A1candidate (talk | contribs) |
→Science: You are the real pseudoskeptic here, and one with a huge COI. As a professional acupuncturist, you should not be editing acupuncture and TCM subjects so boldly, if at all. |
||
Line 940: | Line 940: | ||
True science is open to the possibility of being wrong. Religions, including homeopathy, are not. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 00:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC) |
True science is open to the possibility of being wrong. Religions, including homeopathy, are not. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 00:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
:I am not an expert in homeopathy and I don't know much about the topic, but I tend towards the opinions of experts such as a nobel-prize winning scientist, rather than pseudoskeptics on Wikipedia. -[[User:A1candidate|A1candidate]] ([[User talk:A1candidate#top|talk]]) 00:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC) |
:I am not an expert in homeopathy and I don't know much about the topic, but I tend towards the opinions of experts such as a nobel-prize winning scientist, rather than pseudoskeptics on Wikipedia. -[[User:A1candidate|A1candidate]] ([[User talk:A1candidate#top|talk]]) 00:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
:: Your constant misuse of the term "pseudoskeptic" is very revealing. Those who push pseudoscience while claiming to be skeptics are the true pseudoskeptics, evidenced by the fact, among other red flags, that their skepticism is directed against mainstream science and not against junk science, pseudoscience, and quackery. Another red flag is when they defend other pseudoscience pushers, like the Nobel Prize winner, and the editor where you just left a barnstar. You are the real pseudoskeptic here, and one with a huge COI. As a professional acupuncturist, you should not be editing acupuncture and TCM subjects so boldly, if at all. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 01:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:46, 31 March 2014
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Welcome!
Hello, A1candidate, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as EXO (band), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Starting an article
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 21:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of EXO (band)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on EXO (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 21:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Formatting references
Hi! You should learn to format references (url, title, publisher [where it was published, e.g. Time or Korea.net], date [publication date], access date [the date you accessed the article and it was still there, at the URL address], language [if the article is not in English; e.g. write "language=Korean"], and maybe author [name of the person who wrote it]). Read Wikipedia:Citation templates, Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example edits for different methods, etc. Example:
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2011/11/07/google-plans-k-pop-channel-and-more/|title=Google Plans K-Pop Channel, and More?|publisher=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|date=2011-11-07|accessdate=2012-08-30}}</ref>
--Moscowconnection (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll take note of that next time. This is only my 2nd time editing wikipedia, so thanks for pointing it out. i'll tidy up the references when i have more time
- Don't go. I replied on Talk:K-pop. Your sections should look like "K-pop has great potential for becoming mainstream worldwide, blablabla, Time wrote: ...". "It's noticed and commented on the highest political level, and viewed as a mean to tighten the economical ties with South Korea, blablabla, Obama said: ...". "Some American pop musicians admire K-pop and want to make K-pop music themself, cause, as Lady Gaga said to Billboard, ...". I invented the examples myself but you get the idea. --Moscowconnection (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- And, actually, there aren't that many people on Wikipedia as you may think. The article K-pop is "watched" by 70 people only. There are surely just several people who edit it regularly. If you don't do it, if you don't make Wikipedia coverage of K-pop better, no one will. But you suggested some girls may exchange running after idols for writing about them on Wikipedia, it's not a good idea, stalking idols and discussing them on forums is surely much more entertaining. --Moscowconnection (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- And about italics for quotations. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, what you should use when is kinda standardized already. How quotations, and album titles, and book titles, and references should look like, it all has been decided by the Wikipedia community, so you should either comply with the Wikipedia manual of style or propose changing the manual of style on its talk page. :) And again, don't go. Many editors here probably don't take Wikipedia too seriously cause it's created by amateurs. But your edits made Wikipedia a little better, more people will actually read the K-pop article now. If you have time to rewrite it using some general sentences, do it, otherwise someone will simply delete your additions. (I can defend them against people who openly vandalize the article, but sooner or later an experienced editor may do the same cause it's easier to simply delete something you don't like than to rewrite it.) --Moscowconnection (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- well I'll still hang around once in a while to edit what I've already wrote, but I wont be adding any new information. I've condensed everything I want to write so it looks better now A1candidate (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi!
I admire your efforts to improve K-pop articles, though I would recommend to examine Wikipedia standards more thoroughly and try to think about writing a wiki article as if you were writing a dissertation. Language is important, and quotes should be reduced to a minimum, and to important ones that are better be displayed than paraphrased because of their nature. But to quote everything is not an encyclopedia standard. I have myself written a couple of K-pop articles on my native wiki, some of them got featured and I would love to collaborate with you on improving the K-pop article. I have tremendous sources available, as you can check at hu:K-pop. The only thing is that English wiki seems to be very picky on sources, while my wiki sees no problem with Allkpop links as long as they contain credible info (and not gossips), enwiki will not accept Allkpop as a reliable source (I had numerous discussions about this beforehand....). I really would like to make this article featured but then we need to replace Allkpop and Soompi with Korean sources, whenever possible. Do you perhaps speak Korean?
Please let me know if you'd be willing to coordinate with me in improving the K-pop article, because it deserves a properly written article, especially with the rising popularity of the genre. Thanks for considering, and I am open to any questions or suggestions. You might want to leave a message on my native wiki where I am based, as I watch it more often. --小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 14:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
TUSC token a2e4844398016c2f1dba2d30092873e4
TUSC account!
