User talk:Anupmehra/Archive3

Archive3

All Pages:

... (up to 100)

TOC:   ↓ Go to bottom ↓     ↑ Go to top ↑

question about AfC refs

Hello Anup, you can call me 74. Thanks for looking at the Duromac article; it's not actually mine, but I've been helping Clover1991 work on it, and they were having trouble figuring out how to resubmit it, so I ended up doing it for them. Lots of buttons can be confusing!    :-)

"Article requires significant coverage in WP:RS. See, WP:RSE." — AnupMehra ✈ 12:03, 5 Jan
(plus the usual template-boilerplate at the top: "evidence [of] the subject's notability")

They are a municipal contractor, and in the last few years, have also now become a military contractor (which is where most of the recent coverage stems from: political connections with high-ranking figures). Your comment suggested that I checkWP:RSE which is a pretty long essay, mostly about not using blogs and such. We weren't doing that, though; most of our sources are national or regional newspapers, from the country. Can you be more specific about which sources you think justify WP:N, and which justify WP:NOTEWORTHY, and which are not much good? Here is our list at present, in a nice table.

ref-num	achieves what?	year	ref-type	why important?
[AboutSelf] == id#1	data-point	1996	homepage	17 years total
== id#4	WP:NOTEWORTHY	2003	bizmag	co-founded Malaysian branch of India auto-parts corp
== id#5,6,7 and == id#2	WP:N	2008	newspaper * 2	new HQ building + opening ceremony personally officiated (w/ photo-op & speech & press-conf) by Malaysian nat'l Minister Of Public Works
==id#8	WP:NOTEWORTHY	2011	newspaper	first female-heavy-equip-driver in the region
== id#9	WP:N	2012	govtpub	military contract w/ award personally delivered by RMAF Brig.General w/ photo-op
== id#10 and == id#11	WP:N	2013	newspaper + newsmag	military contract + membership in new industrial tech-park w/ award personally given by nat'l Minister Of Defence

bibliography of main sources, with lettering

The keys to WP:N are 2008[b], 2012[g], and 2013[h]+[i] ... in word-count these are small, only a paragraph or two each. But in the real-world events these sources document (powerful politicians && brand new buildings && so on) methinks they tell a story worthy of wikiNotability. The decade of supporting sources 2003-thru-2013 [a]/[e]/[f]/etc (plus "[j]" in the main article as id#12) help to shore up my impression of the three key sources. Can you tell me your assessment of the the lettered sources, and how close the article is to achieving wikiNotability, on second glance? Thanks for your time, and thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@74.192.84.101: Hello, 74. I read first two lines and got that you are concerned aboutan article not accepted to move to the main article space. It actually doesn't matter who has initially written this article. You all people are donating wisdom to the globe. Thanks for that. I'll scrutinize the article and sources again to double check if I've been done a mistake earlier. It is just a notification to let you know that I'm reviewing it again. I'll be back to here or on your talk page with more details as soon as I finish doing it. AnupMehra ^✈ 19:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Anup, appreciate it. You can reply to me here if you like. 74.192.84.101(talk) 19:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@74.192.84.101: Thanks for the patience. Here is summery of my analysis.

• The first first reliable source^{numbered second in the article} cited in the very first line of the article, is mis-leading. It doesn't actually even mention the word, 'DUROMAC'. I am not sure why it is even cited.

• The second reliable source^{4th in the article} is all about an Indian company ROOT industries Ltd. and his plan to set up a branch in Malaysia. It mentions, DUROMAC as a local partner, in association of which ROOTS expects to establish a world class unit, in a paragraph. Eventually even it could not be counted in favor of DORUMAC but it can helps establishing notability of ROOT industries, otherwise. WP:NCORP says, An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject ofsignificant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

• The third reliable source^{5th in the article} mentions the opening of a new branch of the company DUROMAC at Bandar Kinrara, Puchong by then Work Minister of Malaysia. And later it says, Duromac is involved in supplying road sweepers for highways and main roads located in major towns in the country. It does help a little.

• The fourth^{6th in the article}, fifth^{7th in the article}, and the sixth^{2nd in the article} reliable sources, are all about what what the Work Minister spoke afterwards opening of DUROMAC and announcement of the South Klang Valley Expressway project. His speech doesn't include a single word related to DORUMAC. Again reliable sources seem to be mis-leading. It doesn't mention the subject, hence fails to make contribution in order to establish notability.

• The seventh^{8th in the article} reliable source, is about a hard working granny Susan Mat Saad aged 50, recieving an award from Director General of DORUMAC, Arul Das. I'm sorry but even it doesn't help. It doesn't mention the DUROMAC in particular. WP:NCORP says,significant coverage in the reliable sources. It is all about, Susan Mat Saad. I'll be happy if an article would be written about this hard working granny. I'm impressed by her.

• It is said that, In January 2012, DUROMAC was awarded an equipment-maintenance contract related to military runway-sweepers by the RMAF. But the sources cited, eighth^{9th in the article} reliable source doesn't even mention DORUMAC. And ninth^{10th in the article} reliable source, doesn't mention any award. It mentions Duromac but in an another context and only once. Can you imagine, how mis-leading it is?

• The tenth^{10th in the article} and eleventh^{11th in the article} reliable source is all about an agreement signed by Defense Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi for the Malaysian Defence and Security Technology Park. And it does mention Dorumac only once as, The MoAs were signed with Artimal De System Sdn Bhd, Duromac (M) Sdn Bhd,.... and MDSTP also signed deals with CSF Advisers Sdn Bhd (buidling a data centre); Duromac (M) Sdn Bhd (maintenance of 8x6 and 8x8 trucks)..... respectively. It is about an agreement not Duromac and mentions Duromac only once. I'm not sure, How it would be helping to establish notability of Duromac.

• I even, if count the last twelfth^{12th in the article} reliable source cited in the See also section. It again doesn't mention 'DUROMAC' even once.

So, here is the result. I'll be happy listening to you. How these sources are in compliance with WP:NCORP. Please update sources and re-submit. That's all I could suggest to you and Clover and all person contributing to the article. Feel free to ask me more questions. Thanks, AnupMehra ^✈ 20:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, impressive, thanks for your detailed reply! Also, for your willingness to listen, I do appreciate it greatly. Some of your points are correct, but others I believe are incorrect. id#2 is in Malayan (not English), but it does mention Duromac multiple times... or at least, in my web browser, it does. Maybe you are using a tablet computer, or an Apple computer, and the webserver is giving you a different page? do you not see "...Samy Vellu merasmikan premis baru kilang Duromac yang sudah beroperasi 12 tahun dan merupakan syarikat..." when you visit the URL?

  id#4, as you point out, is mostly about ROOT, and only mentions Duromac in passing; that is what I like to callWP:NOTEWORTHY. It is a *supporting* source. In order to deserve a dedicated article, Duromac needs to have multiple in-depth WP:RS, right? And obviously, passing mention is not good enough (not "significant" coverage aka in-depth coverage). But that doesn't make id#4 worthless, it is a perfectly fine supporting-source. We need to have two or three or four in-depthsources, before the article is created, but if those exist, then id#4 is useful to write a reliably-sourced sentence: "In 2003 Duromac co-founded the Malaysian branch of Roots Industries." Make sense? That is why, in my table, I marked some sources as WP:N, and others as WP:NOTEWORTHY (such as id#4 in the table).

the argument for why id#5, supported by id#6 + id#7, and also complemented by id#2 coverage, adds up to in-depth coverage of one Duromac-specific 2008 event

