User talk:JMHamo/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Woodrow

"I've been editing for 8 years now and you less than a month", OK but yet at 16:19, on 11 September 2013 (UTC) seems you made the same 'mistake' as to what I did by "edit-warring" on a Fabregas page.

Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree on this, I believe articles are much improved when split into sections, whether short or long, as it's easier to find the information you're looking for, but you however obviously don't. As I said, agree to disagree.

Thanks for the advice, I'll try to keep it in mind for the future.

RyanSkinnerMU (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I have not edited Cesc Fàbregas at all during September, so I don't know what you're talking about, but it doesn't matter, glad you can agree to disagree with me. JMHamo (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Ward

Why did you revert that timestamp? You have been told to stop doing it so why do you keep doing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.134.122 (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I am continuing this discussion over on your talk page JMHamo (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

IP situation

You two need to seek help at WP:DRN. GiantSnowman 21:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page. If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Spc 21 (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't.. please don't abuse warning templates. JMHamo (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Well neither have I so don't abuse warning templates on my talk page. Using "as of match played x date" is totally fine and looks so many times better than a random time. And your harassment template is plain childish as you posted it after I had made the huge count of one edit to your talk page. Spc 21 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James Wilson (footballer) 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:

• = [[Cheltenham Town F.C.|Cheltenham Town]] <br>on loan from [[Bristol City F.C.|Bristol City]])

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

‎Thomas Strakosha

 Done GiantSnowman 19:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

League of Ireland players

Genuine question: Is it your intention to propose all of the 1,400 players for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.73 (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those that fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL... but no rush JMHamo (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No rush? You are proposing dozens daily.

What needs to happen is for the guidelines to change. Wiki should not be reduced to deleting information. It used to be a great source of information until certian meglomaniac editors started deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.39 (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before you comment. Nothing will be deleted if it meets the guidelines set out in WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I am well familiar with the policies. Again the guidelines need to change. In fact it looks like you need to familiarise yourself if you read below re edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.164 (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies to interject at random, but simply to give a tad of advice for you guys: assess what your motives are... are they to improve Wikipedia, or to satisfy a personal motive? Thank you both for working and devoting time to improve the Wiki ChaseAm (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@ChaseAm: If an article fails notability guidelines, then it will be marked PROD or AfD.. I do not apologise for this - I am not sure what point you're trying to make.. JMHamo (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, I would absolutely agree with you on that. Ehh, the best way to explain it... would be that I was trying not to single anybody out, but still convey a solid questioning of perhaps "poor" justifications. I, personally, do not see that you're in the wrong, in fact, quite the opposite... I see you supporting an impersonal view, (if that's not an oxymoron) and for that, I applaud you. Does that make sense? ChaseAm (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Some people get upset when they see articles getting deleted, but they are entitled to remove the PROD tag and contribute to the AfD discussion to give their opinion. JMHamo (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with that as well. It just seemed to me that the anonymous editor may have been leaning towards bad faith edits. And apologies if this looks like I myself am beginning to argue! ChaseAm (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Strakosha

why the f**k you deleted my article, no matter unfair wanrnings i've created by sources and references, so why you did that ? back me answer..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk • contribs) 13:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The answer is here. He has not played any fully professional league match. QED237 (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season League Performance

Your recent editing history at 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

In addition to posting this template, which is kinda helpful to read, I'd like to point out that the version you and Qed237 wants is not the "correct version", and unexplained reverts like this should only be used against vandalism and not in a content dispute. Instead the four of you should go to the talk-page and establish a consensus. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter on 16 October 2013

VisualEditor is still being updated every Thursday. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at Mediawiki during the previous week. If you haven't done so already, you can turn on VisualEditor by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable".

The reference dialog for all Wikipedias, especially the way it handles citation templates, is being redesigned. Please offer suggestions and opinions at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. (Use your Wikipedia username/password to login there.) You can also drag and drop references (select the reference, then hover over the selected item until your cursor turns into the drag-and-drop tool). This also works for some templates, images, and other page elements (but not yet for text or floated items). References are now editable when they appear inside a media item's caption (bug 50459).

There were a number of miscellaneous fixes made: Firstly, there was a bug that meant that it was impossible to move the cursor using the keyboard away from a selected node (like a reference or template) once it had been selected (bug 54443). Several improvements have been made to scrollable windows, panels, and menus when they don't fit on the screen or when the selected item moves off-screen. Editing in the "slug" at the start of a page no longer shows up a chess pawn character ("♙") in some circumstances (bug 54791). Another bug meant that links with a final punctuation character in them broke extending them in some circumstances (bug 54332). The "page settings" dialog once again allows you to remove categories (bug 54727). There have been some problems with deployment scripts, including one that resulted in VisualEditor being broken for an hour or two at all Wikipedias (bug 54935). Finally, snowmen characters ("☃") no longer appear near newly added references, templates and other nodes (bug 54712).

