Re Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
Line 270: | Line 270: | ||
{{U|Demiurge}} how are you doin? [[User:Wikicology|Wikicology]] ([[User talk:Wikicology#top|talk]]) 02:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC) |
{{U|Demiurge}} how are you doin? [[User:Wikicology|Wikicology]] ([[User talk:Wikicology#top|talk]]) 02:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::{{U|Takeaway}}, am very disappointed that you already took our discussion here to ANI with no patience for me to act on your advice. What is now the essence of the advice? This seemed like a [[WP:Bite|bite]] to me. I had reduced it to a stub class and I will always improve it. If you're still not satisfy with it, feel free to take it to AfD.[[User:Wikicology|Wikicology]] ([[User talk:Wikicology#top|talk]]) 02:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC) |
:::{{U|Takeaway}}, am very disappointed that you already took our discussion here to ANI with no patience for me to act on your advice. What is now the essence of the advice? This seemed like a [[WP:Bite|bite]] to me. I had reduced it to a stub class and I will always improve it. If you're still not satisfy with it, feel free to take it to AfD.[[User:Wikicology|Wikicology]] ([[User talk:Wikicology#top|talk]]) 02:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::Well, I am very disappointed in you. Apparently, the 5 '''real''' references for the article on the NSCDC only supported 2 sentences to which you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nigeria_Security_and_Civil_Defence_Corps&diff=626286268&oldid=626196848 have now reduced the article]. The 39 refs that you first had "in support" of the previous revision of the article were, as can be seen now, most of them only fluff to create a smokescreen and give the reader the sense of the article being well-sourced. If I had wanted to [[WP:BITE]] you, I could have used many other words for describing what you tried to do with the article in its previous incarnation but I didn't. What I did when I reported my findings on the ANI page is called being honest, something which is very important here on Wikipedia. Good luck with the ANI! - [[User:Takeaway|Takeaway]] ([[User talk:Takeaway|talk]]) 12:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:17, 20 September 2014
This user is a Wikipedian. |
This user has autoconfirmed rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify) |
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify) |
This user is a participant in WikiProject Medicine. |
Missions and Vision
My mission is to maintain wikipedia profile as the world most reliable information source.
Mentor
- Admin.Rhaworth whose immense contributions and correction has been my driving force.
COI
- @Davidhar: kindly have the decency to wait for a wikipedian with no COI to create an article about your subject here.
August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kenyan transport and auto industry may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- The [http://e}n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya Kenya] automotive industry has come a long way and has seen tremendous
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hugo Arechiga Urtuzuastegui may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- '''Hernando H}ugo Arechiga Urtuzuastegui''' ( Culiacan , Sinaloa , 11 March of 1940 - Izmir , Turkey , September
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Epidermolysis Bullosa Activity and Scarring index (EBDASI) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- a scoring system that objectively quantifies the severity of [[Epidermolysis Bullosa]] (EB).<ref>{{cite journal|author=Loh CC, et al|year=2014|title=Development, reliability, and validity of a novel
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Qlink may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- [[Uniform resource locator|URL]] with a special feature of auto-destroyed on a single click<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.telam.com.ar/notas/201408/74488-un-investigador-de-conicet-creo-un-sistema-
- creo-un-sistema-de-envio-de-correos-electronicos-seguros.html "TELAM", Argentinian Press Agency] </REF> <ref> [http://www.abc.es/agencias/noticia.asp?noticia=1648079 "ABC", Spanish newspaper"]</
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Improving JuvodHR article
Thank you. We will take your advice and improve the article.JuvodHR (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
To use an image that is currently on thw web, you need one of two items
- The web page shows a license to CC-BY-SA or less strict (CC-BY; CC-0; PD) or
- The web page owner sends in permission to at least CC-BY-SA
For more informaton see WP:DCM Ronhjones (Talk) 20:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Reverting disruptive editing
Hello Wikicology! I saw the article for Chevrolet Corvair and I wondered what happened to it. Thank you for fixing it, because I don't know how to do that. Once again, thank you.--Kevjgav (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Wikicology (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Regarding creating a new article
Hello, I wanted to create a page with name "Anand Kondapi" Who is an Indian scientist. The page I got inspired from is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niyaz_Ahmed . I mistook last time while giving title. So plz next time review my page and don't delete. I have learnt now how to edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krish13LSMI10 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- I describe your message here as “inserting a nail on your nose”. Am not convinced that you had learnt anything about editting with what you had demostrated in your message above. You left a message without signning! I left a message on your talk page. Wikicology (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Just a note that the appropriate CSD criterion would have been WP:G7 since the only substantial contributor blanked the article. Regards. KJ Discuss? 12:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Born to Race
Hello. I replied to your post at MaterialScientist's talk page, but thought if you had any questions it would be better discussed here, than back and forth on his page.