The reason that I grouped #5 together with #6 and #7 and #2, is that they are all about that same event. #5 is the best one, as you noticed, so let us start with it. The article has eleven sentences plus a photo, so twelve news-items total. The first four sentences are about the new highway; this is only indirectly related to Duromac (because one of their customers is in charge of keeping that new road clean perhaps ... two hops). Sentence five is about Duromac's new building. Photo 'six' is duromac people & equipment, surrounding the famous polician. Caption-sentence 'seven' says duromac three times, and gives names of two executives, and one product. Sentence eight says Duromac supplies road-sweepers for highways (like the SKVEfrom the first four sentences). Sentence nine is about the SKVE again, the thing Duromac cleans. Sentence ten says Duromac's equipment is helpful, and cleaner than manual sweeping. Sentence eleven says Duromac's help making the highways clean is a "major factor" for Tourism in Malaysia. Sentence twelve hammers home how important using Duromac equipment to keep the streets clean is: the number of repeat tourists directly depends on it. The end. Duromac is in sentences #5/#7/#8 plus the photo#6 by name, which is four total, aka 25% of the article. Sentence #10/#11/#12 do not specifically say the word Duromac... but they are clearly talking *about* the job Duromac does, and the business they are in, which is why the sentences are in the article (and why the press-conf was *at* Duromac HQ as well). The other sentences #9/#1/#2/#3/#4 are about the SKVE highway, which one of Duromac's customers will likely be in charge of cleaning, using Duromac equipment. So by my counting, somewhere between 35% and 60% of the article is directly about Duromac, and the whole article is about the road-sweeping and road-building industries, plus the government-and-corporate politics of the Public Works Ministry.   Because over a billion in RM-currency-units was involved, and an election was coming up, there were three other articles on different aspects of that same event. A few days before id#5 was published in TheStar newspaper, WP:NOTEWORTHYmention in id#6 happened: "...after opening Duromac (M) Sdn Bhd’s new premises ((in Kuala Lumpur))." All the rest of id#6 is about politics. Why do they mention Duromac at all? Because, Duromac just opened a branch in Kuala Lumpur, the political capitol. Because, Duromac's customers include many municipal governments. Because, Duromac has friends in high political places... like the Minister Of Public Works... who *could* have held his press-conf at his office, but *decided* to have it at the Duromac HQ ribbon-cutting-ceremony. This choice by the Works Minister was not misssed by the political reporter, so they published the factoid, making it WP:NOTEWORTHY that Samy was talking politics at Duromac HQ.   id#7 is from the 'mobile' version of TheStar, and was from the day before, in the Malaysian tongue. It makes a brief mention of Duromac (no photo), but is mostly about the SKVE. Why? Because, this was hot off the presses, and needed to be sent to the smartphones of high-powered movers and shakers in Malaysia. Later, we get id#5, which is an expansion of the hot-off-the-presses mobile content TheStar sent out on the 4th. What was the point of the later article, with the photo, and the deeper coverage of Duromac, and the quotes about tourism? Good question! But methinks that part of the answer is, TheStar wanted to expound on the deeper political significance of all this. First a quick report on the SKVE in id#7, then a quick political-news in id#6, and finally the in-depth coverage of id#5. Duromac is in every one, and gets roughly half of the big one.   Finally, the icing on the cake is id#2, the article in Bernama; another competing publisher, also wanted to say something about the Works Minister, and about Duromac. They wrote in Malaysian,[1] but you can use this translation into English.[2] Highway, highway, Duromac, highway, politicians, politicians, politicians, politicians, politicians, Duromac, are the topic of the sentences. Duromac gets about 15% of the Bernama story in id#2, politics gets 50%, and the SKVE gets 35%. Bermana has a new factoid, however, emphasizing that Duromac has been a municipal contractor for a dozen years.   By itself, it does not seem like id#5 is enough to achieve WP:N, right? It has the photo. Duromac is in several sentences, and government funding for Duromac is directly justified in several more (then indirectly discussed in the rest). But besides id#5, we also see Duromac getting 15% of the ink in a competitive newspaper, plus WP:NOTEWORTHY mention in a politics-article and a highway-article by the original newspaper. To me, this all adds together into the following conclusion: that day when the Works Minister personally officiated at the new Duromac HQ, generated four news-stories, including one reasonably-in-depth story covering Duromac's role as a government-contractor. Therefore, I'd count the sum of the four sources as our first WP:N.   Actually... you also said that id#6 and id#7 did not include a single word about Duromac... but I notice, that you are spelling it "Dorumac" sometimes, which is not correct. Are you maybe searching for Dorumac, and finding nothing? You should try Duromac, it is in the articles, I just checked.  :-)   Anyways, does this argument make sense to you? id#4 is WP:NOTEWORTHY. id#5 is borderlying-WP:N because Duromac gets explicit mention in 25% of the source, and directly-implicit mention in another 25%-or-so (and they get a photo-op with the powerful politician). The three other articles, by the same publisher on two earlier days, and by a different published which combined all three stories and ended up giving Duromac only 15% of their ink... *together* those four sources seem to indicate the event was WP:N.

Since this is already pretty huge, I'll stop now, and see if we have reached WP:CONSENSUS on the first three lines (1996/2003/2008) of my table. Appreciate you taking the time to work with me here, I'd never heard of WP:RSE before, and maybe before this is over, I'll have taught you some new tricks, as well. Reply when you have some spare time, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@74.192.84.101: Hello again, Coming to the point one by one.. Here is the2nd reliable source you're talking about, that it does mentionDuromac multiple times. Actually, exactly twice and I was mistaken earlier. By the way, it doesn't support the line it is cited for. That is, DUROMAC(M)SDN BHD is a Malaysian incorporated company, founded in 1996. So it is mis-leading. Yeah you got that, I wish to see significant coverage of Duromac in the reliable sources as per WP:NCORP. And #4 doesn't fulfill that. And there I object when you keep quoting WP:N, I guess WP:NCORP would be more specific and close. About#5, Perhaps I had opine earlier, It does help, help actually a little in order to establish notability. I didn't said, it is negligible. And#6 says, 'Dash dash dash...' was said by a minister after opening of a new branch of Duromac. Only once duromac was quoted and not in praise or about, but as a reference. He said 'dash dash dash' after opening a new branch of Duromac. It doesn't help anyway. It only verifies that a new branch of duromac was opened by that minister nothing else. It is not about duromac. And#7, it is again all about what a minister said^{not about duromac} after opening of a branch of duromac. A new branch of, lets say ABCD was opened by a Minister. How does it help establish notability of ABCD as per WP:NCORP.

I'm making it short, All sources you are quoting and claiming to establish notability of duromac is all about opening a new branch of it by a then work minister of Malaysia. They could be WP:NOTEWORTHY. But no one shows significant coverage of the duromac. Hence fails to establish notability. And who cares if it is pretty huge, we've got a lot of space to talk about. I would invite you again to present your claim to establish notability of duromac using currently available sources as per WP:NCORP. And a trick? I'm really curious to know about. It is GMT +05:30 here, and I'm kind of an insomniac. AnupMehra ^✈ 09:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The use of id#2 as support for "founded in 1996" is correct, and not mis-leading... as long as you grok the lingo... the key quote is "...Samy Vellu merasmikan premis baru kilang Duromac yang sudah beroperasi 12 tahun dan merupakan syarikat..." which means twelve years. Since the source was published in 2008, we can count backwards a dozen years to 1996, seeWP:CALC.

  As for the rest of your arguments, my position is simple. 45% of id#5 is specifically *about* Duromac, including the photo, and therefore I see id#5 as being one independent in-depth Reliable Source useful for proving WP:N. There is also need for *additional* significant coverage in additional sources (WP:N requires multiple sources), such as id#9 and id#10/id#11. But if in your opinion 45% of id#5 ... plus the supporting evidence provided by 5% of id#6 + 5% of id#7 + finally 15% of id#2 by a separate publisher... if all those do not add up to one good solid WP:RS for you, then there is no point in continuing*this* particular topic of discussion.