Looking ahead: Development work right now is on rich copy-and-paste abilities, quicker addition of citation templates in references, setting media items' options (such as being able to put images on the left), switching into wikitext mode, and simplifying the toolbar. A significant amount of work is being done on other languages during this month. If you speak a language other than English, you can help with translating the documentation.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Genuine Question

Hello, as you told myself previously, you've been on here alot longer than me so wondering if you could clarify some of the Wikipedia rules/guidelines etc. for me.

So, been editing some pages lately to include more information on some football players loan spells at their respective clubs and had edited the Conor Coady article when another editor basically un-done my edit responding with "rmv non notable content - doesn't need mention of ever game he plays, cards aren't notable, nor are pre season games)". Is this correct? As I'm a tad unsure as last time somewhere along the lines we discussed not adding sections unless it has suitable info.

So my question is, are articles a mix between not too little info and not too much info? or is he wrong to undo my edit? I believed it was the more content the better?

Anyway, hope you can help. Thanks RyanSkinnerMU (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Scotland women's national under-17 football team

Is it notable? Probably. Is the article in dire need of improvement? Definitely. GiantSnowman 16:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

João Rodrigo Silva Santos

Definitely, I looked at creating an article for him yesterday but saw he was non-notable. His death is only receiving coverage because of how unusual/gruesome it was. GiantSnowman 16:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"League performance"

Hello, I'd like to open up a discussion, formally and respectfully challenging the use of league performance for the table formerly known as "results by round." Is not the league table also an indication of "league performance"? Or the results summary? Or even the matches themselves? By what logic does it seem fitting to call what is unequivocally the results by round section "league performance"? That doesn't even make sense. Italia2006 (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion has already taken place as the English Premier League does not use a "Round System", unlike many other European leagues so the "Results by round" label does not work for English leagues. You can read about it here Results by round and here Results by round. If you would like to add to the discussion, I would use the Talk:2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season article, as the other discussions have been archived. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the term "Classification" is used in Serie A but the article instead uses "League table". That means nothing. Italia2006 (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I am referring to the English Premier League, I don't know (or care) what is used in Serie A. JMHamo (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm making a point. What is used in the league doesn't really matter. Saying league performance doesn't make any sense. At least acknowledge the point I made earlier without being rude. Italia2006 (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not understand you. League Performance makes perfect sense. JMHamo (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Isn't the league table, as well as the results summary section, also an indicator of how a team performs in the league? If anything it would make more sense to call the league table "league performance", or the results summary section. I make perfect sense. Italia2006 (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Everybody knows a league table is called a league table, so why would you want to change that? Could you please discuss this at the Liverpool Talk page, where there's an existing discussion on this subject. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And for the past several years everyone's known that a results by round section is a results by round section, but for some reason you thought it prudent to change it. For my money the league table is the greatest indicator of "league performance" there is. I have no idea why you thought it would make sense to call one part out of four which detail the league performance of a club (league table, results summary, results by round, matches) "league performance." Italia2006 (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)As stated several times now. Use the Talk:2013–14_Liverpool_F.C._season so that everyone can join the discussion. QED237 (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I did that already if you cared to look. Italia2006 (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The league table does not show historical league performance over the full season - it shows the position of all 20 clubs currently, and as I've said already, there are NO "rounds" in the Premier League, so "results by round" label is inaccurate. JMHamo (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? There are no rounds in the Premier League? What are there then? Italia2006 (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You can read about it here - Wikipedia Football Archive... JMHamo (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What's your problem

Hello, yet again. Do you have issues listening to reason? I went over both conversations completely. The consensus was that there were no "rounds" in the Premier League. NO WHERE is there a consensus to call it league performance. You mean to tell me that you take issue with "results by matchday"? That's perfect. Or do you just have a vendetta against people who disagree with you? Italia2006 (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I shall seek dispute resolution now as your actions are disruptive. JMHamo (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

