large size and importance. Since it is district capital, please show it with larger spot and letters.
WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Youreallycan and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
User:Frost778 has evaded his/her ban by making edits on non-protected pages has has returned with 76.232.253.109 requesting that I undo changes on my talk page. He might start his edit war again (see my talk page). His/her edits are extremely tedious to undo because it's regarding a template that is on most of the articles found on the template. Wouldn't putting a semi-protection on the articles stops abusive users like this? Thank you.
These are some of the anons s/he used:
75.51.173.37
75.51.172.205
75.51.165.128
75.51.167.12
75.51.165.128
75.51.165.136
75.51.171.188
As soon as I told him/her he'd get banned again, s/he changed anon: 67.150.122.222.
I blocked the two new IPs for a week. Before he was just changing IP, but now he's changing service providers, perhaps using proxies. Only thing to do is spot them and block them. There are too many articles affected for semi-protection to make a difference. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Not to quibble with the block, but to be fair and honest I'm not sure they are a block evading sock or I would have asked for a block sooner in this saga. They do occasionally switch IPs, but I don't think that is their fault, more their ISP. Another editor who is a block evading sock (User:Marburg72)(IPs usually begin with 166.147.) is a WP:FRINGE pushing editor who likes to follow me around and be disruptive, and has hit this article several times and is why I believe Dougweller semi-ed the page. I have no reason to believe these two are the same person. A case for a block of 76.8.167.38 could be made on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:EDITWAR grounds, considering their behavior for months now over this issue. Just thought I'd let you know. Heiro08:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I like what he wrote. I agree with it. Strongly. ANd I'd LOVE to see that policy changed. It's just that discussion about the merits of doctoral dissertations in general should not take place in the thread on a particular dissertation on RSN. Could you please explain why you disagree? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Because there are clear standards for removing another editor's posts laid out at WP:TALK, and I don't feel the removal was in line with those standards. The comment was not entirely off-topic, and you could have chosen to hat it instead, or simply ask other editors to ignore it, or ask history to move the discussion to WT:RS to have the general discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
your indef of Jmills815
You indef'ed Jmills815 a few days ago. Could you please take a look at his talk wrt adding a talk page block? He's creating his desired version of a page. I suspect that he will use this version for repeated cut and paste edits by some other account. The edits he was blocked for were exactly this type of edit, with teh same broken formatting appearing each time. Meters (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
As you mentioned here about your interest in being an SPI clerk, and asked to be pinged if there was a backlog, I'm seeing if you can lend a hand. We have ~56 open cases right now and could use a hand for sure. In the meantime, i'll be poking some heads to see if we can get some new admin clerks (that are on the waitlist involved). Thank you for your patience with the clerking process. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
It is official; you are now a trainee clerk. Welcome aboard and
Hello, Someguy1221. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2680 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk.
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.
Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script!
Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
you blocked this newbie a month ago for vandalism. Perhaps I am missing something, but as far as I can see his single edit, while not approriate, was not an intentional vandalism. He has asked for unblock. Would you care to either review the block or point out to me what I am failing to see?--Anthony Bradbury"talk"22:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The visual equals at least a thousand words! Adds a welcome dimension, to an article that might be placed in several different contexts. Elfelix (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Lester Coleman Article
The Lester Coleman article and talk page is protected. I added the information about Coleman's arrest on the talk page, my user name is Dawholetruth2. I do believe this should go into the article as it is factual and absolutely relevant.
To include information about the arrest, we would need information from a reliable secondary source. That would likely be something like a news broadcast or article. The arrest record itself is a primary source, and can't be used on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The well known chauvinist romanian wiki-troll User:Iaaasi returned (with a new croatian fake identity) He is now active alias user: Irji2012
He is often active in Hungarian-related aricles, he enjoy edit-warring deleting good sources and sentences from important articles, and he like to break the rules of wiki even 3 revert rule.
Can you arrange about this notorious wiki-troll?
Thank you!
Peter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.49.97 (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Funny mistake I almost made
Okay, so I was editing the article on the song If I Ever Fall in Love by Shai, and it's a good thing I hit the Preview button before saving the edit. Had I hit save, the section I wrote would have been incorrectly placed above the level-3 headings of another and incorrectly stated that a barely notable Funny or Die parody that barely has 8,200 views and an article on which would not survive an AfD hit #18 on the UK charts! An important reminder, folks: CHECK YOUR HEADING LEVELS! I've made that mistake a few times on other Wikis, but none as ridiculous as this one. Why did I send this to you? My first name starts with "S", so naturally i typed "User:S" and you're one of the first active admins that popped up. G'day :) --FreeWales Now!what did I screw up?02:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Apology
Hey. Extremely sorry for the previous edit to your talk page. I was navigating my watch list on my iPad and accidentally hit rollback. Again, extremely sorry. -- Cheers,Riley19:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the very first newsletter for WikiProject Articles for creation! If you find any errors or have suggestions on what to improve/include in future newsletters, please leave a message here.
v4.1.16b2 is now available in the beta channel! Reviewers can use the beta version of the script by following the instructions here and should report bugs here! Release notes can be found here as well as in the source code.
If you are JavaScript savvy, please contact Nathan2055 (talk·contribs) if you wish to help with development.
Reviewing articles and more since 2005!
Delivered 00:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.
