Contents
- 1 Adam9007, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
- 2 Your submission at Articles for creation: Sing (Sega Game Music) (May 3)
- 3 Reference errors on 3 June
- 4 June 2015
- 5 A recent edit
- 6 A brownie for you!
- 7 Marking pages
- 8 June 2015
- 9 help
- 10 New Page Patrol
- 11 KH
- 12 Congrats!
- 13 Entrevert
- 14 WikiProject Berkshire
- 15 User:Yunus-bek Yevkuryan
- 16 Mentorship
- 17 A cup of coffee for you!
- 18 The Battlefield
- 19 Lankadesigners.com
- 20 Anita Page
- 21 September 2015
- 22 Gameguide
- 23 comments
- 24 Close paraphrasing
Adam9007, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
Your submission at Articles for creation: Sing (Sega Game Music) (May 3)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sing (Sega Game Music) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
- You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Reference errors on 3 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Enduro Racer page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
June 2015
Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. CutOffTies (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Further to your tag on my talk page - thanks for that - I wasn't thinking about new pages being put up as 'works in progress'. I will definitely be more charitable in the future. GLG GLG (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
A recent edit
You added a speedy template here. I removed it. The user is simply trying to learn to add some text there. Please read WP:UPNOT. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
A brownie for you!
![]() |
I love pot brownies the taste and the feel. Baconfish69 (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC) |
I guess I just did it incorrectly. I want to create a page about this new app I think is cool (since one doesn't exist) but I have never created a page before. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btothemcg (talk • contribs) 16:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Marking pages
But most of these pages are very short and lacking in context, or they are nonsense, or something like that. I don't mean to bite the newcomers, but if that's what it's like, then I'll stop. But if I wait 10 minutes, then someone will likely have marked it before me. IllogicMink talk about it 00:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
June 2015
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
When editing an article on Wikipedia, there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
I noticed your recent edit to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible 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! Compassionate727 (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
help
i dont understand why my article acharya vinod kumar ji should be deleted ? like other celebrities m just trying to provide his life facts out here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noorwalia (talk • contribs) 01:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- There's still some advertising there. Not to mention no claim of significance. Adam9007 (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
New Page Patrol
Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. Only deletion tags leave a note for the author. When you tag an article please remember to use the message fearure we built-in to the Curation Toolbar. It will help encourage creators to address any issues. For example, did you notify the creator of Green Russians? Fot more information please see WP:NPP. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
KH
Thanks for pointing out that the KH image is 99% likely a hoax, as it was used only in a hoax article. I've filed for its deletion from Commons (and done likewise for a 'related' image from the same uploader). DS (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Also, you said: "that article was reposted yesterday (on a similar-looking account) and deleted G4, but not before it was prodded for pretty much the same reasons." - I can't find where this article was? Tell me its exact name and I'll see what I can do about the person who submitted it. DS (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Congrats!
![]() |
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | |
For correctly deducing that the ASSISI EMHSS article was a copyright violation, and for following up on that concern, you are hereby awarded this Copyright Cleanup Barnstar! Despite the fact that you were unable to find the source of the material, you've developed a good sense for when something doesn't sit right in article, and that veteran-level instinct will be a worthy companion for as you and the project as a whole for as long as you remain a Wikipedian. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC) |
Entrevert
Thank you for reminding me regarding Speedy criterion - I may have acted out of emotion due to being annoyed with the idea of having a word such as "Entrevert" trademarked! Happy editing Samuel Tarling (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Samtar: This didn't occur to me earlier, but does CSD A11 apply, as it's not a real word and is owned by the author? Adam9007 (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject Berkshire
User:Yunus-bek Yevkuryan
In case you hadn't noticed all those pages say the same thing, I sincerely doubt they're legitimate attempts at an article. C628 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- @C628:Yes, I know. I've given up tagging them all because it will take ages. Adam9007 (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Mentorship
I need mentoring i have skitzoaffective disorder. --Softstarrs23 (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
![]() |
I've seen you trolling the New Pages feed lately. To continue, you're going to need a lot of these. Westroopnerd (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC) |
Hey, sorry about the article it's important for the scavenger hunt. Cyberateed (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The Battlefield
Hi, Adam90. I wanted to let you know I removed the "possible copyright tag" from the article and replaced with a CSD with the source of the text. Thanks... reddogsix (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Seems to be an even closer match than I or the CorenSearchBot found! Thanks! Adam9007 (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Lankadesigners.com
