User talk:Sunshine1191
Welcome
[edit]
|
Comments at AFD
[edit]Hi, have noticed your comments at AFD are overly aggressive and you also are wrongly describing newspaper articles as database entries. A database is like IMDb or Discogs, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@Atlantic306: Hey...I get it. This one is a simple case of misinterpretation and I'll clear it up. In all my Del !votes I have used the words Database entries not Entries in Databases. Both phrases, though homonymous, have a significant difference between them which depends on context. In this case, what I meant by Database entries in newspaper articles is that they are Basic entries about the films like the genre, cast and crew (log-book entries). There is no in-depth coverage about anything be it production, casting, release and most importantly no reliable reviews. I don't know if you have read the Star review for Ais Kosong, but if you have then you must have noticed that nearly 70% of the "review" speaks about the difficulties in producing Malaysian-Tamil films in general due to the lack of budget and competition from Indian-Tamil films. The movie itself is hardly covered. And that's the case for almost all the listed reviews. Either that or they are from YouTube by individual fans of the films. It's just not enough to establish notability. Entries in Databases are as you stated IMDb or Discogs.
Secondly, I am well aware of the tone that needs to be used while communicating with other editors. Exactly why I politely stated that "I understand the creator's sentiments in trying to keep the article" at the Afd for Puthiya Payanam. So if I have employed a slightly harsher...not aggresive, HARSHER tone while replying to editor KesunyianAyam, there are reasons behind it. The first thing that ticked me off was the constant insinuation that the nom and all other !voters were being foolish and haphazard for considering the notability of the films with statements like "what is the need to say that the film has no notability currently". Notability is one of the foundations of Wikipedia and as an editor one should know that. Everywhere on Wiki, be it while creating an article or in the guidelines for nominating and voting for Afd's, the thousands of words put together in guidelines basically scream one thing...CHECK FOR NOTABILITY. I completely understand that said user started actively editing only about 10 days ago and one should be welcoming towards new editor. But I myself was a newbie not very long ago and I sure as hell didn't go around making statements like why consider notability and I'm sure that you didn't too. And the first time I voted at an Afd I had the courtesy to read through all the guidelines first. It didn't take me more than a few seconds to realise that notability is key. Being new is a valid excuse for a lot of stuff, but not ignorance. Also, I do have another reason for being slightly cold to said user but I don't want to dwell on that until I have more substantial data at hand. But I do apologise if you felt snubbed in any manner. Regards, Sunshine1191 (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ya, myself as a user, feels also slightly attacked by your comments with '!' and harsher tone. Try to use more neutral tone next time. No need to be mad or frustated about small matters, you are a voter, not the contributor who is in harder situations and should be more devasted. No offense. I am replying in neutral tone. Cheers, User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM) 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- @LoveFromBJM: My use of the exclamation (!) was a counter to your attempt at swaying votes your way by using the words COMPLETE OVERHAUL. When the issue of discussion at the Afd is notability and reviews and you label a few format changes and rewriting of the lede as a COMPLETE OVERHAUL it really doesn't help with explaining your points with the other editors involved as the tone of falsification has already been set. Secondly, the use of an exclamation mark to emphasise one's point doesn't even come close to counting as an attack, else all notable writers right from Shakespeare to Dan Brown would have been convicted felons. You chose to use big-bold letters to emphasise your point, I did the same using (!)... nothing wrong with it ethically or semantically. And if we are going to nitpick on each other's short comings how about we speak about the fact that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satte (film) you stated that you had Added 2 Youtube independent Youtube reviews. but in reality they both are the exact same review by Almighty TV, just titled differently. Look...in a very neutral tone I would like to state just one final thing. Yes I may not have had any articles of my creation put up for deletion on Wikipedia but in real-life there have been many occasions where things I created have been lost or outcomes haven't always gone my way, so I understand exactly how it feels. However, hiding the complete truth or forging evidence in order to sway votes to Keep is NOT DONE, and that is what I have a problem with. Sunshine1191 (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have never been a voter on Wiki, so I don't know the process of it, so I use bold letters to try to make other users noted on my changes. I AM NOT TRYING to hide truths, because I have been trying to improve on 20 Wiki articles being deleted, sometimes after adding sources, I just straight away add what I have added. Sometimes I will describe 'wrongly'. And my complete overhaul is that I really change the wordings, the headings, add whatever sources, add synopsis, styling and formatting, it really has a significant difference. I am not hiding anything or forging evidence, just struggling to keep it all together. Try to not make it too hostile. I hope u understand. :) LoveFromBJM 2 October 2020
- @LoveFromBJM: Like I stated above I completely understand your situation having experienced the same on many an occasion. Nevertheless I do have to point out that stating one's opinions strongly when a discussion isn't going according to procedure is not called being "hostile" but is called Standing one's ground. Hostile would have been if I had called you a big liar in the active Afd discussion or hurled abuses at you or caused unwarranted discrepancies to your other edits, none of which I have done. What I did was just state my unreserved opinions out loud without a coat of sugar. My aim in joining Wikipedia was to make this encyclopedia more reliable and if that process involves having to employ a stiffer demeanor every now and then as the situation warrants, that is a path I am willing to take. Anyways none of this matters now. I seriously doubt that you and I will ever cross paths again on this platform. So how about we just leave it at that and I sincerely wish you Happy Editing for the future. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, thank you for your wishes LoveFromBJM 3 October 2020
PROD
[edit]Hey...can u do me a wee little favour. I PRODed the article List of programs broadcast by TV Asia but was a server error and I got logged out and the PROD didn't register correctly. I removed my older PROD and added a new one explaining that the previous one was a technical error but I don't think that it's gonna pass cus of the relisting. So can you remove the PROD from the article which will allow me to list it at the Afd's? TheRedDomitor (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Apoligies and Thanks. :)
[edit]Thanks for your effort on making Wikipedia a better place :) I appreciate your efforts on notability and for me, it teaches me a lot and I'm sorry for any incovinience for being a newbie. May god bless you. Thanks with regards. -- Fellow editor and newbie, KesunyianAyam (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- @KesunyianAyam: Hey...its not a problem at all. God knows i've made many mistakes too. The important thing is that we accept our mistakes and learn from them. Your effort in acknowledging your error and apologizing to me for it itself shows strength of character and willingness, which is exactly what is required in order to become a constructive editor on Wiki. Don't let being a newcomer stop you from making edits you think are accurate and verifiable and Wikipedia has plenty of well articulated guidelines to help you if you're ever unsure about any content policies in the future. Sincerely wish you Happy Editing. Cheers!! Sunshine1191 (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Sukh Mhanje Nakki Kay Asta (November 3)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sukh Mhanje Nakki Kay Asta and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sukh Mhanje Nakki Kay Asta, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Sunshine1191!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Snowycats (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Sukh Mhanje Nakki Kay Asta has been accepted
[edit]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Noobie anonymous (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Star World 2000.png
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Star World 2000.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Star World 2004.png
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Star World 2004.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:ZeeCafeIndia.png
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:ZeeCafeIndia.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