My 14,000+ edits were certainly disruptive. Italia2006 (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)No one cares about have many edits you have, that is not important at all. However if you are so experienced you say you are, maybe you should consider to get a little less agressive towards other users. QED237 (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Aggressive? You've been here since July 2013 and are by far the most aggressive user I've ever seen. As I stated before you seem to think yourself a Wikipedia policeman. Maybe I'm a little annoyed that you and this other user are clinging to something that is held up by a nonexistent consensus and which has no argument for its use. Maybe it is because you refuse to listen to reason. Every time I've laid down a point, it's been ignored. Enough. Italia2006 (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Time out... everybody chill. JMHamo (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Italia2006 can you please give me an example from when I was aggressive? QED237 (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I consider being called aggressive and hostile because I've made logical, valid points which are continually ignored an act of aggression in itself. All it took was one other user to review the discussion to show that I wasn't aggressive but rather had perfectly valid points. And I was ignored when I first wrote a polite request, so maybe you don't appreciate politeness and decorum. Italia2006 (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That you had valid points? All you did was to shout that there are rounds in PL, and that we were stupid. I like how you feel that you are better than everyone else and everyone else are aggressive. That is why you ended up in two disputes in such a short time? The way you write gets people aggrevated, thats the way it is.QED237 (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If you had just stopped arguing about the "round" and suggested "result by matchday" immediately a lot could have been avoided. QED237 (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

And also, that user never said anything about you being aggressive or not he just tried to solve the dispute. QED237 (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

First, I argued more against using "league performance" than for using "results by round". As far as anyone being shouted down, all you did was bombard me with Wikipedia guidelines, likely because you realized that there was no argument. And the fact that a consensus was consistently referenced which, it turns out, never existed (corroborated by Mentoz) makes both you and the other user look very poor. Never once did I use the word stupid, and I believed I used caps once because you had ignored the point I had proven several times in a row. I'm not sure you even understand what aggressive means. I was not in a dispute with the other user, I was in a discussion, because he understood that I was trying to make a point. You first ignored my request for a review, then bombarded me with Wikipedia rules and the fact that no one agreed with me (good job seeking other opinions) and when I finally sought another opinion, lo and behold someone did agree with me. It's you who has to review how they talk to others, not me. As for thinking I am better than anyone else, there is no evidence for that anywhere in our dispute. I guess the fact that I even disagreed is enough to judge that I think I am better than you. If you actually read everything that I wrote, it is all polite logic. Italia2006 (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

First, you used caps several times in Talk:2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season for example "BUT THERE ARE ROUNDS", "ONE PART OF THE ARTICLE" and "THERE ARE ROUNDS IN THE PREMIER LEAGUE". Two of them actually shows how you were arguing on the fact that there are rounds, more than trying to find compromise for a new name for the section. Secondly,using words like " It's like denying gravity" is not being polite, it is to me considered as an attempt to say that the other editors are stupid. And even though we gave you the result by round discussion on WT:FOOTY you kept saying "There's nothing wrong with "results by round"." and "argument against results by round is baseless". Please read what yourself has written, it is far from polite and you kept going with the round discussion, and never suggested "result by matchday" until the very end. QED237 (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

York City

Note you've reverted my 2 updates today. Not sure why. Blackpool game was definitely York's first game we had sponsorship on our shirts and was prompted by a very rare Match Of The Day appearance and the name appeared for the rest of the season before changing to the brewery name in August 1984. Re transfer fees, appreciate they are not always in the public domain and that the fee York received for Cresswell was the largest one off payment, but the Greening monies in total far exceeded it. £350k initial + £500k (5 lots of £100k appearance related) and then a % of Man United's profit when they sold him to Boro, see http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/archive/2001/06/01/7942322.City_eye_Greening_cash/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismf (talk • contribs) 23:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Transfermarkt

Hi. Could you take a look at 2013–14 Arsenal F.C. season‎. IP user keeps reverting to transfermarkt even if I told him it is not reliable as you told him on the liverpool-talkpage. QED237 (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Wang Chengkuai

I have written the article since he has made his debut for Jong Ajax on Monday 11 November 2013 in a Eerste Divisie seasons match against De Graafschap, there are also several refrences from prominent Dutch and Chinese newspapers alike. He is the starting CAM for the Jong Ajax team who play in the 2nd tier of professional football in the Netherlands. The reason his previous article had been deleted, is because he had not made his debut yet. This is no longer the case since his debut happened yesterday. I have also challenged the speedy deletion through the link you provided on my talk page. Thank you for your time. (Subzzee (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC))

VisualEditor newsletter for November 2013

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has worked on some feature changes, major infrastructure improvements to make the system more stable, dependable and extensible, some minor toolbar improvements, and fixing bugs.