You are missing the point - award winning means nothing if there're no sources to back it up. A website design company in and of itself is not notable. --Cahk (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Cahk You're missing the point of A7. It's not about notability or sources; it's about the claim of significance itself, and I think there is one. Adam9007 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- @Adam9007: My message to you was based on your edit summary ("award-winning isn't significant?"). A7 states "An article about a ... web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Further "....is a lower standard than notability." Just because someone said they are award-winning, it does not immune the article from A7. As an editor with significantly far more experience in CSD tagging than you do, I think you should read the policies more carefully next time.--Cahk (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Cahk: Upon reading this, it looks to me like saying award-winning does make it immune to A7. It is plausible, and it may (though not necessarily will) lead to notability (of course, what the award(s) was/were and why it was awarded matters, but there is still the possibility). However, that is my interpretation, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Also, please don't assume that just because I'm relatively new here, I have no idea what I'm talking about. Adam9007 (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Adam9007: My message to you was based on your edit summary ("award-winning isn't significant?"). A7 states "An article about a ... web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Further "....is a lower standard than notability." Just because someone said they are award-winning, it does not immune the article from A7. As an editor with significantly far more experience in CSD tagging than you do, I think you should read the policies more carefully next time.--Cahk (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Anita Page
Adam9007 You just notified me that the edits I made to Anita's Early Life were deleted. Please clarify. If you disagree with any of it please let me know. I hope I didn't insult you because that was not my intent. Being Anita's niece, I do have information not necessarily known by the public. I have in my possession family photos, letters, and Muñoz letterhead. I have done research on my ancestors, have located the consul information through US government documents, I have immigration documents, ships manifests, newspaper articles, the book History of Lower Manhattan, and the book Fatal Glory, Narciso Lopez. If you prefer I present the information in another way, please let me know. I stand behind what I said, and would appreciate my information not being summarily dismissed. I think it is right to get the correct information to the public. Many sites repeat the errors, eventually making them appear to be facts. I don't think including correct information can be labeled -not constructive. Envoyxuv Envoyxuv (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Envoyxuv:The content you added wasn't encyclopaedic in any way. Its tone wasn't appropriate, there was original research, and none of it was sourced. I don't think any of it belongs in an encyclopaedia anyway. Also, as you're her niece, you may have a conflict of interest. You may want to discuss this on the article's talk page, as I'm relatively new here and someone more experienced should be able to answer any questions about this. Adam9007 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Apparently you prefer inaccuries. You may not agree with everything I said since it can be construed as solely my opinion; I have no problem with deleting those items. But I am surprised that an encyclopedia is not interested in facts. You can research the consul facts of both of Anita's grandfathers, their ancestry, and their citizenship. This information is in the public domain. I think it a disservice to the public to continue disseminating false information. I am extremely disappointed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Envoyxuv (talk • contribs) 01:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Envoyxuv: Not everything belongs in an encyclopaedia. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Oh, and I misinterpreted your edits as vandalism. As you've come to me with these concerns, I see now it wasn't. The way it was written and especially the last bit was what made me think vandal, so my apologies for that. However, that's a moot point; just because it wasn't vandalism (or even if it's true) doesn't mean it was suitable, and they would have been reverted anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
September 2015
Hello, I'm JustBerry.I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Ex on the Beach because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JustBerry (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- @JustBerry:I think you made a mistake due to bad timing. I beat you to the vandalism, so you reverted it and brought it back! Adam9007 (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- Yes, yes, yes. Please see User_talk:DavidLeighEllis#Double_Revert. Let me ping DavidLeighEllis into the conversation, so we're all on the same page here. --JustBerry (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- To clarify, I was going to revert my own revert, but DavidLeighEllis beat me to it!
--JustBerry (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Resolved, no discrepancy or issue present.
Gameguide
Hey Adam, thanks for your gameguide tags. I'm not sure how you're coming across them, but is there anything holding you back from addressing them yourself? It's sometimes easier to delete the offending section than to tag the article. Either way, thanks for your contributions and welcome to WP:VG. czar 23:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Czar:Depends on the complexity of the case. There was a simple one in Thunder Force III I removed myself, but others had larger amounts of it and I'm relatively inexperienced in making such big changes to articles. Adam9007 (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
comments
Close paraphrasing
Hey Adam. You tagged Continuous Cover Forestry with a close paraphrasing tag. When placing this type of tag it's really good to provide the detail somewhere of what source(s) you are referring to, so this can be followed-up (such as on the article's talk page). In any event, here, a user has posted at the Teahouse, in this section a question related to this tagging. Can you respond? Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Fuhghettaboutit: Sorry about that; for some reason, Twinkle doesn't enable me to specify the source when applying that tag. I know I could have added them manually, but I wasn't sure what the correct way to specify multiple sources is. I've just done it as best as I can. Adam9007 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Adam9007, the simplest method is to create a new section on the article talk page, perhaps with a section name such as "paraphrasing" and write a short note about what you found, along with a list, probably a bulleted list, of the sources that are being improperly paraphrased. An indication of what section(s) or areas of the article include the paraphrased content would also be helpful. DES (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)