Jump to content

User talk:Deadbeef/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Deadbeef, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert (character)

Hi, I noticed you tagged the "Characteristics" section of the Stephen Colbert character as being of disputed neutrality. Would you perhaps be able to elaborate on your reasons for this in the article's talk page? I ask because to my knowledge the neutrality of the article has till this point never been debated, and if there is an issue with the section that needs addressing I'm really interested in resolving it. Thanks! Shoemoney2night (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I actually noticed this problem the day before you sent me this. I misunderstood the page, I thought it was talking about Steven Colbert, the actual person, not the character, so the article seemed a lot more like negative speculation than actual information. I've knocked off the neutrality flag. Just a misunderstanding! Zoke (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Aviation

Thanks for looking at the Aviation article. I noticed that you added a verify tag — could you please go back and add details on the talk page, so that other people know what specific areas you think need more citations? I tend to remove tags after a week or so if the original tagger hasn't provided any additional information. David (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:AA ROAS.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:AA ROAS.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Distinguished Warfare Medal

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Military Order of the Purple Heart

The USA Barnstar of National Merit
For your efforts in creating the article on the Military Order of the Purple Heart. The edit that created the article reflects highly upon yourself, and North Carolina State University. May it find its way to the Main Page through DYK. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

regarding DWM article edit

Heya, I saw you revamped my recent edit to the Distinguished Warfare Medal article, I don't mind that at all but I wanted to just add a little comment regarding it. What I added it for was that those veterans groups were reported to be lobbying President Obama as of March 13 & 14. When you reworded it you left that out and added in the AUSN criticism of the precedence. Hope that makes sense. Cheers, — -dainomite   18:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you were going for there. I thought you were just trying to add 2 more veteran's groups challenging the precedence and didn't see the VFW bit at the front. I just altered it to make it more organized. In any case, I think the 3-paragraph against -> for -> administrative action dynamic works pretty nicely here, but feel free to tinker with it if you have a good idea or find something new. Like I said, I was just going for flow. Zoke (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Coolbeans, no problemo. Would you mind if I added it back to the admin actions paragraph since lobbying the president is similar (at least in my mind :3) to a congressional and secdef review? — -dainomite   22:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't, just because every group listed lobbied against it in some way or another, but if you can distinguish them somehow or allude to how what they're doing is more notable, then go for it. Zoke (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I just mean since no one else has lobbied the president directly. Or maybe I'm missing something. :3 — -dainomite   22:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I still don't think that lobbying the president is too much different from lobbying Congress; they both try to do the same thing. However, you seem opinionated enough to strongly want the bit in there at the bottom, and my dispute is largely out of preference. So if you really want to have the bit in at the bottom, then go ahead and fill it back in. After all, it is just one sentence that we're talking about here. :) Happy editing, Zoke (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Mossad

Hello, I saw you undid one of my previous edits. That edit is not a vandalism but a fact that can be proven. Please discuss on the talk page or at least add a section about controversies in the article. Thank you. 141.136.222.153 (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

.hi my friend

You have a problem? I am the author of the website is valid and the law is perfect, please do not sabotage.please.tnx Nasirir (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

....

Please behave not children, I say to you I am a tourist site owner and author. Please note this is not a copyNasirir (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

that was my 8 year old brother having a joke.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukan (talk • contribs) 23:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk page blanking

As you say a user is entitled to blank his or her user page. But is it right to blank the page when you receive a warning? I mean that IP is blanking it's page every time it is receiving warning. I'm not here to contest your caution or warning to me. I have left it alone and accepted it. I am here to get an honest answer. You are free to disregard this message as I am not looking for a revenge or anything similar. Answer only if you feel like answering.--Vyom25 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, read WP:BLANKING. A user, IP or registered, is entitled to do whatever they want (within boundaries) to their own user and talk pages, which includes removing past warnings. It is accepted that a user removing warnings from their page is an indication that they have read the warnings and understood them, at which point keeping them there is unnecessary. They still appear in their page history, so the user isn't exactly scrubbing themselves clean by deleting them. But unless they're outright blocked from editing their own talk page, they can delete content there as they wish.