  By my reading of WP:NCORP, the requirements are satisfied. WP:ORGIN says that wikiNotable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." There are plenty of sources that noticed the HQ opening in 2008 (due to the famous politician purposely choosing to do the hob-nobbing at the ceremony && the photo-op with managers plus equipment && the press-conf speech on the need for clean roadways and efficient roadway-sweeping-machinery to serve the tourism-industry aka 3rd biggest component of the national GDP). There are plenty of sources that noticed the military contracts in 2013, and the earlier one in 2012. Next, we have WP:CORPDEPTH, which uses a bunch of keywords.

the subject	Duromac, mentioned by name	Done
of significant coverage	this is the fuzzy word we are disagreeing about	hmmmm...
in secondary sources.	newspapers/magazines/govtpubs/etc	Done
that are reliable,	professionally-editorially-fact-checked	Done
independent of the subject,	not owned by nor affiliated w/ Duromac	Done
and multiple in count.	not just one WP:RS but multiple	Done

The way I interpret the word, if we have an article that is 1000 words long, and 500 words are about Duromac, then *half* the article was about Duromac, so the source in question therefore counts as "significant". Other people want topics to be many *pages* long, or insist that the topic be named in the title, or insist that only *certain* kinds of publications are valid, or similar thing. However, that is not what the WP:NCORP guideline actually says. The word 'significant' is purposely left fuzzy because it is a judgment call, on the part of the wikipedians that do the analysis. *Is* the coverage of the 2008 creation of a new Duromac building "significant" enough to justify encyclopedic wikiNotability, on the basis of the 45% covering in id#5 plus also 15% coverage in id#2 and a few extra bits in the other two sources? Anup says, probably not. And actually, I totally agree. This is not shocking: new buildings are built all the time, there is nothing special about them, or encyclopedic, the occurrence is too trivial. Wikipedia does not need an article every time a new building is built, or every new home would get into wikipedia thataway!

  However, what if we ask the question differently, from the beginning? *Is* the coverage of the 2008 political hob-nobbing of the municipal contractor Duromac, with the powerful political figure holding the purse-strings of the Malaysian highway industry in the palm of their hand, "significant" enough to justify encyclopedic wikiNotability? My answer thisthis question, is, yes... just barely. If we only had id#6 then my answer would be no. If we only had id#2 then my answer would be no. If we only had id#5 then my answer would be... probably no. But when newspaper#1 covers the story briefly in id#6, giving Duromac 5% of the ink, and then a couple days later newspaper#2 covers the story in more depth in id#2, giving Duromac 15% of the ink, and then finally newspaper#1 publishes an expanded-follow-up-story the following week, giving Duromac 45% of the ink plus a big photo smack dab in the middle of the page, the smiling Duromac executive and the smiling Duromac former-military-guy, standing on either side of the famous politician, while the politician poses on the product that Duromac sells... *then* I start to sense wikiNotability in the air.  :-)   Especially if more lucrative id#9 contracts and more press-coverage id#10 + id#11 of award-ceremonies and new real-estate follows, a few years later.

  Anyhoo, it is definitely borderline case. It would certainly help if Duromac had a lot more articles, with their name in lights. But the street-cleaning-equipment-business of 2008 is pretty boring (and even members of the Malaysianmilitary-industrial complex tend to keep quiet about their efforts). This is very much unlike startups such as Sapience and their fancy software, and certainly *very* unlike the celebrity movie-stars of Hollywood and Bollywood, where heavy press coverage is almost guaranteed. As for Duromac, sleep on it tonight, and then come back later, and see if you start to sniff any wikiNotability in the sources. It all started (in terms of WP:RS) back in 2008, with the picture of the powerful Malaysian minister flanked by the former-general-now-Duromac-executive and the managing-Duromac-director. Four years later, instead of *hiring* retired generals onto the management-team, Duromac was getting active generals personally knocking on their door, offering contracts on the military airfields, and for the creation of a new tech-park with Duromac *second* in the list of funding-recipients.

  WP:CORPDEPTH says: the depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited. The public sources are not large in word-counts, but we have multiple independent ones giving *some* depth, and thinking logically of the implications, in aggregate they seem pretty "significant" to my ears. If not to your ears, no problemo, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to evaluate the case seriously. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@74.192.84.101: Owh! Man, I'm going to be agree with your one of the many earlier opinions, that it is going pretty huge. I'll summarize my opinion here, None of the reliable, independent, sources deal with Duromac in particular. It is initially written about some other subject and duromac comes into it, as a reference. Yeah there when you say, hmmm when it comes to the significant coverage of duromac. It seems that you know well WP:NCORP and admit the lack of significant coverage but still chooses to argue, I'm not sure what for. Nothing serious. We might have some conflict of interestshere as even after going through all your arguments, I'll not consider it eligible to move to main article space through Afc till significant coverage is not shown. I'll therefore request you to raise your question at Articles for creation help desk or try live help chat with more experienced editors. Thanks, 74. I enjoyed talking with you.AnupMehra ^✈ 16:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about the wall-of-text! The argument is a bit subtle, so requires more words. I do agree, that none of the refs have Duromac in the title (except id#9). Therefore, it is a borderline-case, a grey area; there is no obvious significant coverage, but my argument is that, in a nutshell, there is non-obvious-at-first, but significant upon analysis, coverage of the topic. It is fine that you disagree, you need not change your original opinion, that is cool. As for WP:COI, there is none for me... Clover is another matter, see the top of their userpage if you are curious... but I myself just am interested inWP:RETENTION, and want to help improve the AfC process as part of that goal. Appreciate your time invested, thanks much, a pleasure getting to know you. I also enjoyed our chat.  :-)   p.s. Clover actually tried the AfC helpdesk already, but everybody was too busy. I will probably see if I can ping people I'm already familiar with about the article, after I summarize the results of our talk first. Thanks again, see you around. — 74.192.84.101(talk) 12:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

also, please revisit this one WT:Articles_for_creation/Sapience_(software)

Six articles 2012/2013 in the EconomicTimes//IndiaTimes, 2013 zdnet, 2013 ChannelWorld/IDG, 2010 LiveMint/WSJ(india), 2011 Red_Herring(india), 2013 D&B(india), plus mentions in stories about notable investors (Xconomy, Business Week, Reuters).

There are plenty of sources for WP:GNG. Strongly suggest (if the original author is okay with it of course) that the article is put into mainspace, for the NPP and AfD process to rewrite the prose. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@74.192.84.101: And this article could not be accepted on multiple grounds. See, WP:AFCR. Alternatively, You can also read, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. Again as said earlier, feel free to ask me more questions. Thanks. AnupMehra^✈ 20:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

While I definitely agree the article about Sapience has a bunch of problems... including some promotional portions that need to be sourced or deleted... that is not necessarily a reason to decline. Once an article is in mainspace, we can all strive together to make it WP:PERFECT... that said, it is fully the case the WP:PERFECTION is not required *before* an article is pushed into mainspace. In any case, your particular decline was that the article was not sourced, which is not the case: the company is absolutely positively WP:N. The key bit of WP:AFCR is this — "As a rule of thumb, article submissions that have at least a 50% chance of surviving an AfD nomination should be accepted and published to mainspace."

  Sapience doesn't have just a 50% chance... it has a 99% chance, or even a 100% chance, because the AfD folks are very efficient at cutting out the excess unsourced prose. Does this make sense? *If* the original author would like to keep working on the Sapience article themselves a bit longer, then it might make sense to leave it in the AfC queue for awhile, as a way to improve the author's confidence, and train them to be a better editor. But if they would rather just get the article into mainspace, and let someone else help improve the prose, then I'm quite sure Sapience Analytics will survive AfD without any problems. It has the plenty of sources to achieve WP:42, right? I guess I should ask, have you worked with VirtualAvi on this Sapience article already, so that you have an understanding of where they are at in learning about wikipedia? We don't want to discourage them, and I haven't worked with them before. 74.192.84.101(talk) 05:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@74.192.84.101: Your opinion is encouraging and respectable indeed. Answer to one question, Did I work on this article along with the initial contributor, it is no. And about that is not necessarily a reason to decline in spite of promotional tone, here your opinion contradict with WP:AFCH, Step 1 quick fail criteria instructions. Reviewers are advised to decline the article written as advertisement on first glance. When you are talking about availability of reliable sources and establishing notability of this particular article, I guess it falls under WP:SPIP. And about where they^{new contributors}are in learning regarding Wikipedia, I guess, it is a process most of people goes through. And this is exactly how one learns. There have been many instances when an article was deleted^{Deleted as per G11 criteria of csd}and was later restored, improved and created. About mine reviewing pattern of not accepting this or this kind of other articles, It is in accordance with Wikipedia's established content policies and particularly about this article, Step 1 and 2 listed there at WP:AFCH. I guess, perhaps you are concerned about WP:Ignore all rules. AnupMehra ^✈ 08:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I definitely love WP:IAR, but no, in this case I'm specifically thinking of WP:SOFIXIT. I've already messed with the Sapient article, to leave the great refs under 'references' and to move the WP:ABOUTSELF and the questionable ones under 'notes'. There are two sentences at the top, an infobox, a history-section, an other-coverage-section, and a products-section-with-advert-tag. If we wanted to *immediately* move that article to mainspace, and be fully compliant with WP:NOT and WP:NPOVand WP:GFDL and WP:NICE, all we need to do is delete the promotional 'product' stuff, delete the questionable-sources section, and leave the two sentences at the top, the infobox, and the known-good-references. Plus to comply with pillar four WP:NICE, we need to get permission from the original author VirtualAvi... because it's the nice thing to do.