A new form parsing library for language characters in Parsoid caused the corruption of pages containing diacritics for about an hour two weeks ago. Relatively few pages at the English Wikipedia were affected, but this created immediate problems at some other Wikipedias, sometimes affecting several dozen pages. The development teams for Parsoid and VisualEditor apologize for the serious disruption and thank the people who reported this emergency at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and on the public IRC channel, #mediawiki-visualeditor.

There have been dozens of changes since the last newsletter. Here are some of the highlights:

• Accidental deletion of infoboxes and other items: You now need to press the Delete or ← Backspace key twice to delete a template, reference or image. The first time, the item becomes selected, and the second time, it is removed. The need to press the delete key twice should make it more obvious what you are doing and help avoid accidental removals of infoboxes and similar (bug 55336).
• Switch from VisualEditor to the wikitext editor: A new feature lets you make a direct, one-way editing interface change, which will preserve your changes without needing to save the page and re-open it in the wikitext editor (bug 50687). It is available in a new menu in the action buttons by the Cancel button (where the "Page Settings" button used to be). Note that this new feature is not currently working in Firefox.
• Categories and Languages are also now directly available in that menu. The category suggestions drop-down was appearing in the wrong place rather than below its input box, which is now fixed. An incompatibility between VisualEditor and the deployed Parsoid service that prevented editing categories and language links was fixed.
• File:, Help: and Category: namespaces: VisualEditor was enabled for these namespaces the on all wikis (bug 55968), the Portal: and Viquiprojecte: namespaces on the Catalan Wikipedia (bug 56000), and the Portal: and Book: namespaces on the English Wikipedia (bug 56001).
• Media item resizing: We improved how files are viewed in a few ways. First, inline media items can now be resized in the same way that has been possible with block ones (like thumbnails) before. When resizing a media item, you can see a live preview of how it will look as you drag it (bug 54298). While you are dragging an image to resize it, we now show a label with the current dimensions (bug 54297). Once you have resized it, we fetch a new, higher resolution image for the media item if necessary (bug 55697). Manual setting of media item sizes in their dialog is nearly complete and should be available next week. If you hold down the ⇧ Shift key whilst resizing an image, it will now snap to a 10 pixel grid instead of the normal free-hand sizing. The media item resize label now is centered while resizing regardless of which tool you use to resize it.
• Undo and redo: A number of improvements were made to the transactions system which make undoing and redoing more reliable during real-time collaboration (bug 53224).
• Save dialogue: The save page was re-written to use the same code as all other dialogs (bug 48566), and in the process fixed a number of issues. The save dialog is re-accessible if it loses focus (bug 50722), or if you review a null edit (bug 53313); its checkboxes for minor edit, watch the page, and flagged revisions options now layout much more cleanly (bug 52175), and the tab order of the buttons is now closer to what users will expect (bug 51918). There was a bug in the save dialog that caused it to crash if there was an error in loading the page from Parsoid, which is now fixed.
• Links to other articles or pages sometimes sent people to invalid pages. VisualEditor now keeps track of the context in which you loaded the page, which lets us fix up links in document to point to the correct place regardless of what entry point you launched the editor from—so the content of pages loaded through /wiki/Foobar?veaction=edit and /w/index.php?title=Foobar&veaction=edit both now have text links that work if triggered (bug 48915).
• Toolbar links: A bug that caused the toolbar's menus to get shorter or even blank when scrolled down the page in Firefox is now fixed (bug 55343).
• Numbered external links: VisualEditor now supports Parsoid's changed representation of numbered external links (bug 53505).
• Removed empty templates: We also fixed an issue that meant that completely empty templates became impossible to interact with inside VisualEditor, as they didn't show up (bug 55810).
• Mathematics formulae: If you would like to try the experimental LaTeX mathematics tool in VisualEditor, you will need to opt-in to Beta Features. This is currently available on Meta-wiki, Wikimedia Commons, and Mediawiki.org. It will be available on all other Wikimedia sites on 21 November.
• Browser testing support: If you are interested in technical details, the browser tests were expanded to cover some basic cursor operations, which uncovered an issue in our testing framework that doesn't work with cursoring in Firefox; the Chrome tests continue to fail due to a bug with the welcome message for that part of the testing framework.
• Load time: VisualEditor now uses content language when fetching Wikipedia:TemplateData information, so reducing bandwidth use, and users on multi-language or multi-script wikis now get TemplateData hinting for templates as they would expect (bug 50888).
• Reuse of VisualEditor: Work on spinning out the user experience (UX) framework from VisualEditor into oojs-ui, which lets other teams at Wikimedia (like Flow) and gadget authors re-use VisualEditor UX components, is now complete and is being moved to a shared code repository.
• Support for private wikis: If you maintain a private wiki at home or at work, VisualEditor now supports editing of private wikis, by forwarding the Cookie: HTTP header to Parsoid ($wgVisualEditorParsoidForwardCookies set to true) (bug 44483). (Most private wikis will also need to install Parsoid and node.js, as VisualEditor requires them.)