I appreciate that you're trying to do the right thing, and that you are able to detach yourself from the situation. Just make sure you know the policy, and don't lose your temper over a little revert war. Let me know if you have any more questions. Deadbeef (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I never lost my temper or I was'nt angry at all you can see my conversation with IP after your warning. Thanks for reply....--Vyom25 (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mike Kubat

Hello Deadbeef, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mike Kubat, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: received a Leo Award nomination is an assertion of importance sufficient to avoid speedy deletion. . You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 07:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


You sent me a message re: USAF page, in which I quoted a book name Contrails. Since I have the book, and it is a direct quote including the source I would certainly consider that verifyable.

Ecoach

Your comments are appreciated Just a Q here - how does the 4 tildes sign my page //eCoach// G_F_Sweetman@yahoo.com Ecoach (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The point of verifiability is that other people can verify the information, not you. Books are, of course, verifiable sources, but you still have to cite them with the right template. You would also need to reword what you said as "Cadets are required to know the following mission statement..." or something like that. You would also need to cite the fact that cadets are required to know the information; again, no original research. If you can't find a citation for that part, you'll have to drop it and just state it as, "The Air Force Academy handbook Contrails has the following mission statement: ..." (cite) Please read WP:OR if you're still confused. As for the tildes, they are a part of Wikipedia's syntax; they work as code for the computer to see, and then read your username and the current time, and swap them out. Deadbeef (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sturegarden House declined article

Please elaborate on what changes you would like to see in the article.

Sturegarden House is perhaps the earliest completed work by world famous architect Gunnar Asplund. I do not understand how the submission to Wikipedia can be declined with reference that more evidence is needed on the subject's notability.

There is a Swedish Wikipedia article covering the House already (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Stureg%C3%A5rden), and the article includes unique scans of the original drawings. Similar drawings by Asplund are part of MOMA's collection in New York (http://www.moma.org/collection/artist.php?artist_id=27).

There must be a lot of Wikipedia articles with far less relevance than this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikpas (talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

For your article: Out of the eleven references provided, nine were primary. The fact that all that remained was a sentence in a website list about Asplund's creations and a newspaper article stating that he designed it was not enough to establish notability. I believe the article can become notable; it just needs more, and in-depth, sources to explain why it deserves its own article instead of becoming a redirect page to Asplund himself. Please see the links I provided in my declining message, such as the golden rule for articles, and the general notability guideline that every standalone article must pass, as well as WP:OSE on using comparisons as a litmus test for notability. Thanks, Deadbeef (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I will dive into the details now. Best Regards Wikpas —Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

speedy deletion: Scionics

Hi! I just wondering why this article will be deleted? I mean... I edited it this morning and it got an speedy deletion because it was like an advertising... and now that I try to re elaborate it and don't put such a content that looks as an advertising it is uninteresting... In my opinion and in the opinion or people related of the area of research, not only discoveries and activites are important nowadays, but also companies that provides facilities in this area...

please, don't delete this page.. I will try to add more content to it, but without make it looks as an advertising..

thanks

matoges — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matoges (talk • contribs) 13:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Per CSD A7, an article about a business or organization must imply the importance of the company. There are millions of companies all over the world, but the mere fact that they exist is not notable enough for inclusion. To avoid the CSD tag, your article must make the reader aware of why "Scionics" matters as a company. Simply listing what products and services they offer doesn't suffice. If you can't credibly imply why the company is notable in the article, then it will probably get deleted. Deadbeef (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Factual correction

I want to edit the Wikipedia entry about me to correct the sentence that says I am a member of the Labour Party. I have put it in the past tense as I ceased to be a member more than 10 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Rentoul (talk • contribs) 14:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Since you have a clear conflict of interest on the article, you should not edit it in any appreciable amount. However, your previous edit seems uncontroversial, so I won't revert it. In the future, if you wish to change any content in the article, then you should start a topic about it on the article's talk page and let another editor review it. Please note that, as an editor with a COI, you are encouraged to declare it to uphold transparency and gain the community's trust. Please read WP:PSCOI to address any other questions you might have and read up on Wikipedia's COI policy in general, or feel free to reply back in this thread. Deadbeef (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Rollback

I have assigned you the rollback function. Well done!--File Éireann 10:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

reply

I did, in fact, remove the two "citations" and I use the term loosely, because the sources cited are advocacy agencies and not impartial commentaters, or observers. I have no opinion about Emerson, positive or negative, which is why I left all of the more objective critiques of his work. The Center for American Progress, in particular, is a fully funded advocacy group designed to promote the progressive agenda, with no other intent, or purpose. Therefore, no quote from them can be considered unbiased.