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Pelvic thrust in the elevator scene.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Pelvic thrust in the elevator scene.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Huang min woo dancing with psy.png
Thank you for uploading File:Huang min woo dancing with psy.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
K-pop idols household names
Let me quote the relevant paragraph from BBC: "This is why the biggest date in the Korean pop calendar - the Dream Concert, at which up to 20 bands perform - is held in Seoul's 66,800-seat World Cup Stadium. Teenage crushes come here for a once-a-year date in a national love story, where commitment is measured in coloured balloons, and devotion is knowing all the words. Most of the bands, like Super Junior and Wonder Girls, are household names; highly produced, sugary boy- and girl-bands with slick dance routines and catchy tunes." It is 100% that "household names" is part of a paragraph and section describing the Korean music scene, you would fail an English comprehension test if you claimed otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.180.169 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I never wrote that those bands are "household names" outside Korea, all I wrote was that the bands are "household names" and thats exactly what the BBC says. "Most of the bands, like Super Junior and Wonder Girls, are household names". Nothing more, nothing less.A1candidate (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Huang min woo dancing with psy.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Huang min woo dancing with psy.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Pelvic thrust in the elevator scene.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Pelvic thrust in the elevator scene.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It'd help if you didn't delete tags before the dispute was resolved, too. andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 17:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC) and 17:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Arab on korean show.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Arab on korean show.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thanks for all your work on Gangnam Style It's a crazy page to maintain! :)
AngusWOOF (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Arab on korean show.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Arab on korean show.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Tarantallegra by Junsu.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Tarantallegra by Junsu.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of BIGBANG Alive Galaxy Tour 2012
Hello A1candidate,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged BIGBANG Alive Galaxy Tour 2012 for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can , but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Alanl (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Gangnam Style.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gangnam Style.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
nice gangnam pics
Harishrawat11 (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:G-Dragon in the music video Fantastic Baby.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:G-Dragon in the music video ''Fantastic Baby''.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Tarantallegra by Junsu.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Tarantallegra by Junsu.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
ABC Quote in Gangnam Style article
I do agree with you about this quote, that it should be restored. I've put in on the article's talk page for discussion. Feel free to comment there, thanks. Castncoot (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Gangnam Style#ABC (good morning america) quote". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 23:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
DRN
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Gangnam_Style.23ABC_.28good_morning_america.29_quote I've filed a report here.Curb Chain (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
GNS view count source
Hey, I've just found a source that has a fantastic graph about Gangnam Style's YouTube video's view count. This is it -- if you can incorporate the info into the article's graph, that'll be great. Cheers --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- That graph looks nice. Keep the graph you have though since it won't have copyright issues, but if you need a second graph for total views, that's a good reference. AngusWOOF (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Ways to improve Blocking of YouTube videos in Germany
Hi, I'm Kudpung. A1candidate, thanks for creating Blocking of YouTube videos in Germany!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This article has been tagged for maintenance issues. Please see WP:CITE to see how you can clean up the footnotes section.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BIGBANG Alive Galaxy Tour 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Worldwide (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) 15:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Let's clear something up
Hey dude, I just want to keep the records straight -- I don't want you to think I'm assuming that you're editing in bad faith. You seem very enthusiastic (who isn't) about this bitchin' song, and that creates problems in terms of what's considered trivial or not. I just need you to tone down some of your words [1], remove quotes that belong to obscure people, like the one from "Response from the K-pop community" (you should seriously consider creating a Wikiquote counterpart for this article). Other than that, I really want you to keep doing what you're doing at the moment, because it's great! I hope I don't have to go over your work as much. Cheers ;) --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 20:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm thinking about giving the article a complete overhaul in my user space -- you're welcome to help out if you feel it it. Please give me a response. Cheers --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Notability and indiscriminate collection of information
Regarding cultural memes, Wikipedia generally covers the topic under the subject of the meme, for example Lolcat rather than "Lolcat phenomenon" or Ghost-riding rather than "Ghost-riding phenomenon". There is no reason to split off a separate article on the meme separate from the subject, IMO. Regarding the Twitter lists, these are excessive for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarize information, not present a comprehensive collection of all information. It is also debatable whether or not such lists constitute original research. Kaldari (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- That is completely true and valid. However, in my humble opinion, if the Gangnam Phenomenon's social, cultural and economic impact is influential enough, then it should be notable enough to have its own page. As far as I can tell, according to Ghost-riding's article, the only effect it seems to have is "two and eight deaths in North America". Lolcat has only managed to inspire a few internet videos. Thats hardly a good reason for a separate page. Gangnam Style, on the other hand, may have “profound long-term implications for the traditional media ecosystem,”
- Only quotes by top celebrities with more than 1,000 retweets have been selected because they have either directly or indirectly spread the song outside the singer's home country. Multiple 3rd party sources are available to support the quotes more than a few weeks old, which have already been added -A1candidate (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Gangnam Style for good article
Would you like me to nominate Gangnam Style for good article?--Lucky102 (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I believe this article is currently going through peer review and may need to be copyedited, but you can give it a try -A1candidate (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Lucky102 is asking you to do it, because it's honorable. I'm not sure but I think the one who nominates an article successfully is congratulated automatically on the talk page and is entitled to display a box about it on the user page. Something like that... You are the main contributor, so you should be the one who nominates the article and gets all the honors. Do it: Wikipedia:Good article nominations. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, done. I didnt know about that, so thanks for pointing it out. Cheers^^ -A1candidate (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why didn't you wait until the peer review is closed? Ideally there shouldn't be a PR and GAN going on at the same time. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Main points brought up by PReviewer have been addressed, I wasn't aware of a rule that says no PR+GAN, I thought better to have opinions from more editors -A1candidate (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
K-pop
Hey! Thanks for the reply. I will try to translate a few passages from the huwiki article. :) 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 13:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Psy rapper
That page is a mess, I spent 1/2 hour last night reverting IP vandalism. I saw that you put it up for semi-protection. Is there anything I can do to help? --Sue Rangell[citation needed] 20:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- I guess its semi-protected now, and the vandalism has thankfully died down. Thanks for catching those disruptive edits -A1candidate (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited K-Pop idol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page America (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) 10:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited K-Pop idol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wannabe (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) 11:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
Congrats! Gangnam Style is now a GA ElectroPro (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC) |
- Awesome! Congrats! AngusWOOF (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Im proud of this GA! Thanks for reviewing and helping out at this article :) -A1candidate (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Gangnam Style phenomenon for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gangnam Style phenomenon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangnam Style phenomenon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. BDD (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PSY (entertainer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Signalman (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) 10:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Opplà Silvio Style
Thank you for this corrections! My English is very poor... If you want to know other things about Crozza and his song ask me. This is the video uploaded by La7 on YouTube. Bye --Mystère Martin (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
December 2012
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
K-pop