  Sapient Analytics has the refs to prove WP:N plus satisfy WP:V... everything else is just window-dressing. If we get rid of all the prose that violates content-policies, what do we have left? A stub about a company, plus a solid list of in-depth independent Reliable Sources. Putting *that* into mainspace is improving wikipedia, AND complying with all five bazillion WP:PG. So, in short, when I said that the 75% promotional tone was not necessarily a reason to decline ... it was intended to mean, that instead of *declining* the article, and leaving it in AfC for another three weeks, we could just delete the 75% of the prose which is promotional (or copy it to the mainspace-article-talkpage), and keep the 25% which is neutral. If that's okay with VirtualAvi, and with you.

  This sort of thinking is based on the five pillars, but it also jives with AfC policy, see here for instance —WP:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Assessment. Stub-class, has 50% chance to survive AfD, and 90% chance to survive CSD. Provides very little meaningful content; might be little more than a dictionary definition. Either very short, or a rough collection of info. Will need much work to become a meaningful article. ((sounds a lot like a two-sentence article on Sapient... hmmmmmm))

  The next step up the quality-ladder is Start-class, has 90% chance to survive AfD, and 100% chance to survive CSD. Satisfies WP:N and WP:BLP, provides some meaningful content, but weak in many areas. Usually lacks refs, although has enough for WP:V. Prose-quality might be unencyclopedic. ((this *also* sounds like Sapient... enough refs... poor prose))

  Basically, there were some parts of the Sapient-article that were not consistent with WP:NPOV, and with WP:TONE, and with WP:SPIP. However, that is easy to WP:SOFIXIT, right? We just cut out the stuff which is promotional, and keep the good stuff. At the moment, that means about 75% of the article will need to go. I've already cut about 25%, and tagged the rest. VirtualAvi may want to work on the prose here in AfC, as a controlled learning experience, or they may want to get into mainspace, as a live collaborative editing environment. Make sense, where I am coming from, now that I've pointed you at the assessment-criteria-page? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@74.192.84.101: So you agree with the reasons it was declined at the first place. And now you seem to argue why did not I WP:FIXIT and moved it to the main article space? Man, it is going wide. AnupMehra ^✈ 10:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

My argument is that, because the topic clearly *has* plenty of sources (unlike Duromac above :-) that Sapience Analytics should be approved to mainspace, so people *there* can fix it. You personally are not WP:REQUIRED to do any of the fixing; all I was suggesting for yourself, is that instead of declining Sapience as "insufficiently sourced", you should have offered on VirtualAvi's talkpage (to be WP:NICE and see if that would make them happy/unhappy) to accept the article, and then moved it to mainspace, tagged it as advertising, and marked it for AfD. *Those* people are good at deleting extra prose, right? Anyways, you need not mess with this article further either. It would be good to say "written like an advertisement" when the article has plenty of sources; I think that is more usual, but you can check with some of the other AfC regulars like Anne Delong and JSFarman and davidwr and Tikuko, if you want an opinion from somebody more experienced on this one. Thanks, I'll see you later.   74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Anupmehra and 74.192.84.101. I have looked over the article and my opinion is probably in the middle here. I see some things that need fixing: The history section, for example, should be in prose, but this can be done in mainspace, since it's a style issue. So can the format of the references. The software development and business jargon such as "mapping" and "drill down" will also need to go, but can be done later.

I have reversed two paragraphs in the "Products" section, since the general description should come before details, and I have removed the totally promotional "win-win" sentence.

There are remaining problems which I believe should be fixed before acceptance The final section has promotion woven in (for example, by suggesting that those who use the product are "business leaders", but not citing a source for this) and essay-like qualities (discussing the value of various uses of the product), and both of these are valid decline reasons. So, I agree with 74 about the decline reason, but not about accepting it. 74's extensive comments at the top of the article have remedied the first problem, and hopefully the submitter will take the advice and fix up the NPOV. —Anne Delong(talk) 15:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sebastien Stella entry

Dear Anup, I see you're busy doing things away from Wikipedia, but when you get a chance, could you answer a few questions on making my Sebastien Stella entry conform to the required "notability" standard?

Stella may not be a "household name" – in America at least – but he has attained prominence as an aerial and specialty choregrapher, doing the kind of work few if any other artists are doing. (I can find a reliable source speaking to that point.) As I wrote, Stellw was named one of the most important French celebrities in the US by the largest French language publication in the states and, in Paris, is one of four hosts on a popular French TV competition show along the lines of 'The X Factor." Don't those things make him sufficiently notable as well?

I'm happy to do what I can to provide more reliable sources. Is it your sense that if I do provide them, that will be enough to establish him in Wikipedia's eyes as "notable"?

Thanks for your advice/help on this. Lloyd Sachs.

Sidbill60 (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sidbill60: Hello, here is the article you are concerned about. Yeah, I'll help you getting up this page. Okay, he is a famous figure, as it is said in the very first line of the article, choreographer, performer and actor who works in theater, film, video, TV and commercials. He must have been published into many news papers, magazines, books or appeared in TV shows, films, etc. I expect you to find them (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and to cite them in the body of the article to raise the article's standard in accordance with Wikipedia notability guideline for biography. That's it. I can take care of the rest. Hope, it helps.AnupMehra ^✈ 17:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Sebastien Stella

Thanks, Anup. I appreciate your help. I will find more sources, etc. and get back to you soon. While Stella has been written about or mentioned in various newspapers and magazines and online, it is sometimes not easy finding documentation that he worked on some of the projects listed. We would need to find the theater program books or even contracts, for example, since much of his work is "behind the scenes." I do think I can find a video in which Pink talks about him. I assume that would be acceptable.

Thanks again.

Sidbill60 (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sidbill60: That's good. Here is one more thing, you may find helping. Wikipedia reliable sources example. What is acceptable and what is not, is listed there. You do not need to be confused with them. Good luck, AnupMehra ^✈ 17:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jacque Fresco

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jacque Fresco. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Article: Victor Zagainov

Hi, you recently rejected my submission of the article about Victor Zagainov due to lack of verifiable references. Did you have problems with FAI (Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, "FAI - The World Air Sports Federation") website? Or you feel this is not enough? I realize some of my references are in Russian, but he was a russian person. Will it help if I include references to wiki in Russian? Thanks — Preceding unsignedcomment added by 135.23.86.11 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@135.23.86.11: Hello there, I actually do not have any kind of problem with the sources you've listed there inyour article. But they are just not enough. We need more references toverify all claims made in the article. Like, the sections Early years, Teaching of astronomy are completely unsourced. And other sections are low on references. The article doesn't meet with Wikipedia minimum reference standard. Please find some more references to verify all claims made in the article. And that's it. Re-submit it for creation. Wikipedia seeks reliable sources, so I guess Wikipedia reliable sources example would be helpful for you. References, accordingly claims. Find them and cite them. It's all done thereafter. Hope, it does clarify.AnupMehra ^✈ 09:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Cited sources

Dear Anupmehra, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mahavir Pratap Sharma.