Similarly, "Gawker" cannot even be qualified as anything other than a blog and is thus a personal commentary, and not a review by an acknowledged expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.23.94 (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Deadbeef, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

John Rentoul

What nonsense. My edit was entirely factual. It neither praised nor criticised Mr Rentoul. Sports Fan

Hello. I reverted your edit because it appeared to be a case of WP:PEACOCK: you said Rentoul was a "keen defender" of the English language, and your selection of (uncited) review for the book is purely positive. I have once again reverted your edit for those reasons. If you wish the content to be replaced, please add citations to the comment, and make sure all reviews are from a reliable source. Also, revise the sentence with the phrase "keen defender" to make it more neutral and less peacock-like. Thanks, Deadbeef (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

134.71.58.109

I edited J-20 page with useful informations that are true !

The previous informations are written by some Indians who ENVY China and posted materials that are totally laughable and ridiculus.

Please keep my edition as I backed it up with sources.

Thank you.

SLJ

4/22/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.71.58.109 (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It appears that I mistakenly reverted your edit. You removed a large amount of information about speculation of the J-20 engine types without using the edit summary, but you also created new content. In the future, please explain your edits (especially if changing a large block of text) with an edit summary to let people like myself, who are watching for vandalism, know that you have good intentions. Thanks, Deadbeef (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Centralia

What did you undo on my edits? I have sources if you would like to see them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoesb1032 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Your edit was done to a talk page, which for some reason didn't register in my viewing program. I had thought you had placed your edit in actual article space. Feel free to ignore the warning (although, yes, sources would be good.) Deadbeef (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see here

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Maxwell_(journalist)

Thank you! Mootros (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't canvass. Deadbeef (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletation

Why are new wikipedia users discouraged by the means of speedy deletation though they try to post a reliable article. Why the patroller doesnt fully watch the article that is being created. This is my request not to discourage the new comers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodluck1mb (talk • contribs) 02:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Your page was nominated for CSD A10 because it is basically a subsection of Ammonia production. There is no sense in having two articles that have the same information. Your page has now been redirected to that page for that reason. This isn't an attempt to discourage newcomers; Wikipedia welcomes newcomers! But we still have to make sure that our articles are the best that they can be, which means that there are some rules to follow. I put a welcome message on your talk page. If you want to help, please read the links to help get you started. We would definitely appreciate having more help, just as long as it's the right kind of help! If you have any more comments or questions, please post them here. Deadbeef (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

sorry!!!

whoops sorry i accidentaly restored an old version of your talk page- didnt mean to hit save sorry mate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofuggah (talk • contribs) 03:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for being a vandal fighter.--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Signing

Hope you don't count it as vandalism, but I've added a user box to your home page since your talk page got signed by SineBot Seqqis (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Haha thanks, I'll keep it. I won't even add you to my vn- ticker (though I do have to update it for someone else.) Deadbeef 05:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Help

Dear Deadbeef,

How can I create talk page like yours where other users can post message like in yours easily. (Goodluck1mb (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC))

Hi Goodluck1mb, I'm not sure I know what you mean. You seem to have found your talk page, and posting there is as easy as clicking the "New section" button at the top right, just like on mine. Can you explain what you mean a bit more? Thanks, Deadbeef 15:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Solution Found

As I am using wikipedia from mobile so I was unable to see new section tab. But I use {{Talk header}} so that other can easily post on my talk page.

And another question: Can I get message notification if someone post in talkpage?

I don't know the answer to that; I would think it would depend on what type of device you have and what browser you use on it. That would probably be a good question for the folks at the help desk though! Deadbeef 02:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Gina Rinehart

I see you undid my edit on the Gina Rinehart article and say I have no source. I didn't think one would be needed. The point in question is how creating an economic zone with low taxes would help decrease Australia's national debt as Gina Rinehart claimed. It is reasonably obvious that lowering tax revenues decreases government intake and thus actually increases the debt. Hence why my edit said: "It is unclear how decreasing taxes will lower Australia's national debt." Quod erat demonstrandum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.11.77 (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. The reason that your edit was reverted was because it was a case of original research and, to some degree, weasel wording. For you to claim that "it is unclear how lower taxation and less regulation will lower Australia's national debt", you must be able to attribute the statement. For instance, if you had a source on hand of a newspaper/journal article saying so, or perhaps the statement of a regarded economist, then you could say "Accourding to X, it is unclear...". The purpose of this is to eliminate bias from articles; someone could just as easily claim "it is obvious that [your sentence here]", and both sentences would be equally viable. I have placed a welcome message on your talk page, with a couple of helpful links to Wikipedia policies and starting points for contributing/editing. Don't be discouraged--your edits are very much appreciated! They just have to stay within certain boundaries to keep Wikipedia as neutral and verifiable as possible. If you have any more questions or comments, please let me know here. Thanks, Deadbeef 04:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my edit on page "Vadipatti"