Hi, I started expanding the article from the Hungarian version. I noticed a lot of references are unformatted in the article, can you help to put them in shape using {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}? I'll try to clear up as many as I can as well on the go. I think some parts of the article will need to be revised, with less tiny details added, especially in the former Globalization part. Too many little details of individual band concerts and appearances there. I think individual concerts do not show influence or impact, those have happened before the K-wave as well. I see too many quotes as well, I think Obama's quote is out of proportion here, it doesn't prove anything, he made a passing mention. It can be mentioned but I think it is blowing out of proportion to quote in big quotation marks as if it were of some very important impact to K-pop - and it clearly isn't, it is just part of the Gangnam style hype. I'll try to make the article a bit more factually balanced. Thanks for the help in advance. 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 09:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with everything you said except the Obama quote, he made the remark in 2011 months before Gangnam Style was released, and its there because the world's most powerful person recognizes that Korean popular culture is expanding worldwide. I think its a relevant statement that deserves a little bit more attention. I agree that the globalization part should be cleaned up and excessive details removed, but the sub-section headers (Asia, Europe, Russia, etc) should, in my opinion, not be deleted. Im glad someone finally re-organized the article, and I think you've done a decent job so far-A1candidate (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. I would recommend changing the section's heading from "Popularity and impact" to "Popularity and notable concerts" or something similar, because it may be a good idea for "impact" to have its own section -A1candidate (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- That would be too much already. The article shouldn't be a list of concerts... One or two mentions is fine, of the bigger ones in scale, like the 40 thousand US concert or the 14 thousand Paris one, but not each and every K-pop concert ever held... this is what i was referring to as getting lost in details. Wikipedia's job is not to write a book on every momentum of the subject, our job is to give an overview. I'm going to rework that section to be more concise and to the point. Impact is perfectly suited there. 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 15:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, during a visit to Korea he will obviously say something about Korea... That's not something special, and in any case he didn't talk about K-pop, he talked about hallyu. 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 15:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- This article shouldn't be an excessive list of unnotable concerts. But notable concerts with their own wikipedia article do deserve to be mentioned here, at least a handful of them. K-pop is a part of hallyu. Its the most important aspect of the Korean wave. I doubt Obama would go around talking about a foreign country's pop music industry everytime he vists the place, unless its really important and he has a good reason to do so -A1candidate (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You are now a reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
Also, I left a message for you at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Milestones
Hi! I think the milestones part in the K-pop article should be rewritten. This is not the usual formatting of an article, wiki prefers flowing text to simply listing stuff. It can be incorporated into the section without looking like a timeline. Also considering this for a possible featured article status in the future. I'd like to rework the structure there if you don't mind. It also makes the section look a lot longer than the others, which makes the section look like being out of proportion. 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 09:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, K-pop#Milestones isn't meant to be read as a list, in fact it is mostly written in prose, except that its separated into different time frames/time periods as one would expect in a milestone section. Also, one of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria is that articles are expected to be comprehensive ("it neglects no major facts or details"), which is what the milestone section aims to provide for the article. I agree that the section is longer than other sections, but thats only because the other sections needs to be expanded. For example, the section K-pop#1980s:_The_era_of_ballads with only 3 sentences is insufficient and would have to be either merged or expanded in its current state, especially when compared with sections in other featured articles such as, for example: Michael Jackson and Romeo and Juliet. But for now, I've separated the milestones part just below the history part -A1candidate (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I still think that this section is unnecessary in this form. Especially that you made it a separate section... It looks as if K-pop history milestones can only be counted from 2007. Which is misleading... What about Seo taiji? What about H.O.T? What about Boa's Japanese debut? And there are a lot of other important events. That section in this format is partial only, relevant only to the 21st century and the second half of the 2000s... I would incorporate the text under the hallyu wave section in a non-timeline form instead. 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 15:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- There aren't that many notable milestones before 2007 (at least from an international point of view), please feel free to add BoA's Japanese debut if you wish, or any other important event also. From what I understand, K-Pop was not that well known outside South Korea before the 2000s, and there aren't much events/achievements of international notability before that. Each entry at the milestone section was carefully selected to include only notable international achievements which deserve to be mentioned, so by incorporating the text under the hallyu wave one would have to shorten the section (which lead to the removal of important content). If you reckon that milestone has to be merged with history, then it would be a good idea to either expand the other history sections first, or merge short sections together-A1candidate (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that we should only look at K-pop from an international point of view. The genre's history and important turning points are relevant, and K-pop was known before Psy as well. HOT was one of the first bands that started the Hallyu wave, to begin with... And the reference to the short sections is irrelevant, I put the expansion template on the article for a reason :) I am expanding it, from the Hungarian featured article, one section at a time, as I don't have time for more on weekdays. 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 18:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of notable people who have danced Gangnam Style, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Lewis (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) 12:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Do not remove comments of others on another user's talkpage
Unless it is clear violation or vandalsim. The removal of my comment was not appropriate. Please see WP:TALKO.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I saved your work on another wiki
http://cultural-phenomenons.wikia.com/wiki/Cultural_phenomenons_Wiki is where you'll find I have imported the full history over of the articles you created which have been ordered deleted/merged. You can keep working on them over there if you like. All wikis start off small, then grow big over time. Dream Focus 00:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Gangnam Style
That reversion was both ridiculus and disruptive. I do not need to gain consensus before editing a page. I have clearly spelt out rationale for each of my edits. Your blanket reversion and inane two-word edit summary suggest you have ownership issues with this and related articles, refusing to allow even the most constructive edits to your preferred version. I don't really care enough to escalate this into an edit war, which I'm sure is what would be the eventual outcome. Further to that, "List of notable people who have danced Gangnam Style" is a junky, ridiculous list with hardly anything that could be described as "content". It embodies the worst of Wikipedia. You apparently have decided to ignore the community's decision, and maintain the article no matter what. But again, I give up. I'm out. Good luck with your editing. IgnorantArmies – 14:27, Saturday December 22, 2012 (UTC)
- It was decided that the article should be merged, and not simply redirected. You simply blanked the page without merging anything back into the main article -A1candidate (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- WP:SOFIXIT. What is there to merge? What is there that could be possibly worthwile merging that is not already mentioned in the article? IgnorantArmies – 14:38, Saturday December 22, 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for being bold, but a list of names thats not worth merging (in your opinion) may in fact be worth mentioning (in another user's opinion). If you cared to look at the article's history you would have noticed that it was expanded a lot after it was decided to be merged -A1candidate (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- All right then, from the list, we have Khan, Hasselhoff, Weiwei, Kapoor, Anderson, Schmidt, Spears, Madonna, Brown, Furtado, Parl, Rudd, Key, Ban, Obama, Johnson, Cameron, Lander, Webber, Vettel, etc., etc., etc. in the main article. Surely this covers the most important names in the list, and with more information, as well. The information may not have been physically merged in one single edit, but the majority of the information present in the list is already present in the article. Perhaps your continued expansion of the list after community consensus endorsed a merger could have been spent merging the names you consider most important into the main article. IgnorantArmies – 14:53, Saturday December 22, 2012 (UTC)