The actions I would take in this case would be to move Born To Race to Born to Race (2011 film) and then move Born to Race to Born to Race (1988 film). --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 21:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Racerx11: thank you for your concerned sir. If I may ask you, with all sense of humilty don't I have the right to ask Materialscientist (talk · contribs) questions on his talk page as an eligible editor? And what do you mean by back and forth? Wikicology (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry no, I didn't mean anything like that. Your post is still there and MS or anyone else can still respond there. I was merely supplying another avenue for discussion if you had any technical questions about a page move. It would be better to have that discussion somewhere other than another editor's talk page who may, at that point, not yet be involved. MS doesn't answer everyone one of the posts he gets on his talk page (I have noticed my last two have gone unanswered), but I hope he answers yours! --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 21:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Racerx11: you are very right! Nice to have you here. I hope you are not embarraced with my question sir? Wikicology (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all. All of your concerns were legitimate and understandable. BTW, you may have noticed that someone has already made the two page moves I had suggested. All the best to you. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 22:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Diary of Dreams
@ArmandoBecker: sequel to the above article, I observed that you change Adrian to 'hate without explaining your reason for the change in the edit summary. let me mention here that there is no diference between Adrian and Hate has proved from the reliable souces in the article. It is Adran Hate. I will gladly restor the last edit if you faill to justify your action .Wikicology (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transcription Activators in Eukaryotes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cell. 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) 09:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
RE: August 2014
A lot of the music articles here use YouTube for official music videos from artists. It helps the reader who looks at the Music video section of the article want to see the video in question. DepressedPer (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- DepressedPer kindly have the decency to takes to correction, otherwise you will be outside, peeping through the window. it does not in any way establish the WP:Notability of the subject. Perhaps I will keep you on my watch since you had refused to takes to corrections. Wikicology (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:SONG#Lyrics and music videos. Linking a song article to its YouTube video is allowed and is a very common practice on WP. See also Template:YouTube. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 11:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- DepressedPer kindly have the decency to takes to correction, otherwise you will be outside, peeping through the window. it does not in any way establish the WP:Notability of the subject. Perhaps I will keep you on my watch since you had refused to takes to corrections. Wikicology (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Racerx11: thank you for your contributions.Am glad to inform you that I understand Wikipedia policies and guildlines. First of all I never objected the linking of Youtube to a notable music article, but I will totally object it when the aim of an editor or specifically the article creator is is to use it to establish notability which DepressedPer (talk · contribs) was trying to do. Sincerely the article fails WP:Notability (music) in its current state. The article had been tagged with maintainance tag pointing at adding references to reliable sources to establish its notability. But no attempt made by the creator to establish notability which is an indication that the music is not notable. This is not about its singer or the producer. A singer of a song may be notable but that does not means the music itself is notable.WP:Notability (music) clearly explain the criteria for notability. The song have not been ranked on National or significant music chart, it has not won significant awards or honors, it has not been performed independently by any notable musician or bands, which are the basic criteria for notability. perhaps I will consider it for WP:AFD. Wikicology (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- I was talking about this revert in which you included the edit summary: "Reverted addition of unreliable source: youtube."; and this "warning" issued to DepressedPer where you say: "Youtube, Facebook, Myspace, blogs, Badoo etc are unreliable sources. Kindly refrain from adding any of them to Wikipedia article." Sorry, but based on these two comments, I assumed you were blanketly opposed to adding YouTube links. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 12:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to it at all. My action was in sequel to the aim of the editor/page creator to use Youtube to establsh notability, having having nade no attempt to establish its notability. I expected him to use its time to add references to [[reliable source]
]S to the article rather than merely adding link to Youtube. How does it appears to you? Wikicology (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Some comments
Re: [1].
- I don't think that user's talk page is the right place for comments directed at a third party. My own talk page would have been a better place to voice your concerns.
- That user knew perfectly well what was meant with vandalizing. It wasn't the first time; check his contribution history. All his edits at Our Lady's High, Cumbernauld were plain old vandalism.