I am a volunteer who was serving along with CRED to the rural community around madurai. So wanted to share my point of view. I was not intentionally biased in my article. I was adding information to educate people on what is going on in this part of the world. Please advice me if it needs to be rewritten in a different way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.177.213.85 (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I reverted your edit for the reason that I said: that it didn't adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy; namely, that it was a purely promotional edit for CRED. Your edit was, essentially, a 4-sentence, unsourced paragraph explaining why CRED is a wonderful organization. While I'm sure it wasn't your intention, the edit was too promotional to the organization, so I reverted it. Please read WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV for more information and advice about editing neutrally, and WP:COI for information on conflicts of interest. Don't be discouraged; your edits are welcomed! They just have to stay within certain boundaries. I've put a welcome message on your user page with some good links to read in general (after you read the links I suggested above). If, after reading the links, you still have questions or comments, please feel free to submit a question at the help desk or leave a reply here. Thanks, Deadbeef 05:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry

I was trying to contribute, i though maybe a saying i once heard could help express this on the ak-47 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.134.11 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Distilled Truth

Dear Deadbeef. I noticed that you deleted the section on telepathic conversations with deceased relatives and pets, or with Jesus Christ, or even with demons which people have had while undergoing a near death experience, on April 15, 2013. I looked at the sources in the footnote of this claim and found them to be from the testimonies of near death experiencers as researched by Kevin Williams and P.M.H. Atwater, the latter who had near death experiences herself. I consider these sources to be reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distilled Truth (talk • contribs) 05:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You'll have to be more specific; what article do you mean? I can't find what you're talking about. Deadbeef 16:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Aglartur

Hi, Deadbeef! I want to create a wiki page about Herman Marion Sweatt, so I used Booker T Washington's page as a template. I'll try creating the page in the sandbox and then upload it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aglartur (talk • contribs) 04:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reminder from your friendly neighborhood amphibian

When closing AFDs, make sure you go back to the page, remove the notice and add the {{old afd}} thingy to the talk page. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Skipped my mind. Thanks for taking care of it for me! Deadbeef 23:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
No prob! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
I love your Temporary Watchlist proposal. Thanks for sharing! BDD (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar. Lets hope it passes! Deadbeef 20:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Demi Lovato Picture

I deleted the picture of Demi Lovato off the Mexican American article, and you undid it. Demi should not be on that page, that page is talking about Mexican Americans. Demi is only part Mexican, she is also part Irish and Italian, and therefore not suitable to be included on that page. Her picture should be replaced with Selena Quintanilla's picture. Selena was the Queen of Tejano music and she was Mexican American. Selena should be on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejanorules (talk • contribs) 04:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no quarrel with that. What I reverted was your trying to put an image on the article from your own computer. As I said on your talk page, Wikipedia doesn't have the ability to put pages into articles that are located anywhere except one of the Wikipedias or Wikimedia Commons. When I reverted that, it also reverted those edits you made that you're talking about. That's not what my issue was, they just accidentally got rolled up in the revert as collateral damage. Anyways, you can't add in pictures from your C:/ drive, that's why it wasn't displaying. It's gone now, so I'm fine with the page as is. If you want to upload a picture, please go through this wizard. Thanks, Deadbeef 05:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Bleiburg MASSACRE

Hello,

I write to you in regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleiburg_massacre

As you can see, the topic started off as MASSACRE then someone changed it to repatriations - WHY?

Because I want to have it called what it is called and should be called - Massacres - you lable me a VANDAL

WHY?

Who had the authority to change it from Massacre to repatriations in the first place?

YOUR work in minimizing the event could be considered revisionist history and propaganda work against the Croatian people.

Can you explain WHY is it repatriations as opposed to Massacre?