- The entire list was carefully picked so that only the most notable people are included. Just look at List_of_notable_people_who_have_danced_Gangnam_Style#Tennis_players, List_of_notable_people_who_have_danced_Gangnam_Style#Footballers, etc - Was anyone of the top sportsmen and women here even mentioned in the article? And for your info I wasn't the only one expanding the article, there were others helping out to expand it -A1candidate (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- All right then, from the list, we have Khan, Hasselhoff, Weiwei, Kapoor, Anderson, Schmidt, Spears, Madonna, Brown, Furtado, Parl, Rudd, Key, Ban, Obama, Johnson, Cameron, Lander, Webber, Vettel, etc., etc., etc. in the main article. Surely this covers the most important names in the list, and with more information, as well. The information may not have been physically merged in one single edit, but the majority of the information present in the list is already present in the article. Perhaps your continued expansion of the list after community consensus endorsed a merger could have been spent merging the names you consider most important into the main article. IgnorantArmies – 14:53, Saturday December 22, 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for being bold, but a list of names thats not worth merging (in your opinion) may in fact be worth mentioning (in another user's opinion). If you cared to look at the article's history you would have noticed that it was expanded a lot after it was decided to be merged -A1candidate (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- WP:SOFIXIT. What is there to merge? What is there that could be possibly worthwile merging that is not already mentioned in the article? IgnorantArmies – 14:38, Saturday December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Songdo style.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Songdo style.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Egyptian fans of K-Pop.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Egyptian fans of K-Pop.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the file description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — ξxplicit 06:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Please explain how the subject is notable outside of Exo in any way, shape, or form. One measly story about him on The Daily Beast is no where near sufficient to merit an entire article about him. — ξxplicit 02:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Take note that the article explicitly states the singer has a large fan base, which satisfies the criteria listed at WP:ENTERTAINER. If you still believe he should not have an article than just nominate it for deletion instead, so that other editors can join in the discussion-A1candidate (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- A deletion discussion is not appropriate in this case, as his name is still a possible search term and it should redirect to the Exo article. Instead, I have initiated a merge discussion on the article's talk page. I have also notified WikiProject Musicians and WikiProject Korea of it to get others to chime in. — ξxplicit 02:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
T-ara
Hello A1candidate. None of the information in that table is of any relevance at all. One could argue that dates of birth have some relevance, but there is plenty of room for that in their own articles--where in fact you find it in the infobox. One might quibble about the sourcing as well, given that no independent reference was given. Those transliterations add nothing at all to the article since this is the English wikipedia, and again, there's a thousand transliterations in the articles on the persons. (BTW, these articles, such as [Jeon Boram]], are also examples of fan pages: these singers aren't independently notable, not outside of T-ara, and should be deleted/redirected.) Finally, you also restored a redundant discography, since there is a main article. I think K-pop fans need to be pointed out that they can't have it both ways. If they produce a million articles, on every member, song, single, single-album, tour, compilation, manager, songwriter, et cetera, they will have to live with the fact that duplication of information across the board is unwanted. Mind you, a lot of that duplicated information is irrelevant anyway. I've seen articles that list official fan clubs and the colors of those official fan clubs. I've seen those tables of members that include astrological signs. At some point this has to stop. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Drmies, I will first make it clear that I was not the one who wrote all of that, in fact, other than the K-pop article itself and the Gangnam Style article, I rarely (if at all) create/edit articles for individual bands except when something big happens to them and its not already mentioned. My experience on Wikipedia so far has made me believe that when there's something wrong with a particular section/article, its better to tag it first and see if it gets fixed soon, when nothing happens and especially if its poorly sourced/not notable then it would make sense to delete it immediately, in any case the original editor/-s should be given some time to sort it out. Official fan clubs and colours may not be entirely irrelevant as it may seem, such stuff has always been part of numerous Wikipedia articles be it football clubs, musicians, video gaming clans, etc - If its well sourced and if the article simply states the official name/colour then I think thats perfectly fine. Also, most bands with their own discography article still keep a short, summarized list of important albums/single, see for example: Michael_jackson#Discography, One_direction#Discography, Backstreet_boys#Discography. In T-ara's case, a few singles/albums seemed to have topped the music charts in S. Korea (at least according to the main discography page) and I thought those would be notable enough to be mentioned under the "discography" section just like almost any other non-K-pop band/musician. On the other hand, blanking the entire section instead of summarizing it, seems counter productive. Now don't get me wrong though, there is A LOT of irrelevant information found in hundreds of K-pop articles and I really glad you've pruned out so much announcements/promotional activities/fancruft and I wish there were more editors like you to catch out other K-pop pages with similar stuff. Im just suggesting that sometimes it would be a good idea to allow some time for the articles to be improved, either by tagging it or otherwise :) -A1candidate (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Moon Mason
Hi, Could you please help me get Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Moon_Mason accepted in the main space? It appears you did the Little PSY page. Philiashasspots (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Philiashasspots, I would like to help you out on this, unfortunately I can't find much notable information about this child actor other than a few articles by K-Pop websites. I noticed there's already an article for him on Wikipedia, so I guess it would be better to just wait and add more information from non-K-Pop sources once the kid gets more attention from the media. Cheers :) -A1candidate (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata and Interwiki links
You are receiving this as you have recently added an interwiki link to a page!
Wikidata has been deployed to the English Wikipedia. Wikidata manages interwiki links on a separate project on pages such as this. This means that on Wikipedia articles there is now a language bar on the left hand side of your screen where you can edit and add links rather than adding them into the articles themselves.
If you have any questions regarding Wikidata please use the talk page Wikipedia talk:Wikidata.
·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
Thank you for your contribution to resolving a conflict in Gangnam District article! Jun.rhee (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for March 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited K-pop, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kara and After School (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) 11:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Need advice
Hi A1candidate. Since you're sort of the unofficial "mediator" of the discussion I thought I'd ask some advice from you. Honestly, in your personal opinion, do you think I'm being disruptive like what User:Moscowconnection says? I mean I'm actively participating in the talk page and making changes that are still in the context of keeping the criticism section. I just get the feeling that he wants me to shut up and go away or something. I'm debating whether to take this to WP:NPOVN or some other dispute resolution channels since there just seems to be a blockade to my edits. I've hoped that we could've figure this ourselves but there's no real dialogue with Moscowconnection. Do you think I should wait it out or something? Any advice? Best regards. Stateofyolandia (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think its good that both you and Moscowconnection have used the talk page before reverting, and Im sure both of your edits were done in good faith (otherwise I would have reverted). I feel that the article really needs a separate section on the "dark side" of K-pop, but at the same time, the criticism section was/is overly detailed and those 2-3 cases of scandals in a time period lasting more than 10 years isn't really criticism at all. IMHO, this is just one of the reasons why the section needs to be completely re-written, but not completely removed. -A1candidate (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
April 2013
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)A1candidate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Im pretty sure I did not violate the 3 revert rule because if you look carefully User:MarkusGuni was reverted by BOTH me AND User:GB fan. In other words, I reverted just 3 times and nothing more than that. Im hoping that this is simply just a case of carelessness/negligence of the administrator involved.
Accept reason:
You are right - I had included an obvious vandalism revert when counting your reverts, which I shouldn't have done. That was careless of me and you should not have been blocked. I would, however, encourage you take steps to avoid edit warring on the article; continuing to edit even if you don't break 3RR can be problematic. Instead of continually reverting the User:MarkusGuni, try engaging in discussion with him. If he refuses to listen, you make file a calm report at WP:ANI; if he does listen but you cannot agree, WP:DRN might be a good place to go. When you are trying to resolve the issue, it would be best to avoid editing the page. Even if the article seem wrong for a short amount of time, it is better to leave it like that and avoid disruption than to revert him, which has not helped so far. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 09:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I just wanted to add that I did try to discuss it with User:MarkusGuni, numerous times in fact. Take a look at the article's talk page] and the user's talk page. Unfortunately, my comments were were largely ignored and efforts to engage him in a discussion on his talk page were removed by the user. But you're right I should probably have went to WP:ANI to resolve this instead. Thanks for taking the time for this anyway.-A1candidate (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Could you take a look at the last convo about YT views. I seriously think this original research proposal is harmful for the article... Teemeah 편지 (letter) 17:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Its a bit too lengthy to read it all at once, but I've left a note over there to address the main issue being discussed. Lets hope it works out -A1candidate (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
About the edit war in "Edward Snowden"
Fangorn-Y (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC) You reverted my edition in the article "Edward Snowden" at 16:28, 15 June 2013.