- Regarding my reply on my talk page that you found rude: I have no patience with people who lie to me. That other person was clearly lying, so I called his or her claim nonsense. Again, it might be difficult for you to see that since the image in question is long gone. (It was a plain copyvio; uploaded and detected at the Commons, the user then came to my talk page here only to lie about it.)
- Kindly have the decency to refrain from lecturing me. I have my reasons for using simple and blunt statements when somebody vandalizes. In my experience of ten years, that gets the point across better than a {{test1}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}} sequence, which then typically is followed by a block. I also don't see why I should have any patience with people who vandalize.
Lupo 06:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Lupo first of all, I don't think you even understand the meaning of third party despite your claim of years of experience. You were directly involved, soo you are not a third party. The appropiate place for my comment is were you left your unuseful comment. You are suppose to educate new users as to their edit behavior not to use foul languages and harsh words to scare them, they night have a better contributions to Wikipedia. If you want to warn a user, do it properly with the right wanning templates. Refusal to refrain from vadalism after several warning will lead to a block. It's my responsibility to educate you as anti-vandalist. It is Not only edit behaviour that constitute vandalism, been impatients with new users may also constitute vandalism. All experienced editors were once new editors. I need to keep you on my watch.Wikicology (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Molecular tools for gene study, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Primers. 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) 09:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of huge chunks of text from "Mauritius History"
Thanks for the prompt reply. I wish to bring to your attention that links were provided to the chunks of text that have been recently deleted. (Were the links unclear or ambiguous?) Furthermore, the deletions were "selective". One last thing: is there a limit to the number of words for a particular section? (I am referring here to the History section for Mauritius.)
JLindsayD (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- JLindsayD am not seing any link here. kindly provide a link to the seletive deletion here.Wikicology (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The link to the selective deletion is as follows :https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritius&diff=623595351&oldid=623429560 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLindsayD (talk • contribs) 13:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to sign. Here it is.
JLindsayD (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done @JLindsayD:.Wikicology (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! JLindsayD (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Rohit5673
Yeah i corrected my mistake. (Rohit5673 (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC))
Disambiguation link notification for September 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ipetumodu, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Yoruba and Igbo. 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) 09:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
14:44:25, 3 September 2014 review of submission by Hirefire
- Hirefire (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Jeffrey Harris (Economist, Physician) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Honestly, having read all of your linked guidelines, I am at a complete loss as to why this article is unacceptable. I cannot find any "peacock terms" in the text. I have cited numerous professional journal articles and numerous other independent, published sources. I don't see any violation of your guidelines on encyclopedic tone. (For example, there is no use of the first person.) I would much appreciate your providing specific, concrete examples as to where the text can be approved, so that I can respond to them one by one. Thank you.
Hirefire (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hirefire, First of all, the first few lines of the article was promotional and no independent third party reliable sources supported claims. The subject notability was not supported by significant reliable sources. Majority of the sources cited were primary sources which can not establish the subject notability. Journals are not reliable sources.Wikicology (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia link to "reliable sources" states: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Based upon that criterion, references #4 through #40 are all "reliable sources." Surely, you cannot mean that the U.S. Surgeon General's Reports (references #4, #5) have not been "vetted by the scholarly community." Surely, you cannot mean that the British Medical Journal (references #9 and #18), the American Economic Review (#12), the Journal of the American Statistical Association (#21 and #32), and the Journal of the American Medical Association (#20) aren't "reputable peer-reviewed sources." Surely, you cannot mean that the University of Chicago Press (#27 and #28) is not one of the "well-regarded academic presses."