The above article contains many reliable sources like of Dainik Bhaskar(hindi newspaper),yourstory.com, businessweek.com, pib.nic.in(government website), tie global website,brandkahani.com,ceoworld etc.. Please notify that will these sources going to work or not? — Precedingunsigned comment added by Didgeri (talk •contribs) 08:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@Didgeri: Hello, Didgeri. Please do not remove previous AfC decline tags. It helps reviewers to know the progress of the submission. Coming to your article. Claims like, He is also the President of the Rajasthan Carpet Manufacturers and Exporters Association.. and He is also the 1st Vice Chairman of the Carpet Export Promotion Council are still unsourced. Ref. no.10, is the home page of India mart site and it doesn't help to verify the claim it was cited for. I feel, the previous concern has not been addressed. It still reads like an advertisement. You're advised to make improvements in accordance with Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. Fix these issues and re-submit. Thanks, AnupMehra ^✈ 10:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Institute of Informatics and Communication

See Talk:Institute of Informatics and Communication 67.100.127.13 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@67.100.127.13: Replied there. AnupMehra ^✈ 21:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kumar Vishwas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ghaziabad (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, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Page Edits

Hi, I made edits to my page. Would you mind checking it again?

Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gotham_Stage_Company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjmead (talk •contribs) 22:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Pjmead: Why not. Just a minute or couple of minutes?!.. And please remember to sign your posts typing four tides (~ ~ ~ ~)^{without spaces} at the end of your post. It automatically brings up your signature. Thanks.AnupMehra ^✈ 22:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Pjmead: Okay, I just checked and found that it doesn't meet with Wikipedia minimum references standard. You need to cite that links of the External links section in the body of the article. You apparently know how to do it, so I would not mention referencing for beginners. Optional: It actually would be much better if you think of expanding the article a little more(I believe, you can). AnupMehra ^✈ 23:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Submission

Dear Anupmehra,

I have resubmiited my article Articles for creation/Mahavir Pratap Sharma.It is my earnest request to you to make out the review as early as it can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added byDidgeri (talk • contribs) 18:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Didgeri: Articles for creation process is highly backlogged. There are currently around more than 1000 pending submissions. I'll request you to have patience till someone review your submission page. However, you can make edits meanwhile or could choose to read How to write a better article. And please remember to sign your posts on talk pages typing four tides (~ ~ ~ ~)^{without spaces}. It automatically produces your signature. Thanks. AnupMehra ^✈ 18:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sebastien Stella

Thanks for helping me get the post on Sebastien Stella up. I've added many sources and tightened the writing. He's a deserving subject. Hope you can get back to it soon. Tnanks.

Lloyd Sachs (Sidbill60) — Preceding unsigned comment added bySidbill60 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sidbill60: Hello, I just visited the page and found that you really have done a good work and It is most likely to be created by any reviewer soon. However, there I see Early life & Training sections unsourced. It'd be better if you could provide at least 1 reference in each section or remove the lines most likely to be challenged.(WP:MINREF). Good luck!AnupMehra ^✈ 22:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Anup, Wondering what's up with the Sebastien Stella entry. I'm OK with you removing the section about his early years and training if you have to because you want sources. I've provided substantial sources for the rest of the piece. It simply isn't possible to come up with any more. Obviously, Stella is a notable personality in the US and France and deserves a Wikipedia page. Please do what you can to get this posted. Thanks.

Sidbill60 (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Benedetto Varchi

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Benedetto Varchi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: S.U.R.E. Campaign (Singapore)

Hi Anupmehra,

Thank you for taking the time to review my article.[3]

The article is submitted to provide more information on the SURE campaign initiative by the National Library Board of Singapore. I have supplemented the articles by citing the official websites and also cited the newspaper articles and radio interviews of the media coverage of the campaign.

As this is a new campaign. There is no scholarship published on it. Hence, I would like to enquire on the more detailed reasons for rejection of the article. Also, can I also request for you to show me some examples of the reliable sources that I should be including in the article.

Thanks very much!

Ilosure (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ilosure: Hello, Perhaps you were looking for this, Wikipedia reliable sources example. And more detailed reason on decline, here it is, the article doesn't meet with Wikipedia minimum references standard. You either need to provide reliable sources to verify the content of the submission or simply remove the unverifiable content. It'd be all good enough more likely to be created thereafter. Thanks, AnupMehra ^✈ 08:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Anupmehra: Hi Anupmehra,

Thanks very much for your suggestion. Would you mind taking a quick look at the edited page to let me know if it is likely to be approved/created. Let me know if you'd rather I resubmit directly instead.

Thanks!

Ilosure (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ilosure: Hello, I just had a look at your article. And, I found that, You need to convert external links cited in the body as inline citation. See,referencing for beginners to know how to do it. Later sections as Aims, Logo & Initiatives and programmesare almost unsourced. You need to cite your sources there to verify the contents. And the Media coverage section sounds a bit promotional. You either need to completely remove all and cite them in the body of the article or under an another section External links or re-write them in compliance with Wikipedia neutral point of view. Fix these issues and It'll be most likely to be created thereafter. I've not examined the sources but the topic seems notable in first instance. Thanks, AnupMehra^✈ 11:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

my submission :CNN Society , Jan 13 2014

Dear Editor,

I am not sure I understand why my page was rejected. I have followed advices from the other editor who first commented on the content of the page and now I see that you deleted it.

I can add information regarding the sponsorship activity of the International CCN Society, for two recent international meetings which are not organized by the ICCNS. For example, a meeting on matrix proteins in Vancouver and a minisymposium on IGFBPS in Sydney.

Also, the CCN acronym is alrady entered in the Wikipedia database.

Last, the page I suggested is presented in a very similar, non promotional way, as the pages for other non-profit scientific societies such as for example the AACR which is indexed on Wikipedia.

Could you please help me and explain why the page was rejected.

Many thanks in advance

B. Perbal

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added byBperbal (talk • contribs) 11:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bperbal: Hello Bperbal, I'll explain why your submission could not be accepted at this time. As in the AfC declination box on top of submission page explains, This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Words like free available, offers are not acceptable. It should either be removed or re-written in accordance with Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. Also, the submission runs low on sources. I see, you've recently updated references, but it still warrants some more to verify the content of the submission. Last three sections, Biennal workshop and other sponsored meetings, Journal & Awards and scholarships have a single source and eventually even that one I'm not sure why cited for. It is Home page of Springer.com and doesn't help. AnupMehra ^✈ 12:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kanishka Soni, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CID and LIC (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) 08:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Indian actress stubs

Hi there! New stub categories are not proposed using Articles for Creation. Instead, if you want to create a new one, please use Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Keep in mind that subcategories ofCategory:Actor stubs are not separated by gender. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@Michaelzeng7: Hello, Thanks for your response. Just seen the conversationhere. The Category:Actor stubs could not be segregated by gender, as obvious. I guess, we need a new parent category Category:Actress stubs. I'll soon catch up with the appropriate procedure and make a proposal here. Thanks, again. AnupMehra ^✈ 21:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

modif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/International_CCN_Society

Hi Anupmehra

Thanks for your help.

I have now modified the page that I created :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/International_CCN_Society, as you suggested, by adding proper reference link to the journal and cited sponsored meetings.

Hoping that it is fine now.

All the best

Bernard

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added byBperbal (talk • contribs) 08:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bperbal: Hello, Bperbal. I just seen the submission page. It looks okay now and all set to be created. Thanks for your contributions to WIkipedia. I'll request you to sign you further posts typing four tides (~ ~ ~ ~)^{without spaces} at the end of your post. Cheers! AnupMehra ^✈ 11:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Zimmer

We're trying to get up new content for this page. If you have edits please hold them until the end of the day. And if you want to make changes please cite the reason. We're local Hoboken people adding content for our Mayor.