Really, you had edited that article previously at 16:14, and up to 16:28 your changes were deleted. However, this deletions are made by User:Ohconfucius , not by me. I watch that now you have restored your changes. May I restore my changes in section "Press and public", which are not related to the information you added? Or you have some other reasons?
- I think there's nothing wrong with your edit as long as its not too long. Its okay to update it continously, but I think it would be best to summarize it and just mention the current number of signatures instead of tracking the number of new signatures added daily to the petition -A1candidate (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Statue of Liberty attacks flag of China.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Statue of Liberty attacks flag of China.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Veggies (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Statue of Liberty attacks flag of China.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Statue of Liberty attacks flag of China.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Veggies (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of public disclosures of classified information, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Classified and War in Afghanistan (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) 10:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Statue of Liberty attacks flag of China.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Veggies (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Statue of Liberty attacks flag of China.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Statue of Liberty attacks flag of China.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Deletion discussion about Usage of acupuncture in the military
Hello, A1candidate,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Usage of acupuncture in the military should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usage of acupuncture in the military .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks, Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi A1, I appreciate the work you did and would like to see it remain on WP. I am not sure "acu use in military" is a viable article title. However, Richard Niemtzow is a wonderful subject for an article. You could use all your current info and sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbxue (talk • contribs) 06:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Subtitles for File:US President Barack Obama, surveillance activities, June 2013.ogv
Are you interested in adding subtitles to File:US President Barack Obama, surveillance activities, June 2013.ogv? Do you know where a transcript is of this video? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I dont really know how to do that, the full transcript is over here -A1candidate (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for finding that! To do that you would go to Commons:TimedText:US President Barack Obama, surveillance activities, June 2013.ogv.en.srt and following the example on the page. Watch the video and enter the transcript and set it by the seconds WhisperToMe (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Merge discussion for Centralized Monitoring System
An article that you have been involved in editing, Centralized Monitoring System , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BigJolly9 (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Good work
Very happy with your recent edits and your explanation on the talk page. Looking forward to working with you now on this and other articles. Thanks for a real day-brightener. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am more than flattered by your praise, but my recent edits resulted from the conclusion that it is not worth the effort trying to a correct popular misconception (i.e. Acupuncture = Placebo) until scientific consensus changes, which it soon will. All other discussion is futile, but thanks for your message. -A1candidate (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Viatel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish (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) 22:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
MEDLINE etc
MEDLINE does not itself publish systematic reviews.
Your apparent misconception that the MEDLINE database works by "guidelines based on systematic reviews" makes me suspect you may be confusing MEDLINE (and PubMed) as a whole [2] with a specific service within PubMed called PubMed Health [3].
While it is possible to filter searches to retrieve systematic reviews on a given topic both on PubMed as a whole (here) and on the PubMed Health search engine (here), there can be certain advantages to doing this on PubMed Health [4]. Currently, PubMed Health links to 431 systematic reviews on acupuncture published since 2003 [5]. However, please note that the fact that a systematic review is listed on PubMed Health does not automatically mean that it will be considered a reliable medical source for a given context.
86.130.63.47 (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- MEDLINE does not publish systematic reviews, it only evaluates them and provides health information based on up-to-date evidence. It would certainly be a good idea for you to be more specific about the reasons for dismissing it as not a reliable medical source -A1candidate (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Talking about MEDLINE as a "source" in itself makes no sense at all here. Fyi, MedlinePlus, as distinct from MEDLINE, aims to provide digested health information. My post here was merely to clarify some rather confusing claims you made at ANI
[6].[7] (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Talking about MEDLINE as a "source" in itself makes no sense at all here. Fyi, MedlinePlus, as distinct from MEDLINE, aims to provide digested health information. My post here was merely to clarify some rather confusing claims you made at ANI
Acupuncture article
Hi A1 candidate! I read your contribs to the acupuncture talk section and liked your points. I've become very interested in acupuncture studies lately and have a unique take on how to solve the dilemma you noted on the talk page. I don't know Wikipedia well anymore, but I do know this subject, so I'd be interested in your thoughts as well as any advice you might have for me in editing.Egamirorrimeht (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Egamirorrimeht, thanks for your message. Unfortunately, I could not get the consensus of other editors to include any of the points I made. Unless something changes, I personally think its futile to continue discussing about it, but Im happy to hear any suggestions -A1candidate (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Cassiopeia
Hi! I have already posted to the TVXQ talkpage regarding the Guinness Record claim. Whatever newspapers claim, Guinness as NO such record in their database, I checked it with them myself. They have a category for largest fanclub but it is not filled yet and they were not presented with any proof from anybody that Cassipoeia would be the biggest fanclub in the world. Also, they have no such category as "most photographed celebrity" and will never have one because it is impossible to measure and verify. I can forward you the email I got from Guinness, if you want. I also forwarded it to OTRS to verify my removal of the Guinness record claim from the TVXQ article. Cheers. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 17:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Teemeah, thanks for verifying the (apparently false) Guinness record. I'll take your word for it so there's no need to forward that email to me. Im just shocked that none of the Korean media outlets (including KBS) ever bothered to verify these claims before publishing their news -A1candidate (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- As I talked to an unnie who has been in K-pop since 2001, it appears that nobody ever really claimed a Guinness Record but it was some kind of local Korean record and Sm even published a statement on it but it's not to be found on the internet unfortunately. It escalated when someone apparently misinterpreted the information and a TVXQ member dropped a line in an interview about it. And then it rolled on and on....This shows just how low the standards of journalism are. If Cassiopeia would have a world record, the fan club would have been given an official physical printed certificate. No one ever saw that... Cheers Teemeah 편지 (letter) 10:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Internationalization of the renminbi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foreign exchange (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) 11:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Cite error: The named reference reuterschrono was invoked but never defined. --Frze > talk 05:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Medical guidelines
Please read our medical guidelines at WP:MEDRS. Particularly WP:MEDDATE, "Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews you examine should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies." IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
A reference problem
Hi! Some users have been working hard on Category:Pages with broken reference names.