Looking ahead:

• VisualEditor will be released to some of the smaller Wikipedias on 02 December 2013. If you are active at one or more smaller Wikipedias where VisualEditor is not yet generally available, please see the list at VisualEditor/Rollouts.
• Public office hours on IRC to discuss VisualEditor with Product Manager James Forrester will be held on Monday, 2 December, at 1900 UTC and on Tuesday, 3 December, at 0100 UTC. Bring your questions. Logs will be posted on Meta after each office hour completes.
• In terms of feature improvements, one of the major infrastructure projects affects how inserting characters works, both using your computer's built-in Unicode input systems and through a planned character inserter tool for VisualEditor. The forthcoming rich copying and pasting feature was extended and greater testing is currently being done. Work continues to support the improved reference dialog to quickly add citations based on local templates.

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 22:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

User reverting your reverts

Somebody appears to be reverting your reverts. He/she is claiming that you reverted his/her edits for no reason, and that you're "harassing him on talk page." Just thought you should know. IsraphelMac (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a disruptive IP sock that has been blocked on numerous occasions and just evades by using another IP. They will be blocked again soon. Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Assists now at ANI

Hi. Thought I should let you know I have now raised an issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Xboxandhalo2 violates consensus (WT:FOOTY) about assist about the fact that a editor refuses to follow consensus. Since you are involved I thought you should know. QED237 (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I see you've been very active at AFC, thanks! S Philbrick(Talk) 22:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Nico Yennaris

Hi there. Did you see something that I didn't in Nico Yennaris' article? I can't see the point in using WP:ROLLBACK to these edits. or did I miss something? Mentoz86 (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw the anon broke the article and I was going to fix it, but got distracted and never got back to tidying-up. My apologies. JMHamo (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering. It would have been correct to revert that revision (with an edit summary), but as it wasn't obvious vandalism it isn't something that you should use WP:ROLLBACK to revert. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

G10 Taggings

Hey there! I'm not sure what to do with some of your recent G10 taggings (examples: 1 2 3). G10 specifies that the page must "serve no other purpose" other than to attack or disparage the subject. These articles don't seem to cross that line to me. I'm inclined to wait and see what some other admin does with them, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. Jujutacular (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

All three submissions here fail WP:BLPVIO in my opinion and that of the editors that initially reviewed and blanked them. JMHamo (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

They are unsourced biographies of living people. Some of them do have questionably mild negative content (so I can understand blanking the AFCs). But deleting as G10 immediately in these cases seems a bit overzealous in my opinion. Jujutacular (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Harish

<new thread moved down from top of page - JohnCD (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)>

Hi JMHamo, I have created an article & user ID for Shyam_Sunder_PremiShyam Sunder Premi, who was a great singer & music director in Mumbai film industry, India. He passed away on 9th Sep 1993. I have not edited this article too much as I am busy in to collect the right information about Shyam Sunder Premi and also trying to collect news paper cuttings of his days where all leading news papers were print about him or his interviews. I am not able to understand, why you are considering this article as "blatant advertising" while my approach is not this, my intension is to provide a right information to those people who will search for such a great singer. If you have found something suspicious or some advertising kind of thing then please let me know, I will delete that but my humble request to you is not to delete this article. I assure you that I will write more about Shyam Sunder Premi soon with full information. As an editor, I am very new to Wikipedia as this is my first article which I have created on Wikipedia and don't know too much how can I fulfill your requirement. if you still feels that this article doesn't meet with your criteria then I allow you to delete this article. Regards, Harish Shyam Sunder Premi (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC) I just have checked it and found that you already have deleted my page. Please guide me how I can retrieve this page, if it is OK from your side?

There is confusion here because the user has taken the name of his (deceased) subject as his username and was using his userpage for a draft article. In response to a request at WP:REFUND#User:Shyam Sunder Premi I have restored a recently-G13-deleted draft and advised him to work on that; I have also suggested on his talk page that a change of username, though not required, may avoid possible future confusion. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Salvatore torretti

Hello JMHamo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Salvatore torretti, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: there is enough here to pass the low bar of WP:CSD#A7. Let the AfD take care of it. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. JMHamo (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10