The Katyn Massacre is rightfully called a massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzidaric (talk • contribs) 10:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted your edit because the page is called "Bleiburg Repatriations", and the event is collectively referred to as "repatriations" throughout the article. While massacre of the Yugoslavian citizens is the central part of the event, it is insufficient to simply call it a massacre. There were more events leading up to the killings that forces the article name to be more generalized. The Katyn massacre is written as it is because it refers exclusively to events surrounding the executions. The page name was changed to "Repatriations" about a year ago as a result of community consensus on the talk page—you might want to read the discussion to see the reasons for the change. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Thanks, Deadbeef 13:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Per your recent reversion of my change to the Robert P. Young, Jr. page, let me get this straight. Mindless quotes and self-lauding by one special interest group about another person associated with that special interest group, without even as much as a citation, constitutes valid content? Go back and read what is there. It equals nothing but sheer circle-jerking by others affiliated with Robert P. Young, Jr. and his political party. Minimally, citations should be required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.215.25 (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

wikitionary type article

I don't live and breathe wikiP... what is the best way to hyperlink a term that most readers won't understand, if the wikip article is too close to a wikitionary entry? I don't want to spend time researching the science of soils, but gumbo is an important local phenom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NelsonsLegacy (talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The 52 Hukams of Guru Gobind Singh

Hi, I just created a page few minutes ago and it is not fully developed and i will develop it further, so how can it can be deleted within minutes. I also added reliable sources. Theman244 (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Since you're working on it, I've removed the CSD tag. Make sure it meets WP:GNG and that it has sufficient context. It should focus on facts surrounding on the 52 Hukams and not simply list them. Deadbeef 01:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Thermal work limit

Hello! Your submission of Thermal work limit at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Drmies (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Talkback

Hello, Deadbeef. You have new messages at Faizan's talk page.
Message added 08:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Faizan -Let's talk! 08:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

+1 at my talk. Faizan 09:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Beef! Faizan 09:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem man. Enjoy. Deadbeef 09:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Really nice signature, Loved that! Congrats on getting reviewer permissions, Keep up the great work! Faizan 09:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Glad you like it. Enjoy it, spread it around the world. And thank you and thank you. Deadbeef 09:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Techfond

Hello Deadbeef. I am just letting you know that I deleted Techfond, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. GedUK  11:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To err is human. Faizan 11:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Thermal work limit

Orlady (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for accepting my edit so soon!

Rbblack2013 (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for offering your help! Could you suggest what's the best way for me to request updates on TAP and how to provide the correct facts? Would the article's talk page be the most appropriate place? And/or I should contact relevant editors who write about similar topics? For example, the pipeline route is now longer and it has a different starting point. Would the confirmation of the new length and updated pipeline route from the company's website be sufficient or I need to suggest an external source which confirms this fact? Thanks in advance! Klaipeda alice (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Comment It would be better if you update the content with both sources, i.e. official and external. The talk page is used only when the contributed changes are controversial. In your case, as you just want to update the text, provide reliable sources for them and you are done. Faizan 11:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Ok, I can provide reliable sources, but where and whom to ask to make the change, considering that I don't want to make changes myself? Klaipeda alice (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
You can ask someone on the article's talk page. If no one makes the change in a reasonable amount of time, then feel free to reply here again and I'll take a look at it. Deadbeef 20:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Stub tags on Pojhi Kapoor

If you're adding a specific tag like {{Bihar-geo-stub}}, you don't need to add {{stub}} too - it just wastes other editors' time. Thanks. PamD 07:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, PamD. That diff was a result of the automated edit AFCH made when I brought the page up from AfC. I told it manually to append the specific stub tag, and also told it to rate the article as stub class. I suppose the latter prompted it to add the generic tag automatically on top. Thanks for the heads up, though, that might be something to see if I can't get fixed as a parse function in-script. Deadbeef 07:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Religious views of Adolf Hitler

Hi Deadbeef, is it possible for you to put a temporary Semi-protection on the Religious views of Adolf Hitler page. A new editor is rewriting cited material (changing content so that it goes against the source) and has been deleting a lot of cited content. A couple of anonymous IPs have chimed in, and it may be the same guy. Thanks. Ozhistory (talk)