Here you added a new reference Guardian_2010 + Spiegel20130831 but didn't define it. This has been showing as an error at the bottom of the article. "Cite error: The named reference REFNAME
was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." Can you take a look and work out what you were trying to do? Thanks -- Frze > talk 12:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks for notifying. -A1candidate (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Hey, thanks for your work at GERAC! The article has never looked better and that's mainly to your credit. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Its a team effort and I'm glad to be able to contribute where I can. -A1candidate (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Time Persons of the Year 1951–1975
Hi there. I know you have contributed to Time Person of the Year in the past. It would be great to have your opinion on an ongoing RfC at Template talk:Time Persons of the Year 1951–1975, regarding how entries for 1960 and 1975 are listed. Thanks. - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • UPLOADS) 15:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
5 eyes
Hi A1,
I thought you might enjoy this interview with Annie Machon - very informative. And while I'm here, I wonder if you have noticed any POV efforts aimed at removing or denigrating non-Western healing modalities? I'm wondering what might be done to ensure a more NPOV, global coverage on wiki. Cheers, petrarchan47tc 19:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Petrarchan47, I think that while its only fair for these non-Western healing techniques to be closely scrutinized by Wikipedia's medical editors, I also believe that some editors have gone way too far in their efforts to remove every single medical source that even remotely hints at a positive treatment outcome. I'm still engaging in a heated debate with a handful of them over here, and as you can see, I'm clearly outnumbered by a horde of my opponents. The only way to ensure a global coverage on Wikipedia is to ensure an equal geographical distribution of editors. That means having more editors from Asia, Africa, Continetal Europe, Latin America (or in other words, countries that are not part of the "Five Eyes") to edit the English Wikipedia. I'm not sure what is the best way to attract these editors to stay, but anyway, thanks for sharing the interview. -A1candidate (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting - these are the exact same folks who've asserted their POV at all of the cannabis-related articles. They are attacking articles at a manic pace. Recently it came to light that Wiki is 90% or so white males from the US and Western Europe. We really are suffering from the lack of diversity. I don't know what to do either. It does often seem to come down to a single editor left battling an endless supply of like-minded, connected editors. petrarchan47tc 05:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- We could try to highlight this to the Wikimedia Foundation, but I doubt it will change anything. Chances are, they probably know that such a problem exists, but have no clue about how to solve it either. -A1candidate (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing. And if you see my talk page, there are heated attempts to stop any questioning as well. petrarchan47tc 19:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- We could try to highlight this to the Wikimedia Foundation, but I doubt it will change anything. Chances are, they probably know that such a problem exists, but have no clue about how to solve it either. -A1candidate (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting - these are the exact same folks who've asserted their POV at all of the cannabis-related articles. They are attacking articles at a manic pace. Recently it came to light that Wiki is 90% or so white males from the US and Western Europe. We really are suffering from the lack of diversity. I don't know what to do either. It does often seem to come down to a single editor left battling an endless supply of like-minded, connected editors. petrarchan47tc 05:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Global surveillance disclosures
Normally there is discussion on the talk page and consensus reached before major changes are made to an article. I know that there was discussion (which you participated in) about the article 2013 global surveillance disclosures being overly large.[8] Some suggestions were made, both for short-term changes and more extensive restructuring of the article. No consensus was reached on your major changes, however, I proposed some interim changes and also suggested that we agree on an outline for the changes you were proposing. No one objected to that. I had just begun to make some of the short-term changes (i.e., creating sub articles). Now you have made sweeping changes and it looks like you have deleted significant amounts of content. Please explain. Sunray (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Shorter: Where did the article go??? petrarchan47tc 23:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
What I inferred from the discussion is that the original article has gotten way too large and there's apparently an urgent need to split it up, which I thought should be non-controversial. All of the sub-articles are now linked from Global surveillance; several of the more important ones - Origins of global surveillance and Aftermath of the global surveillance disclosure - are linked from the main article itself (Global surveillance disclosure), and nothing has been deleted. I believe this must have been a misunderstanding? If not, perhaps you may want to be more specific about which of the changes you're referring to. -A1candidate (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- My main point had to do with consultation. Where was the consensus to make these major changes? According to WP:CON editorial decisions are made by consensus. Normally for a major overhaul of an article a fairly comprehensive outline of the changes would be posted on the talk page. Then following discussion and assuming consensus, the changes could be made. As to content, I have some problems with the titles that are being used. There is no way of knowing what Origins of global surveillance relates to unless it stems from a root article, such as the one we had in 2013 global surveillance disclosures. To my mind a reasonable work plan would have been to create the sub articles first and then (again assuming consensus) change the name of the root article. You have, essentially, obliterated the work of many other editors. Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative project. Sunray (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Taking a closer look at the various articles you have created, I can see where you have put the content of the original article. However, Global surveillance disclosure seems inadequate as an overview article. The article does not give any real context of where Snowden's releases came from. There is no history. It arbitrarily sets out a timeline starting in the 1970s. The lead fails to mention UKUSA, yet it is mentioned in the section on the 1970s. UKUSA emerged from the BRUSA Agreement and there are documents that refer to it at the origins of the cold war. This isn't the place to be discussing this, but there are MAJOR PROBLEMS with the current structure of the articles. Unfortunately, there is no longer an adequate root article we can work from or a talk page to discuss this. I can see a couple of ways to go but I need to hear more from you about this. Does what I've just said make sense to you? If so, we may be able to figure out a way to fix it. Sunray (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
It is obviously far from a perfect article, but I think its contents should only be limited to dislosures, or else the article will become way too big again. The history of the UKUSA Agreement is undoubtedly an important issue, but I don't see why we can't leave it to the origins of global surveillance for the sake of compactness and readability. The timeline begins in the 1970s based on the first public interview of an NSA whistleblower, but if you know of any related disclosures that occurred before this and are worth mentioning, I would highly encourage you to add them to the article. I've started a section at the talk page, so please join me there. -A1candidate (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- We definitely need an article on Snowden's disclosures. The problem seems to be that, because of the secrecy involved, disclosures sometimes permit only a retrospective understanding of what was going on. We now know that the origins of the current regime of mass surveillance was during World War II when technology improved sufficiently to enable the ability to monitor global telecommunications. We now know that the UKUSA agreement led to the formation of the "Five Eyes" and allowed for the surveillance of civilian populations (by one of the participants spying on another's civilians). That context will be important for a root article. One cannot understand the significance of Snowden's disclosures without knowing how the current surveillance system originated. I will join you on that talk page. Sunray (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- One thing that needs to be done ASAP, are redirects made to the appropriate articles for "The Snowden effect", "Snowden leaks", "Snowden disclosures", etc. I can get the needed RS to find the most-used terms for these, but as it stands now, even I can't find these articles with the normal search terms one would use. We also need one of these, but for Snowden leaks: petrarchan47tc 19:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
This article is part of a series about the |
Deepwater Horizon oil spill |
---|
Disambiguation link notification for December 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Western media, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media of the Soviet Union (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) 08:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
December 2013
Hello, I'm Yopie. Your recent edit to the page List of oldest universities in continuous operation appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