I am certainly prepared to include additional third-party claims to support notability. (For example, the subject's reference #24 is cited by Wagstaff and Cuyler (J. Health Economics 2012; 31:406) as among the top articles in health economics in the last four decades.) To further support notability, I can also make more prominent the subject's receipt (as an American) of an honorary citizenship in the City of Salamanca, his recognition by the Fulbright board, his invited membership in multiple committees of the National Academy of Sciences, and his invited testimony before Congress.) Before doing so, I need more clarification as to what counts as a reliable source. Are you saying that all of the cited sources must be secondary sources that go solely to notability? A balanced, encyclopedic review of an individual's work cannot include primary sources published in some of the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed journals? Hirefire (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirefire (talk • contribs) 18:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hirefire I don't see what makes him more superior than an averege economist in every part of the world based on the sources you had provided. All economist have several articles in peer-review journal even more than the ones you had presented in the article. That has not makes them notable! All you need to establish his notability is secondary reliable sources Since you are prepared to add third party reliable sources, go ahead parhaps it will make a difference. Please always preview your comment before you save it and always remember to sign your comments. Wikicology (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Request on 15:39:37, 3 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Mariacarles
- Mariacarles (talk · contribs)
- User:Mariacarles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I dont know why was the article declined. Was it already published somewhere else? What did I miss? Thanks Maria Carles
Mariacarles (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mariacarles Draft:Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range submission was decline because it does not appeared encyclopedic. It was essay-like. I left a message on your talk page. It will guild you in written your first article.Wikicology (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Wikicology - Thank you for removing the vacation notice from my talk page. I appreciate you keeping an eye on it, but I will ask you to stop replying to messages left there by other editors, especially when it comes to deleted content, because although I'm sure it's not your intention, your replies seem to be a little hostile (e.g. "kindly have the decency...") and I'd rather not have these people become any more angry than they already are when they realize their articles have been deleted or their contributions reverted. Sometimes it takes a bit of effort to be diplomatic when someone is obviously in the wrong, and I used to have the same tendency to be angry at them, but that was before I realized that the effort is what sometimes makes a difference with people who run head on into our policies but just need a little guidance and good faith to become valued contributors. Of course if you ever see my pages getting vandalized I do hope you'll help! Cheers and keep up the good work. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you FreeRangeFrog. Your wish is my command.Wikicology (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for approving the article for creation Richard Alvin Jensen, I think I must have submitted it for approval, while also submitting it for creation as Richard A. Jensen. Could you review the latter? Koncurrentkat (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe I just need to merge these two pages together, because the latter is the completed article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koncurrentkat (talk • contribs) 06:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Wikicology (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Wikicology (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Koncurrentkat There is nothing to merge. in this case. Both article contain the same content about the same person. But Richard A. Jensen is prefered to Richard Alvin Jensen. All you need to to is to request the speedy deletion of Richard Alvin Jensen by blanking the page and place any of these template on it: { {db-Author} } , { {db-Self} }, { {Db-blanked} }. An administrator will delete it. Am ready to forgive you this time but I advice you to stay way from content forking. Am aware that you did it delibrately. Always have the patience to wait for your draft to be reviewed before recreating the same article through other route. Wikicology (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I removed the speedy tag you placed in this edit. I think he is allowed to write a bit about himself. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Anna Frodesiak you are very much welcome to do that. I will leave an helpful note on his talk page regarding disclosure of personal identity.Wikicology (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks. That's maybe a good plan. I usually don't, unless it's obviously a kid. But, WP:UPYES does exist for a reason. Best wishes. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
owais khursheed
thanks, i will take care of this thing in future --Owais khursheed (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
edit behaviour
ok i will take care of this thing in future. thanks for your comments --Owais khursheed (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
AFD non-admin closure
You should absolutely not have closed this deletion discussion. Non-admin closures should be reserved for non-controversial discussions or discussions where the consensus is beyond doubt. That is clearly not the case there. Admins are trusted by the community to weigh WP:CONSENSUS and make a determination as a tool-holder representing the broader community. And why not consider re-listing it? You have 3-and-a-bit months editing experience and your understanding of policy clearly doesn't extend to a working knowledge of WP:NAC or WP:AFD. Please don't non-admin-close things if you don't understand policy. St★lwart111 13:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- i hate to be rude! But don't come to my talk page to warn me if you don't have a polite tone. The discussion was closed because the consensus was obvious Keep. Its closure has nothing to do with my membership period. Your edit count and years of been here before me doesn't makes you more experience than everyone.Wikicology (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. St★lwart111 14:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have reverted your closure of the deletion discussion, as there was no clear consensus as demanded by WP:NAC. If you wish to partake in the discussion, please do so, but until you understand the guideline at WP:NACD I strongly recommend that you do no further closures. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: I just checked the AFD, and it was an overwhelming close to keep, which is what he did. It doesn't appear to be a bad close to me. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- KoshVorlon, it was a non-admin close of a complex discussion based on WP:OUTCOMES, WP:EVENT and WP:NOT with multiple potential close options and an obvious requirement to weigh consensus. That is, by its very definition, a bad close. This isn't WP:DRV - this isn't about the substance of the decision. The fact that it was closed at all is the issue. St★lwart111 10:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Stalwart111: I roundly disagree. The closer had to evaulate the consensus, which he did, correctly. The consensus IS keep (not just by vote, I realize AFD is not a vote) but by explanation of policies and guidelines. This was also not contentious. As that was the case, his NAC was fine. I noted you voted delete, so perhaps this is a case of not liking the closure... KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 18:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- His NAC was a breach of WP:NAC and WP:NACD. Pretty simple really. You're confusing my not liking the closure with my not liking the outcome. I would have called for it to be reverted (and have with other editors in the past) regardless of the outcome. I spend a significant amount of time at AFD, very rarely leave "per-nom" style contributions and still have a near-90% vote-matched result. Needless to say, I don't get hung up on the three or four in a hundred where my opinion is different to consensus. You're at around 32% in case you're interested. St★lwart111 21:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Stalwart111: I roundly disagree. The closer had to evaulate the consensus, which he did, correctly. The consensus IS keep (not just by vote, I realize AFD is not a vote) but by explanation of policies and guidelines. This was also not contentious. As that was the case, his NAC was fine. I noted you voted delete, so perhaps this is a case of not liking the closure... KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 18:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Microbial growth monitoring techniques
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 Microbial growth monitoring techniques requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://books.google.ca/books?id=mCHPARZQ0KsC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30#v=onepage&q&f=false. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
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. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Transcription activators in eukaryotes
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 Transcription activators in eukaryotes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.dvmbooks.net/uploads/2/2/3/6/22365786/molecular_biology_r._f._weaver_5th_ed.pdf. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
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. Ca2james (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have deleted this article. It was indeed copied word for word from the source. On the now deleted talk p., you wrote "Science related articles are different from other articles. They often follow the same principles. A cell is a cell in any source". They are not different from other articles, in the key respect that we do not copy the information from elsewhere, but rewrite it ourselves, in our own words, and our own arrangement of material. It is true that the information content will correspond to that found elsewhere, but that does not mean that the expression of the information will. (There is an exception in US law only for the sort of list that contains no distinctive expression and cannot possibly be written in different words--and outside the US this exception does not always hold). I'm trying to explain to you that you must not do this again, ever. Wikipedia is a source of free information, and its status depends upon scrupulous respect for the copyright of others. Any violations compromise our very existence. We take this so seriously that it is our invariable policy to block people who continue to add copyvio after a warning.
- I've commented on this atthe ongoing ANI discussion, and for clarity, I'm placing a formal warning notice. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- DGG the addition of such content is unintentional. Feel free to delete anyone you find before this warning. I knew where I got it wrong. I can assure you that it won't repeat itself. The ongoing discussion at ANI has open my eyes to a lot of things. And will surely affects my edit behaviour. All that happened wasn't intentional. You can keep your eyes on me, you will surely see a great improvement, I promised. Thanks.Wikicology (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC).
September 2014
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Royal Adelaide Golf Club
Hi there. I placed two copypaste tags on Royal Adelaide Golf Club as the article at present is pretty unambiguously copied from the subject's website. It does not appear as if you introduced the text to the article, but you do appear to be adding various references to the article that attribute such text to different sources. As you appear to be interested in cleaning up the article, could I possibly suggest taking care of the copy/paste problem? Let me know if you have any questions. N B S H (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- None but shining hours thank you for the tag and notice. I intend fixing it earlier but the extent of copyvio is much. I just detected it too. Feel free to tag it for deletion. Or do you have any other suggestion? Wikicology (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I went ahead and removed the majority of the text from the article due to the issues I noted above. In the future, if you come across an article that appears to be copied and pasted from another website, I would suggest either tagging it as such or taking care of the problem yourself. If you add citations to the text, it may give the wrong impression. N B S H (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Your report at ANI
People are expecting you to say something now at ANI. I hope you can limit yourself for a few months to doing "normal" editing here on Wikipedia. I think you'll need to come up with a proposal yourself how long this period will last. Perhaps you should also ask for a mentor to review your work after these few months before you can start doing other things on WP. Greetings, Takeaway (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Takeaway thank you for your comment at WP:ANI and the note you left here.I also appreciate your advices to improve my edit behavior. I had responded at ANI based on your advice . Am not happy with the way User:postdlf often gives wrong impression about me. I don't think that is the best way to correct wrongs to right. Imagine his comment you responded to at ANI. Accusing me of adding copyvio to Adelaide gulf club which I never did. Such comment is defamatory to my integrity at ANI as well as the community at large. Well, it is wikicology today, who knows who will be there tomorrow? Thank you my friend Takeaway. Please will you consider checking Child sexual abuse in Nigeria, an article I created today. I await your comment sir. Wikicology (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- People on wikipedia are just like people in reality: some people are gruff, others talk nicer, some people are in a hurry, others have more time. I think postdlf was in a hurry and has a gruff way of speaking. And because he was in a hurry, he didn't see that that particular copyvio was not yours and that is why he reacted towards you in that way. Now it has been proven that you didn't do that one instance of copyvio. If it had been your copyvio, I would have been very angry too. You are new here so you also need to get used to how things work, and how people sometimes react here on WP.