It looks like the anon IP edits have been deleted. I can't tell whether they looked suspicious or not, but it looks like the page has been doing fine since about 730 this morning. I'm not an admin so I can't grant page protection, but the page doesn't look like it needs it anyways. It doesn't look like Greengrounds has edited since about 6, but make sure you try your absolute hardest to establish consensus on the talk page anyways. Tread very lightly in editing the article itself while you are, more or less, currently engaged in an edit war about the lede. It may be wise for you to message me when you see something you want changed instead of doing it yourself. I know you think your intentions are pure, but keep in mind that the other editor does too. Anyways, try to keep civil and establish a consensus. I'll be closely watching the article, its talk page, and both of your own talk pages for signs of progress and malice. If you see anything else that seems suspicious, or if you have any other comments, feel free to reply here. Thanks, Deadbeef (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. progress difficult on Religious views of Adolf Hitler. Editor Greengrounds latest response to me referencing the Encyclopedia Brittanica entries on the historians John Toland, Alan Bullock and Geoffrey Blainey to provide evidence of their bona fides is to say "I apologize in advance if you are genuinely retarded." It is a case of breach after breach of wikipedia guidelines with this editor. Ozhistory (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm having problems with User:Greengrounds also. He reverted my edits without giving a real reason (he said said something like 'if Christians can be sourced so can my source!'), though I had spent several hours researching the debate. He also accused me of being biased ('you can slather your agenda wherever you want outside the header'). The article is a cesspool of editors trying to distance their personal beliefs from those of Adolf Hitler, and is in desperate need of attention. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to resolve the situation, but the user is being verbally belligerent. He refuses to stop typing in all caps or to be civil, though it was repeatedly noted that he was being disruptive. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Deadbeef, despite our agreement on the introductory paragraph of the article, Ozhistory has slowly but surely rewritten the whole thing, so I reverted only the intro back to the 25 of april version, and asked him to refer to the talk page. I find it upsetting that despite our previous agreement, he has over the past month rewritten the lead without once using the talk page. Isn't this quite contrary to what we had agreed to when we were engaged in the edit war?Greengrounds (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Deadbeef, sorry to to trouble you on this one again. As you may recall, I did not quite endorse the final "lead" you inserted - stating that my preferred version also included Alan Bullock's full view and a few other things. However, I let it rest for some time, enabling others to comment and me to go to the sources cited to verify the content, while continuing an ongoing study of the topic per a broad range of sources. (IronMaidenRocks is right, the whole article has been "in desperate need of attention"). After an extensive review, I found that important sources like Ian Kershaw and others were not mentioned at all in the lead, and that the cited authors named in the lead (esp Alan Bullock and Albert Speer, but also John Toland) did not have their full views presented in the existing lead. Carefully sourcing each, my edits encountered no objections until Greengrounds hard revert of a few days ago (a hard revert which, if maintained will lose a series of precisely cited texts from recognised authorities - the product of hours and hours of research). I am still trying to ascertain the precise nature of his objections to the cited content on the talk page. Unfortunately he is still peppering his responses with ad hominem comments and accusations of "lies" and criticising my work because it "appeals too much to scholarly opinion" (!). Could you remind him of his duty to assume good faith, and of the importance of scholarly opinion to history writing on wikipedia. These remarks are making what should be a respectful and collaborative process into a major trial - which I suppose explains the poor state of what could be a very interesting article. Ozhistory (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

User:DeadbeefPlease find the comments I have left on Hcc01 (talk)'s talk page, as he has unfortunately become involved in this conflict as well:Clearly I am not the only one who has violated Wikipedia rules here, and as you seemed to be willing to guide this conflict, I would like to present to you my case against Ozhistory (talk), I left him this on his talk page in response to his accusations against me on my talk page. He proceeded to remove this as "vandalism", so I offered him the same courtesy in removing his comments from mine as vandalism as well. Any way, it was his POV violations that got me fired up in the first place, though I admit I have handled it wrong. I am prepared to accept responsibility for my actions, though I hope to see just application of Wikipedia standards for both parties involved in this dispute. If you see look at the talk page on Religious views of Adolf Hitler as well as mediator User:Deadbeef, we had reached a consensus on talk, whereby Deadbeef had finally asked whoever does NOT agree with the lead as written, please speak up. Neither of us spoke up, inferring an agreement. When I checked back a few weeks later, Oz had totally bit by bit rewritten the lead to suit his POV, without a single time referring to the talk page. If you note, I have been more than willing to talk, albeit somewhat belligerent to other users at times, to my regret. But at least I was willing to talk, and willing to stick with initial mediation rulings. Oz was not, and he is as a part of this ongoing dispute as well, despite his desire to paint himself as an innocent victim. Here is basically my complaint against him, plus the previously mentioned bypassing the mediation process we had already gone through, should be considered quite unethical.