It is good to see an article on the Primo-vascular system. The article I wrote in 2010 and linked to acupuncture meridians was shot down as a fringe claim. This also happened to a previous article on the subject. I'm glad to see that a user with a lot of Wiki experience has taken on the subject. Primo-vessels are a discovery which has the potential to revolutionize biological science and medicine. DavidWis (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thanks for your ability to maintain a neutral point of view in the face of biased editors as on the university-related pages. Pass a Method talk 11:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC) |
As a side-note, I would appreciate it if you could leave me a note on my talk page whenever you feel outnumbered. Pass a Method talk 11:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I have changed several section headers on this talk page to focus on editing as opposed to editors. Appropriate processes have been implemented and can and should be used as needed. I am not contending that individual editors don't make working on an article difficult. I think comments directed to such editors on the talk pages of the articles being worked on is appropriate. I just thought section headers consisting of a UserName are not consistent with WP policy and may escalate contention rather than help build consensus. Hopefully the mediation taking place can help editing move forward. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Using the talk page first
Please do not tell me or any other editor of Wikipedia to use the talk page to discuss any changes before making them. I have just as much a right to change a couple of words in the article without discussing it first as you have to revert my edit without discussing it first. I will discuss changes when I think a discussion is merited. perhaps WP:OWN is relevant here, perhaps not. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
A very high compliment
From Jacob Applebaum, for you! petrarchan47tc 01:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, its a team effort and all of us played a role -A1candidate (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Thought you might enjoy this AJ doc about the NSA leaks. petrarchan47tc 02:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Global surveillance disclosure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GMS (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) 08:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Stateroom (surveillance program)
— Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 00:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The Freedom of speech Barnstar
The Freedom of speech Barnstar | ||
On behalf of WikiProject Freedom of speech, The Freedom of speech Barnstar is awarded to A1candidate, for contributions related to expanding and improving the quality of articles on Wikipedia relevant to freedom of speech and censorship, including List of notable people under FVEY surveillance. From the participants at WikiProject Freedom of speech, thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC) |
Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech
There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
- List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
- Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
- Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
- Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
- Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't see the explanation for your major edit of a few minutes ago. [9] Are you changing the inclusion criteria for the list? I was getting ready to add Norman Mailer. [10] —rybec 23:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's indeed the case, as pointed out by peer reviewers of the article: Wikipedia:Peer review/List of notable people under FVEY surveillance/archive1. I'm sorry that the article is a little unstable right now, but the criteria for including a particular person may have to be changed again, depending on how the peer review goes. I think the addition of [[[Norman Mailer]] is an important one, perhaps you could add him to List of Americans under surveillance instead? If you're interested, you may wish to join our peer review too so that we can come up with a better set of criteria for inclusion -A1candidate (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help
Things can get pretty intense! Thanks for all your help. I honestly don't care what the community decides-- I'm the waiter, not the chef. My role here is to generate a big menu and present it to the community. I do not know what the "right" answer is, I leave that question to wiser minds than mine.
I've been really shocked at the amount of negative pushback we've gotten. If it's really such a bad idea, I assumed people would be content to oppose it and watch it fail, but it seems we've accidentally stepped on some toes by suggesting the possibility that NOTBUREAUCRACY could apply to the main page bureaucracy.
WP:NOTADVOCATE is a really honest and sincere objection. Heck, when the final !votes are cast, I still might cite NOTADVOCATE myself.
But instead we've seen all these bureaucratic objections: "We don't allow Featured Lists on Tuesdays" or "That article was on the Main Page seven years ago, so it can't be shown now". Just silliness that trivializes the whole scale of the issues being considered.
So, please keep your attention on this proposal in the coming days. Your support and feedback are essential to this process. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Best name yet...
I've started Squeaky Dolphin. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Five Eyes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Dent (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) 08:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The Snowden-Interview in English
Hi, thought you might enjoy the first Snowden-TV-Interview: https://archive.org/details/snowden_interview_en - from the main public radio and television broadcaster in Germany Das Erste/NDR. You may add it if you think that will be useful. Cheers, Sei.--91.10.35.79 (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder what the copyright status of this interview is. Is it shared under a creative commons license or is it in the public domain? If not, then we can't add it, I'm afraid. -A1candidate (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Invitation to WikiProject Mass surveillance
NSA helpful link
Hi A1, you may have seen this already. I wonder about adding to external links? You're most familiar with this set of articles, so I'll leave it to you. petrarchan47tc 04:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, maybe not, actually. I'm not sure what this is. Never mind. petrarchan47tc 04:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- My first impression is that it is certainly one of the most comprehensive compilations I've seen, but at the same time, there are several issues that come to mind:
- Numerous important programs such as Global Telecoms Exploitation and Stateroom (surveillance program) are missing
- There's an exclusive focus on the NSA, without even a single metion of GCHQ (and other agencies)
- Web design looks somewhat amateurish, could be mistaken for a conspiracy theory website (e.g. "Things the NSA doesn't want you to know...")
- If and when they do a major re-design, I'll be happy to take a second look.
- -A1candidate (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Did you read my earlier edit summary? The message to which you reverted conveys of only some of the ideas discussed (the most extreme among them), thereby implying that the proposal was shelved solely due to a lack of consensus in their favor.
To be clear, I have no desire to mention "the belief that participating in the protest would have violated our core principles" in the message. Standard procedure is to tag a failed proposal with {{failed}}, which doesn't "mention why it failed". We've made an exception in this instance because the amount of time available for discussion was limited (which I made a point to note explicitly), but there's no extraordinary circumstance justifying a non-neutral tag.
You also removed the category. (I don't know whether this was intentional.) —David Levy 16:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello David, I reverted you because I feel that the page needs to mention why the proposal failed. Simply stating "no consensus" isn't exactly helpful, its better to provide a brief and concise explanation of why the community failed to reach such a consensus. Doing so enables future editors to learn from past mistakes and hopefully avoid repeating them.
- I have not been following the discussion closely, but I'm aware that it generated a great amount of controversy and I was under the impression that the proposal got scrapped because we failed to push a few of our featured articles onto the main page. But as you've pointed out, there's also a significant amount of opposition coming from users who claimed that the proposal runs counter to the "core values of Wikipedia". Taking a second look at things, I'm assuming that's the real reason why it failed. -A1candidate (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. —David Levy 18:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi A1-- I trust you to arbitrate this. I notice David has been edit warring very heavily on a closed discussion, which is very unusual. I get the sensation David thinks it's somehow a pejorative to call something a proposal and he thus really wants to get that word into the final page text, lol.
- For my part, I don't have a "preferred version" of the page, but I think it could be a major waste of time to categorize it as a proposal, since there is no proposal to be found in the history and no rfc to see where it 'failed'-- It never got that far, it's just scribblings; lol.
- Anyway, I trust you to decide how to words things best-- David was a strong opponent, I was obviously involved, so it's best to leave it up to fresh eyes. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I notice David has been edit warring very heavily on a closed discussion, which is very unusual.
- I've been edit warring? I've striven to edit the page collaboratively. I've incorporated others' wording/formatting, modified mine to address their concerns, and even invited input/assistance from Wnt and you on my talk page.
- Conversely, you've engaged in wholesale reversion continually (including removing the standard category five times — six if we count the redirection), sometimes without explanation and with your edits mislabeled "minor".
- You've inexplicably removed my replies from the talk page, apparently citing Wikipedia:Deny recognition for some reason. (By the way, I did email you. I await your response, and I must say that reading the above message hasn't increased my patience.)