Thanks Lewis — Preceding unsigned comment added byLewis07030 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Lewis07030: You are welcome to improve Wikipedia. But You are requested to familiarise yourself withWikipedia policies and guidelines before you make any edit. I'll also request you to read Wikipedia manual of style. And, remember to sign your further posts typing (~~~~) at the end of your post. AnupMehra ^✈ 15:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ashishd2

Topic: Sacred Heart Cathedral, Rourkela

Thank you for looking forward to the article page i created, well its a public interest article, i wrote about. Currently there are really very low resources about the topic, its about our cathedral or church in our town.No one is bothered to write something about it, so I am doing this work voluntarily as The official Youth Group of the Church were seeking for users to write about it.

P.S: I soon would have enough data in a week to update all the contents of the article.

P.N: That there are no credible sources available on line for the Topic. This would be the first article giving out the basic details about Sacred Heart Cathedral, Rourkela.

So please do lend some time & help for the perfect information as no one else is interested or have the required skills to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishd2(talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ashishd2:Hello, I was just concerned about the test editing in the article mainspace. That's why I did suggest you to carry on with your article and edits in the sandbox or into your draft. You can write up as long period as you wish to. No one will poke in between, there. When you feel, the article is okay to be published, move it to main space for review or submit it through Articles for Creation process for the article to be created. In the first process, article will not just be declined but might be deleted. And in the second one, you'll have chances to improve your article with reviewers suggestion, if needed. That's all. If you find yourself stuck at any point and need any help, leave me a msg here. Thanks, AnupMehra^✈ 18:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Wild 9

Excuse me!? all the info on the wild 9 page is CORRECT! i didnt vandalize anything! all the info on that page is taken directly from the dang Wild 9 play book! the original info is totally wrong and looks like it was written by a 2 year old! YOUR the vandal! that took me hours to write out! hpw dare you accuse me of something you have no proof of! have a little decency! i made those changes so people could have the right info! show some respect! I have played that game for 11 years! i think i know the truth -Axel455 — Preceding unsigned comment added byAxel455 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Axel1455:Read Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If there's still something left unanswered, I'm always here to answer. Thank you. AnupMehra ^✈ 18:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Airbus Group

Dear Sir, since january the first 2014, Airbus Group headquarters are located in Toulouse, not in Leiden. Please check before removing, thank you Antoine Blondin (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Antoine Blondin: Do you have a source to verify your claim? AnupMehra ^✈ 17:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aaron Schock

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Aaron Schock. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

CSD Declined: Rosary High School, Hanamkonda

Just to let you know that Rosary High School, Hanamkonda has been declined for speedy deletion, as schools are not elegible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. You may wish to re-read the CSD page as a reminder of what can and can't be speedily deleted. Thank you. Stephen! ^Coming...10:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Snoddoggy's talk page.

Hello. You have a new message at Snoddoggy's talk page. Snoddoggy (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Snoddoggy's talk page.

Hello. You have a new message at Snoddoggy's talk page. Snoddoggy (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St. Joseph's Convent High School, Patna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Urban (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) 09:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Username warning on User talk:GayPark.Jimmy

Hello. I noticed that you placed a {{uw-coi-username}} warning on this person's talk page. As per WP:ISU, "usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person", which this username does. The remaining warnings about WP:COI still apply, of course. I've followed up with the user and suggested alternate methods he can follow to create his article (WP:AFC, WP:RA). --Drm310 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Drm310:, He created/edited an article GayPark(now deleted, Unambiguous advertising or promotion) and his username is GayPark.Jimmy. I was just concerned if he was editing on behalf of something other than himself, like company, group, institution, product, or website which relates to the entity in question. What he could do following up the warning template, I guess it was there cleary mention. Either just to explain he is editing Wikipedia on behalf of himself or to request username change. Beside that promotional editing is not acceptable. By the way, Thanks for making it easy for the newbie user. I clearly was not concerned exactly about his username, but his editing history and username, both. I could be wrong with my conception, if he explained it to me. It is all okay now, thanks again to you. AnupMehra ^✈ 22:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Malikhpur

Hi

Malikhpur is the area where my family is from in Punjab, India. I am not acting on behalf of any organisation etc. My interest is in Indian/Punjabi culture.

Thanks.

@Malikhpur: Thanks for the clarification. The particular template has already been removed. IndianWikipedian ^✈ 20:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Katy Perry

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Katy Perry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Snoddoggy's talk page.

Snoddoggy (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Snoddoggy: Replied there. AnupMehra ^✈ 08:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Malikhpur may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yo Yo Honey Singh may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Honey Singh''' (born '''Hirdesh Singh''' on 15 March 1983, in [[Hoshiarpur]], better known by his stage name '''Yo
• yo-yo-honey-singh-wins-mtv-ema.html] Yo Yo Honey Singh wins MTV EMA . Retrieved 14 January 2014]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Snoddoggy's talk page.

Hello, AnupMehra - Thank you again for reviewing my article. I have replied to your question on my talk page at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Snoddoggy. Thank you again Snoddoggy (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Tadepalle, Krishna

Hello. I wanted to let you know that I have declined your speedy deletion request. I have found sources that confirm the existence of this village, and it is generally not preferred to nominate established articles like this one for speedy deletion without discussing a problem like this at the talk page. If you still think the article is a hoax, please initiate a proper deletion discussion at WP:AFD. De728631 (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it is two villages named Tadepalle in one district. Mine stupidity! Thanks by the way.AnupMehra ^✈ 18:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

AFC

You declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FOREVER at AFC recently, but I added 3 reliable sources, and it seems to be ready for namespace. I moved it.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@GrapedApe: That's good. But at some instance, I'm not sure why would you let me know? Thanks by the way!AnupMehra ^✈ 07:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks Anup, for joining WP:INBR and WP:PAT. Hope that you are having fun with Wikipedia!. Shivam Setu (U-T-C) 19:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Katihar district, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Partition of Bengal (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, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

current status

Dear Anupmehra,

could you please update me with the current status of my articlehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mahavir_Pratap_Sharma..what all i can see on my page is that the no. of pending submissions are increasing.During the time of submission it was near around 1000 and now it is showing an increase in no.,just opposite behavior.Didgeri (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Didgeri: The Articles for creation process is highly backlogged. I'm not there involved these particular days. Busy studying. Please be patient. It may take 1 or 2 week before someone reviews your page. Meanwhile I may review your's particular submission page anytime tomorrow but not this time, I'm sorry. Hope, you're having good time. You can visit to Live help chat to see if there's someone having moments enough to review your submission. Till someone reviews your page, you can engage yourself improving your article taking Ratan Tata article as an example. Thanks. AnupMehra ^✈ 20:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the article doesn't seem neutral to you

Hi Anup,

I am really disappointed with you removing my edits on Anjali Damania page. I am sure this has proved that you're not politically neutral. You didn't care to look at the source I had posted in my edited section. What are you?! Are you authorized moderator from Wikipedia?! This is ridiculous that anyone can remove anyone's contribution without going into the details of the contribution. If this keeps happening, I believe there won't be any update on Wikipedia.

What if all your posting will be removed by someone, just because their point of view doesn't match yours. Anyways, someone has already updated the page with in depth details of Anjali's corruption. You should stay away from articles which don't match your political inclination.

Theripoff — Preceding unsigned comment added byTheripoff (talk • contribs) 09:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Theripoff: I did revert your edit because it was not in compliance with Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. Please familiarise yourself with WP:NPOV. I read the source you cited in the body of the article. And, It was me who later searched for additional sources and expanded the article. Have more questions? AnupMehra ^✈ 10:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No mistake

It was not a mistake, i restored the article to the correct information provided in the most freshest sources, after it has been vandalized and information arbitrarily changed with no relation to the actual reality and sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by92.231.38.38 (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Isabella Cervoni may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''Isabella Cervoni''' ([[Colle Val d'Elsa]], (1575-1600) was a young Italian woman poet of the [[Counter-Reformation]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mazda may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of wisdom, intelligence and harmony of the earliest civilizations in West Asia. [[Ahura Mazda]] (Sanskrit: असुर मेधा (Asura-Medhā), is the name of God to [[Zoroastrianism|Zoroastrians]]. The

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is Ziyuang. You have reverted my removal of "v1" in thearXiv references in Maximal_information_coefficient, where I think the latest version of the reference, possibly with corrections and refinements, is better.