- One more piece of advice to you: don't use the phrase "I will forgive you this time" when you ask people to stick to WP rules and regulations. I understand that you don't mean it in a bad way but it sounds very condescending. Just ask them in a normal way to "please do this or that" and tell them why. They don't need your forgiveness, they just have to play things by the book. I had a look at your article already. It looks pretty good. Only a few spelling mistakes but that is fine. As I said at the ANI, it doesn't have to be perfect. WP articles are constantly updated and (hopefully) made better with each edit. Take care and good luck! - Takeaway (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- thanks.Wikicology (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please, stick to things that you have real expertise in. Automated language corrections don't work in many instances. - Takeaway (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Noted! thanks for your guidance Takeaway. Can you check Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps? I will appreciate your comment on it here sir.Wikicology (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please, stick to things that you have real expertise in. Automated language corrections don't work in many instances. - Takeaway (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- thanks.Wikicology (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I had a look at the article. To be blunt: it is a mess. I only got as far as finishing "history" and in it were references that didn't support the sentences. Also typos, wrong dates copied, extremely confusing sentences that don't make any sense. I just didn't feel like going through the multitude of references for the section "Statutory Duties" any more so I didn't change anything there. You can see how I went through each sentence in section "History" starting at this dif in my sandbox. Perhaps it would be a better idea for you to just give up editing here on the English Wikipedia. The section "History", which is only 8 sentences, is riddled with inconsistencies, useless references which only seem to be there to fluff up the sources without actually having any bearing whatsoever on the sentence that it is supposed to reference, capitalisations mistakes, confusing statements and unreferenced statements. I wish it were not so. I had hoped you would be a better editor. I am afraid that your command of English and your understanding of Wikipedia's ways are not sufficient for articles like these. If you still want to stay here on Wikipedia, you would have to limit yourself much more for the time being.
I have checked (part of) your article this one time. It is not what I am here for on Wikipedia. I am not a teacher and I have no ambition to be one. I also have no ambition to clean up after someone.
I will check your article again in exactly 24 hours. If it is still unsatisfactory, I will have to nominate it for deletion and I am afraid that I will then also have to bring this up on ANI. Please stop using so many useless references. One is enough for every statement in an article. You do not need this multitude of references just to look good. I am very sorry about this but I don't think that you are cut out to write articles. Perhaps you would be better suited to stick to the Nigerian Wikipedia, perhaps translating articles from the English Wikipedia into the Nigerian one. - Takeaway (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Takeaway thank you for your comments. I never called you a teacher either, I only asked for your suggestion and you gave one. I think that's fine.Wikicology (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Takeaway: there is no "Nigerian Wikipedia". The official language of the country Nigeria is English. So there isn't a Nigerian Wikipedia any more than there is an Australian Wikipedia or an American Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Demiurge how are you doin? Wikicology (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Takeaway, am very disappointed that you already took our discussion here to ANI with no patience for me to act on your advice. What is now the essence of the advice? This seemed like a bite to me. I had reduced it to a stub class and I will always improve it. If you're still not satisfy with it, feel free to take it to AfD.Wikicology (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I am very disappointed in you. Apparently, the 5 real references for the article on the NSCDC only supported 2 sentences to which you have now reduced the article. The 39 refs that you first had "in support" of the previous revision of the article were, as can be seen now, most of them only fluff to create a smokescreen and give the reader the sense of the article being well-sourced. If I had wanted to WP:BITE you, I could have used many other words for describing what you tried to do with the article in its previous incarnation but I didn't. What I did when I reported my findings on the ANI page is called being honest, something which is very important here on Wikipedia. Good luck with the ANI! - Takeaway (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Takeaway, am very disappointed that you already took our discussion here to ANI with no patience for me to act on your advice. What is now the essence of the advice? This seemed like a bite to me. I had reduced it to a stub class and I will always improve it. If you're still not satisfy with it, feel free to take it to AfD.Wikicology (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)