Ozhistory (talk)In your edits on Adolf Hitler you have received a citation for edit warring, and I see you are currently involved again on the The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany in reverting other user's edits. Many of your recent edits, specifically on the latter article violate the policy of Citing sources. Proper citations should be used, and other users should be respected when they ask for citations. On both of the articles in question you have been accused by multiple users of Violating Wikipedia's Point of View Policies. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a community, and you do not own the articles, nor do you have the right to impose your POV on Wikipedia articles. Specifically, Avoid stating opinions as facts. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Please pay close attention to article structure and Due and Undue Weight, Balance, Impartial tone, and Words to watch. Also you have completely ignored previous mediation agreements in whichUser:Deadbeef was the mediator.Greengrounds (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Deadbeef, the above comments from Greengrounds are not accurate. To his specific accusations: I have not had much involvement with the Adolf Hitler article at all, let alone been "warned" of "edit warring" in it. I have a very good record on research, citations and collaborative editing. His posting on my page followed a polite request from me on his talk page as follows: "Some reminders in light of your activity in relation to the Religious views of Adolf Hitler page. Please review the wikipedia policies on reliable sourcing and study how to identify reliable sources. Remember to assume good faith, do not make personal attacks and remain civil while working towards consensus. This includes, for example, not likening other editors to "holocaust deniars", questioning if they are "retarded", calling them liars, hypocrites, arrogant, braggardly etc etc." His response entry on my talk page was mere slander. I therefore deleted his posting on my talk page. His comments to you mounting his "case against" me seem to come in response to Hcc01's decision of yesterday to move to refer Greengrounds to a moderator for multiple breaches of wikipedia policy (in particular replacing "work based on mainstream scholarship and apparently deliberately replacing it with ill-informed propaganda"; and in view of a number of personal attacks). Multiple other editors have been moved to make similar, formal remarks to Greengrounds (including yourself, AndyThe Grump, IronMaidenRocks, Farsight001, User:BarrelProof and User:PinkAmpersand). In other words, the "dispute" Greengrounds is referring to is not between "he and me" and he says above, but between he and virtually every editor who has engaged with him. I have told Hcc01 that I support his decision to report Greengrounds. Ozhistory (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

AnotherOzHistory lie. Here is the warning for edit warring. Trying to lie to the guy that actually gave you the warning, right in front of the guy he was warring with is a new low for him. I'm glad I know I'm dealing with a pathological liar now, it makes it allot easier for me to understand.Greengrounds (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Deadbeef, as you can see, the "warning" Greengrounds is referring to does not relate to the Adolf Hitler page (as he wrote on my page, yours and elsewhere) - he evidently meant to refer to the Religious views of Adolf Hitler page. Could you please advise Greengrounds (again) that it is unacceptable for him to make personal attacks (ie calling me a "pathalogical liar" etc) Unfortunately this editor had continuously conducted himself in this abusive manner. Ozhistory (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a good idea

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
The Bright Idea barnstar, awarded to User:Deadbeef for his proposal of temporary watchlists. Herostratus (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Deadbeef 05:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "religious views of Adolf Hitler, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 05:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Your peer reviews on The Matrix article

Thank you for your peer review for The Matrix film article. My apologies for slow response. My life gets in the way, but I'm addressing some of your concerns right now. There's one major problem, though. You said that we editors—I, actually—relied on too much The Matrix Revisited for reference. The problem remains that it has absolutely no other reliable sources that we can use anymore, because the film, although big, is 14 years old. Most inside details about filming can only be found in The Matrix Revisted DVD. The only reliable source about their filming locations is http://www.movie-locations.com/movies/m/Matrix.html#.UcpWADs3CSo and that's straining my limit. The author is an expert who published a book on filming location. I'm hoping that by inserting the info from the link here and there into the section will be sufficient, but I have no idea where to go from here, but hoping that maybe you can offer some suggestions. I'll go out for a big hunt for refs in the mean time. Anthonydraco (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deadbeef/Archive_1&oldid=1142961777"