Tagging of GALAS (Great American Lesbian Art Show)

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on GALAS (Great American Lesbian Art Show). I do not think that GALAS (Great American Lesbian Art Show) fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because The name of the event gives enough context that an editor who chooses to can find information on the topic and possibly expand the article (which sorely needs expansion if it is to remain).. I request that you consider not re-tagging GALAS (Great American Lesbian Art Show) for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. The article is a sub-stub, but it does have context. Also, tagging a new page for speedy deletion within 3 minutes of its creation is not best practice.DES ^(talk) 00:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Have a look at Great American Lesbian Art Show into which I expanded the above, using only the "context" in that stub, and Google. Still think this was an A1? DES ^(talk) 04:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello @DESiegel:, It was just a one line unsourced article with no sign of significance the moment, it was tagged by me for WP:CSD. There are many more articles showing up with no sign of significance these days created by users registering an account. However, It is not an excuse for mine misconcepton of the subject. Thank you for expanding the article.IndianWikipedian ^✈ 08:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was one line and unsourced, but neither of those are valid reasons for speedy deleting any article. A7 there would have been an argument for, but not A1. DES ^(talk) 08:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I agree. IndianWikipedian ^✈ 08:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Great American Lesbian Art Show edits

Thanks for the additional project banner. On the See also, it is not usual to include a see also for a subject already linked in the body of the article. However, the link (in the Origins section) is perhaps a bit obscure so i have left the see also unchanged. DES ^(talk) 08:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:EgyptraTravelService

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 User talk:EgyptraTravelService, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a requesthere. AnupMehra ^✈ 12:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Aw! What is this kind of error? I nominated the page for deletion and got notified myself on my talk page?!! Eh!.. AnupMehra ^✈ 17:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Spitzer (political scientist)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Robert Spitzer (political scientist). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and comment

Hello, and thank you for your introduction - the edit made to that page was not a mistake - I removed information that was not relevant and incorrect. (For example, it is a page on Korean cuisine, and suddenly included a line about the use of one ingredient in a completely different country: Japan - which also happens to be incorrect. In addition, you'll notice that the link provided is not a citation for that line.)

In addition, the reason I unhyphenated the hirezake link is because it is correctly written without a hyphen, and I am creating a page for that at the moment as there doesn't seem to be any. If you will notice, that particular page has a number of grammatical mistakes - although I did not fix all of them, I fixed those.

Is it the case where every single contribution to Wikipedia has to be debated from now on? Sorry for trying to contribute. I quit. Lovefromtheeast (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Lovefromtheeast: In answer to your first question, It is not incorrect in the case of Japan. Perhaps you did not read the source. It says, The Korean preparation of blowfish is different from the Japanese who favor serving it raw as sashimi. Not every contribution to Wikipedia is subjected to discussion but the Unsourced, Unverifiable, Irrelevant, of course. I'll request you to familiarise yourself withWikipedia policy and guidelines. It'll help you to not get your edits reverted. Thanks. AnupMehra ^✈ 13:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Tré Melvin

Hi Anupmehra! I believe you made a mistake. Although I am fairly new to Wiki, my de-orphan edit wasn't a test. Unless I'm missing something regarding orphan articles, I created a link to the Tré Melvin article via another article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hloveland284 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Hloveland284: You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia. It is not de-orphaning but you changed Tré ofTré Melvin to Tre. Here is the edit summary. I would like to let you know that, in order to de-orphan an article you are required tolink it within some other Wikipedia article. I'll request you to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy and guidelines so that your edits could not be undid. Hope, you enjoy editing Wikipedia. If you need help, you are welcome to ask me a question here. And please sign your further post typing four tides (~~~~) at the end of your post. It automatically generates your signature. Good luck! AnupMehra ^✈ 16:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anupmehra. I created a link to Tré Melvin via King Bach, noting that the two personalities have collaborated together in the past. Is that not de-orphaning the article? Did I fail to complete an additional step within the Tré Melvinarticle? Your help is greatly appreciated. Thank you! Hloveland284 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@Hloveland284: King Bach link is either misspelled or doesn't exist. If it was correct then it would appear blue. Please provide me the correct page title name. For guide on de-orphaning see, Wikipedia:Orphan#Suggestions for how to de-orphan an article. Extended: If you are interested in de-orphaning articles, there's a WikiProject, {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage}}. Feel free to join in there. To add your name in the participant list see,Wikipedia:DEORPHAN. AnupMehra ^✈ 20:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I misspelled. KingBach. "On both his Vines and his YouTube videos, he has collaborated with fellow internet personalities such as Tré Melvin, Alphacat, DeStorm, and Eric Dunn." Hloveland284 (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah this is how de-orphaning works. Now you can remove {{orphan}} tag from Tré Melvin. One thing more, It'd be better if you cite the sentence saying he collaborated with King Bach using some reliable source. Unsourced contents are most likely to be removed failing Wikipedia verifiability standard. AnupMehra ^✈ 21:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I will go back and cite the article. Thank you for your help! :) Hloveland284 (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gurdev K. Aneja

Hello Anupmehra. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gurdev K. Aneja, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Does not redirect to a different or incorrect namespace. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: May I let you know the page Gurdev K. Aneja redirects to an upcoming film Ebn-E-Batuta. The movie is being promoted on Wikipedia by its Director(See, User_talk:Varunmiddha) and ProducerGurdev K. Aneja. The movieEbn-E-Batuta is currently nominated for deletion. The redirect was most probably created by the producer itself to promote himself or the movie or both. AnupMehra ^✈ 21:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That may be the case, but it's not a valid reason for speedy deletion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll wait for the target page to get deleted. Thanks. AnupMehra ^✈ 21:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

ACC account creation interface

Hello, I'm Anup. I've requested an account on the ACC account creation interface. I am identified to Wikimedia Foundation.Revision id: 7291196. Thanks. AnupMehra ^✈ 21:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hera Pheri 4 (2nd nomination)

Your nomination just says WP:FN. That's about footnotes - did you mean WP:NF? JohnCD (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Aw! Yeah I meant WP:NF. I'm making an edit there. Thanks! AnupMehra ^✈ 21:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello @JohnCD: I've got a question. I'm new to Afd. Nominator vote would automatically be counted or I am required to vote in? AnupMehra ^✈ 21:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't cast a !vote - it is assumed that your nomination means you favour deletion. Note that we refer to "!votes", the ! in front meaning "not-a-vote", to emphasis that the closing admin will not be counting heads but assessing the arguments put forward. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. This was helpful. AnupMehra ^✈ 21:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Another point: it's not enough just to put the "Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions" template on the AfD page, you need to actually add it to the list by following the instructions atWikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India, and similarly for the "Film" list. I have done it for these two lists.JohnCD (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

List of fastest production cars

I think you made a mistake cz my reference OSS 100 maddest car book published by top gear. So please return the information back..., — Preceding unsigned comment added byGmaltador (talk • contribs) 09:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Gmaltador: Your edits were not in accordance with Wikipedia Verifiablity policy and therefore was undid by me. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy and guideline. Thanks. AnupMehra ^✈ 09:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Parks and Recreation Season 2

I changed the date to the 17 as it was delayed from the 3rd as it was still being shown on television at the time.