I get the sensation David thinks it's somehow a pejorative to call something a proposal and he thus really wants to get that word into the final page text, lol.
- No, Hector. You seem to think that it's somehow a pejorative, so you really want to get it out. The endeavor was explicitly called a proposal (and treated as one) from the beginning. You unilaterally removed that language.
- I wrote the following on my talk page (regarding labeling a proposal "failed"):
It isn't derogatory. All sorts of good ideas can be found in that category. Proposals in which I participated passionately are there. Proposals that didn't succeed but led to bigger and better things are there. In fact, that's one of the reasons why the category exists; it's a handy place to look for ideas that might be worth reconsidering or might otherwise inspire positive change.
For my part, I don't have a "preferred version" of the page,
- Then why have you reverted repeatedly?
but I think it could be a major waste of time to categorize it as a proposal, since there is no proposal to be found in the history
- The history contains a proposal to make yesterday "The Day We Fight Back"/"surveillance awareness day" at the English Wikipedia.
Anyway, I trust you to decide how to words things best-- David was a strong opponent, I was obviously involved, so it's best to leave it up to fresh eyes.
- A major part of the problem is that you view me as an "opponent". As I've pleaded with you to understand, I merely seek to present a neutral explanation of what occurred.
- Rather than treating me as an adversary, A1candidate engaged in civil, thoughtful discussion, which I found quite refreshing. —David Levy 20:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Didn't read this, but saw parts appear to be addressed to me. To the extent is addressed to me, email it if you want it to be read by me at some point-- I will get around to it, but not until I have more distance and perspective.
- To the extent this is a discussion of the issues addressed to A1 about historical tagging, I trust A1 to sort it out between you and Wnt-- "I'm getting to old for this shit" and "I've got one day to retirement", to quote every cop movie ever. Namaste. --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: This seems to be a rather delicate matter... I don't want to take any sides, and I'm not entirely sure what this dispute is really about, but at this point in time, I do feel that both of you should take a break and come back later. If all else fails, a mutual interaction ban would be highly appropriate, but I'm sure we don't have to go down to that yet. -A1candidate (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Wikibreak is NOT gonna be a problem. I wouldn't stick around for all the tea in china. Just be sure to double check on any future edit wars on the relevant page, but they won't come from me. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- I harbor no animosity toward Hector. I'm sorry that he's upset, and I've reached out in an attempt to address his concerns. But if he'd prefer to withdraw, I respect his wishes and have no intention of prolonging undesired interaction.
- The problem, from my perspective, is that Hector is engaging others while simultaneously expecting them to withdraw (e.g. reverting edits and posting messages on talk pages, but complaining when editors with whom he disagrees respond).
- If, as he's promised above, he simply walks away, I'll consider the matter resolved. And should he change his mind, I'd be more than happy to resume civil discourse. —David Levy 23:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- My proposal: - I recommend that both of you refrain from interacting with each other from now onwards. If there is a particular edit by the other person that you strongly object to, contact me first. If I do not respond within a reasonable period of time, feel free to highlight it on the talk page, but do contact another uninvolved editor first. Is this acceptable to both parties? If so, you do not have to reply any further. Thank you for your contributions. -A1candidate (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- I sincerely appreciate your offer, but I don't feel that such restrictions are called for.
- As I noted, I harbor no animosity toward Hector. If he prefers to avoid interacting with me, that's his prerogative. Otherwise, I'll treat him just as I would any other editor in good standing. My invitation for Hector and me to work together collaboratively (whether today, tomorrow or a year from now) still stands. —David Levy 02:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- It was just an attempt to end a dispute that seemed to be getting nowhere, but now Hector has apparently left, so...Anyway, thank you once again for your contributions and have a nice day. -A1candidate (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- You too. Thanks again for your help. —David Levy 03:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
February 2014
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Why Socialism? does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.
The edit summary appears in:
- User contributions
- Recent changes
- Watchlists
- Revision differences
- IRC channels
- Related changes
- New pages list and
- Article editing history
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 13:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
discuss on the Talk page
You have provided no argument at all for reverting me with respect to the paragraph about the Buzzfeed article. "I see no reason not to revert you" is not an argument. There are threads concerning this paragraph on the article Talk page. See ""...thinks it’s a parasite from the local water..." ("U.S. official(s)" wanting to kill Snowden)" and "Mike Masnick / Techdirt". Why have you made no contribution to those threads? Do you believe that it is appropriate to edit war without discussing the matter on the article Talk page?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- See talk page. -A1candidate (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- That comment had nothing to do with your reverting me with respect to the paragraph about the Buzzfeed article. That comment of yours was about including the reaction to rector speech (and included no argument for inclusion beyond claiming, with no supporting evidence, that it was "absolutely appropriate" to include that speech). So I'll repeat the question: why have you made no contribution to the "U.S. official(s)" wanting to kill Snowden)" and "Mike Masnick / Techdirt" threads? Do you believe that it is appropriate to edit war without discussing the matter on the article Talk page?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Anesthesia & Analgesia
You've got mail. Cheers --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 20:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've sent you some attachments. -A1candidate (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Merge discussion for National Defence Radio Establishment (Sweden)
An article that you have been involved in editing, National Defence Radio Establishment (Sweden), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gavleson (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
K-pop
Did you mean to accept this edit to K-pop? It doesn't seem accurate to me, so I've reverted it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I believe this edit wasn't entirely inaccurate, since both versions of the translation are commonly used. The one I accepted seemed to be the prevailing version that stretches back to 2012, but I'm not an expert and it's really just a minor issue. -A1candidate (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Edit on FRA
I'd appreciate if you explained your reversal of one of my edits on Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) on the talkpage. -- Gavleson (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
A page you started (Cao Wei (curator)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Cao Wei (curator), A1candidate!
Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Please make sure to elaborate more on Cao Wei's career. Surely he has done more than simply welcome famous visitors. This link will be helpful: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/terracotta-army/staff/profiles/cao
To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Terracotta Army
Hi there, I've created a new topic at the above Talk Page that you might wish to comment on. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 05:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Science
True science is open to the possibility of being wrong. Religions, including homeopathy, are not. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am not an expert in homeopathy and I don't know much about the topic, but I tend towards the opinions of experts such as a nobel-prize winning scientist, rather than pseudoskeptics on Wikipedia. -A1candidate (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your constant misuse of the term "pseudoskeptic" is very revealing. Those who push pseudoscience while claiming to be skeptics are the true pseudoskeptics, evidenced by the fact, among other red flags, that their skepticism is directed against mainstream science and not against junk science, pseudoscience, and quackery. Another red flag is when they defend other pseudoscience pushers, like the Nobel Prize winner, and the editor where you just left a barnstar. You are the real pseudoskeptic here, and one with a huge COI. As a professional acupuncturist, you should not be editing acupuncture and TCM subjects so boldly, if at all. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)