Please cite source/s in support of the contents you are adding/updating to Wikipedia to make it in compliance withWikipedia Verifiability policy. And remember to sign your further posts typing (~~~~) at the end of your post. It automatically produces your signature with date and time. AnupMehra ^✈ 11:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Tarkarli

Hello, I'm Fraggle81. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Tarkarli 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. Fraggle81 (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Fraggle81. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Tarkarli 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. Fraggle81 (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Fraggle81:I'll request you to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy and guidelines before you either make a edit or revert another person's. Particulary, Wikipedia neutral point of view and Wikipedia Verifiablity standard. Good luck! AnupMehra ^✈ 15:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's me that needs to do that Anupmehra. When is leaving your name on an article you have edited appropriate?Fraggle81 (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't left a name anywhere in the article page. There's a tab called edit, you can use it optionally rather than always using STiki. The whole section is written like an advertisement. And you are keep reverting unsourced changes in the article. I'll quote here some sentences from the section for your better understanding,

• MTDC Resort One of the best place to stay ...., it offers great cottages ( AC and non AC ).
• Rest are not so close proximity to the beach. Only downside is it is bit expensive, from Rs.2000 per night start, you can get a Rs.4000 per night houseboat room ( house boats are not in water but on beach ).
• There are quite a few houses in village which offer rooms on rent services,
• They also provide food, home made malvani food for which they will charge you extra.

And the line removed by me is,

• the best part is you can rent a bunglow called FORT VIEW which is just on the beach which is 500 meters away from the fort.

Note: The section is totally unsourced. Now You, Please let me know how are all these in compliance with WP:NPOV & WP:V. Are you in position to explain you repeated unconstructive edit and leaving me two warning template on my talk page? Regards, AnupMehra ^✈ 16:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk Page Revert

You should not have reverted Fraggle's removal of content on his talk page. He is permitted to do that as perWP:TALK. Faizan 16:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Faizan: In between conversation? I'm asking him to explain his reverts but he wont reply neither on my talk page nor his talk page. He removes the question I raised on his talk page using template, but keeps his answer on. Really, ridiculous. (And WP:TALK states, Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: If you have their permission, On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving.) AnupMehra ^✈ 17:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes in between conversion too, it is taken as an acknowledgement that he/she has read the content that was removed. SeeWP:TEMPLAR about templating regulars. Better take the dispute to the article's talk. Faizan 17:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Faizan:He seems to have it settle it down. I'll respect his interests. I've made several other changes in the article, and I see his no objection. So, I would not carry it on anymore. Let it be so. Thanks to you for the immediate assistance. AnupMehra ^✈ 17:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Think before you post

For the record, I have been editing Wikipedia for many years, but choose to edit from IP addresses sometimes. If you revert my edits, no problem, but don't put silly uw1-test templates on the page of someone you disagree with. My edits were not a "test" and I do not need "practice editing". Thank you. --131.211.61.48 (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This edit is just silly. My original edits on Scientific misconduct were argumented, yet you reverted them claiming they were "test" edits by an IP address. Let's stick to discussion with arguments... --131.211.61.48 (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello IP user, Not silly but that's what you apparently deserved to have you on your talk page. That is designed for the users misusing warning templates. That's you. And It doesn't matter to me how long an user have been editing Wikipedia. What does matter is constructive and non-constructive changes made by an user. You said above, your edits were argumented. Did you mean aWP:CONSENSUS? Have a look at what should really be called a silly edit, Click here. You renamed a section and removed well sourced few lines from the article, Scientific misconduct. What did I? I restored your edit test, click to see and left you a message on your talk page to let you know that the changes you have made earlier have been undid. You know what? I do not see a thing to worth argue for. I read your messages above that says, If you revert my edits, no problem, but don't put silly uw1-test templates on the page of someone you disagree with. Let me clarify, that thing is called template and is designed to post on user talk pages of the users whom edits seemed as test and has been reverted. It is you. If you've questions over the revert made my me. Ask me about. If that template bothers you, feel free to remove them. Templates save time. It was there on your talk page to let you know the an edit was made to nullify your edit on a particular article. Did you get it? Any more questions? AnupMehra ^✈ 10:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I need to get of my chest that the tone of your reply is pretty aggressive ("that's what you deserved", "Have a look at what should really be called a silly edit", "Did you get it?"), but I will not hold that against you. As to the arguments you mention, I would like to point out that editing pages is actually a (if not the most common) way of reaching consensus. The "edit" you link to (and call "silly") does not exist in that form, but, as you know, is actually a composite of the following three edits I made, each with a rationale provided in their edit summary. These are those edits, with a more extensive explanation:

1. [4] Good faith edit to rename the section to "notable" cases, to emphasize that we cannot, and should not, aim for being complete in listing all cases of scientifc misconduct this article.

2. [5] Good faith edit removing a tag, which I find inappropriate, as it would equally apply to all sections there and see no reason why just the Netherlands has to be tagged.

3. [6] In this one you said I "removed well sourced few lines". Please review the sources for yourself. None of them actually refers to scientific misconduct, so the inclusion of these is particularly dodgy.

Finally, sure I understand templates can save time, but I urge you to use them correctly and not frivolously, like the second one you put on my talk page (the edit I called "silly").Those are my arguments. Have a nice day. --131.211.61.48 (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, starting with the first instance, I undid an edit and leaved you a template on your talk page saying, your edits seemed to test have been reverted. Template is meant to let a user know. Now You post the same template on my talk page, that I made an edit test on your talk page and have been removed. Now this is called Silly. So, the tone of aggression was used by you (and re-read the title of the section as well) and I admit, that led me to leave you a reply the same way. Next, now you seem to argue for the edits (What should you have begin with rather than reposting template back on my talkpage) in reply to my template message. If your edits are being removed from an article, discuss it on an article talk page to reach a consensus. I'll assume that changes made by you earlier were in good faith. But as it was reverted, and you've questions regarding the revert made by another user. Please discuss it on article talk page. And I noticed that you are concerned to every little changes made to your talk page and you prefer to keep it blank. Even a talkback template bothers you. So, I wont leave any(for this reply). It is okay. Initiate the discussion on the article's talk page if you want to. I'll surely be involved there. I might reply late. It is around 04:00PM and I woke up few mins before. Thanks, and have a good day to you too. AnupMehra ^✈ 10:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

thetruthaboutTOMLEE

What do you mean the writings I made was disruptive? I am entering this data on behalf of the truth. Your recent article leaves out a very vital part of history. That TOM LEE saved 32 white people. Also, the article that I uploaded is cited and correct about This Great American Hero. How dare you? CN — Preceding unsigned comment added byThetruthaboutTOMLEE (talk •contribs) 15:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello @ThetruthaboutTOMLEE: Here is the line you keep repeatedly changing in the article Tom Lee Park, Although he could not swim, he rescued 32 people with five trips to shore. to Although he could not swim, he rescued 32 white people with five trips to shore.. And the link cited for it in the lead of the article is,this and it is a dead link. I consider it disruptive editing. It fails Wikipedia verifiability policy and somehow Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. If you want to reinstate the term White people in the body of the article. Please find the appropriate working source and discuss it on the article's talk page. Regards, AnupMehra ^✈ 15:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yo Yo Honey Singh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trinity 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) 08:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Khabatmedia

This is so that every time I write something so change you or acsepterar ye not what I write. I am a member and puliserar articles on this website. Have I done advertising or tried to describe what the page does? Stop fooling you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khabatmedia (talk • contribs) 12:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Khabatmedia: Let me explain, here we have got some confusion. Perhaps you're concerned and discouraged by deletion of an article (Organisation of Iranian Kurdistan Struggle (Sazmani Xebat) recently created or edited by you. Well, I will explain here, I didn't nominate this particular page. But I can say it was most probably not in compliance withWikipedia policy and guidelines that is why it was deleted. And not only advertising, a simple article could be go through the deletion process if It didn't receive the significant coverage in the reliable sources (See, WP:42). Okay, now it was what you were concerned about. Let me clarify mine side, I'm concerned about the username you've chosen. Khabatmedia seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of something other than yourself. Please note that you may not edit on behalf of a company, group, institution, product, or website which relates to the entity in question. I'm actually expecting an explanation on this side. You are free to leave a Feereply to either here or on your talk page. Feel free to ask me more questions. Regards, AnupMehra ^✈ 14:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Rollback and reviewer userrights granted

Hello Anupmehra. Your account has been granted the "rollback" and "reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right

Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin).

Reviewer user right

The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

• 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.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! Callanecc (talk •contribs • logs) 13:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)