User talk:Krano/Archives/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Krano. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
When an article is under review after being nominated for a Good Article, the template sets up a sub talk page that keeps a record of the discussion. It's a fairly recent thing so you may not have seen it before. But it is more appropriate for the talk to take place on that sub page than on the user's talk pages, though - of course - people are free to chat about details on their talk pages if they elect to do that. G8 would not apply here. If you are not happy with the idea of a subpage to discuss the GA review process you'd need to take the matter up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. Regards SilkTork *YES! 00:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
oh you didn't need to notice me about that I realised it first after reread the talkpage I was only confused that It didn't had any article associated with it.
Alexnia (T) @ 09:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Rtvybo787
Actually, editors are allowed to remove anything from their talk pages except {{unblock}} requests during the duration of a block. Toddst1 (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
what about block messages?
Alexnia (T) @ 16:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason that this wouldn't apply, so yes, they can remove block messages. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
ok than that means that serveral user have to apologise to him. Another question what about user's claiming a block message to be spam
Alexnia (T) @ 16:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I objected to the issuing of valid warnings being called trolling which is why I blocked the editor (of unknown gender). Toddst1 (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, this is one of the less-well understood rules around here and IMHO doesn't make much sense. However, that's the way it works. Toddst1 (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Static Avenue
Dear Alexnia,
I am sorry that you think that the Static Avenue page was totally inappropiate by I actually have the guts to disagree with you. Static Avenue is an appropiate page. You might not believe it but I can show you a sound track of them and their logo. Maybe, you might want to peruse their page [1]. Many people out side this virtual world vituperate Wikipedia because people like you think that it is alright to coerce people with ominous threats thinking that they will apotheosize you because you may think that you are a WikiGod so you decide to delete their pages. I find it really hurtful and it has made be rather livid. Static Avenue have a strong passion for music, but because you think they might be a school-band. Alexnia, they are NOT a school-band and I am harassed because I do not think it is fair. Don't hesistate me to contact me if you think that I am overreacting or pushing my luck.
Yours sincerely,
Ratzo--Ratzo (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
sorry but the link you gave me is a homepage. Wikipedia policy states that you need a third party source to imply the notability of that band . Only because they have a homepage dosn't implie that they can have an Article on wikipedia.(what would you think when I wrote an article about my mother and then contest the deletion because she has her own homepage?) Have you actually read over the WP:MUSIC article which should cover why the page was deleted?. If not you can forget a further conversation with me.Alexnia (T) @ 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Static Avenue
Dear Alexnia,
Are you trying to patronize in anyway or form. The page on your mother was inappropiate because it is silly. This is TOTALLY different but please do not bully in that kind of way because I am an newbie. To be candid I am rather sick and tired of you bossing me around. There are people all over our blessed planet reading our articles. Your'e not giving me a single chance to prove that Static Avenue is different and I am standin for a right, I am not letting pigheaded people get what they want. You might think that I am overreacting. I can tell you that a good friend of mine think that some Wikipedians are mulish so's and so's. I abominate this behaviour. Read Static Avenue's page. Do you think that they are rich. When Simon Cowell or somebody in the music industry clicks on their article and their page, they will be informed a little bit more about kids soceity. Children who don't have great opportunities in music. Static Avenue may not be your definition of famous but I can tell you people look for talent and Wikipedia is one of their sources. Static Avenue's life depend on music and Wikipedia but you are just breaking it into smithereens. I am giving you the chance of changing that. Let me do this page, even if it the last page I do for Wikipedia. Just please relent. Please
Ratzo--Ratzo (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
just a little notice to tell any1 who belongs to this project that a signed myself under Alexnia Alexnia (T) @ 14:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've approved your request. See Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide for details of how to use the tool.
- For now you can create at most six accounts per day and you won't be able to create accounts with a username very similar to an existing username. If you find yourself regularly hitting these limits, please request the accountcreator permission.
- Thanks for your help! Stifle (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
hifigear
i AM NEW TO wIKI AND DID NOT REALISE YOU WERE EDITING MY PAGE, i THOUGHT i KEPT MAKING THE CHANGES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hifigear (talk • contribs) 13:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
no problem but you should have read our policy's before making that page you have been twice reported at wp:UAA.Alexnia (T) @ 21:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Karen White article
I am a new writer on Wikipedia and appreciate your help on my article. i made a reference to the Penguin page that verifys karen as one of there authors. Does that suffice to remove your warnings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhite6279 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- ✓ Done – & those tags I placed on the article are not warnings they are there only maintenance tags. Alexnia (T)
Yateesh M Acharya page
Hi,
I'm still not clear as what do you want to know for authentication of Yateesh M Acharya.
Recently I attended his live concert in the capital city of India along with several other world class singers.
I really wish that his page exists on Wiki.
Please let me know.
Regards, Jatil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatilsharma (talk • contribs) 09:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
the problem with miss Acharya is that the page you had created which can still be found in my sandbox was completely plagiarised from this website whose link I can't recall atm. Alexnia (T) @ 12:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, so do you think that I should re-post whatever information I have about Yateesh M Acharya?
And another thing... He is not "miss Acharya" but Mr. Acharya.
Regards, Jatil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatilsharma (talk • contribs) 18:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
oops sorry about that :P yes you could repost the article if you rewrite it in your own words ; understood? Alexnia (T) @ 19:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Divine Mercy redirect
Hi, Why do you keep redirectin the Divine Mercy Article?--Trounce (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
because that article already existed so I redirected it to Divine Mercy Alexnia (T) @ 08:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
thank you
thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. Shirulashem (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
your welcome(and thanks for thanking me):P Alexnia (T) @ 20:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks from me too! :-) DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
wow I looked at the history of your user page someone really got attracted to it Alexnia (T) @ 18:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC).
- Yeah, I never knew how popular I could be. ;-) DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me..
Excuse me, but with your rollback edit, you removed almost the entire page. I was going to get rid of the vandalism made by that IP, but you accuse me? Please explain. ImperatorExercitus (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
if you would have re read the reversion you would have recognised that the ip copy and pasted a paragraph more than 1 timeAlexnia (T) @ 16:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- My bad; sorry, I didn't see that. My apologies. :D Cheers. ImperatorExercitus (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Talk back
Hi Alexnia, I haven't taken a look at your edits yet, but one thing that I would highly recommend doing is changing your approach to talk pages. You insist on having conversations that occur on multiple pages and using talk back... this makes it very difficult if not impossible for people to assess you and your attitude towards others. It makes it very difficult to follow conversations. This can hurt if somebody comes to your talk page with a criticism and can't see your response.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Fine what do you want me to do; try to use the talkback templates less often or try to watch list user talk pages? I just like the talkback template because it allows me to see the discussion more clearly (meaning that I don't need to follow a discussion on different talk pages) and I nerve had a problem with the template except one confused user who posted his message on the talk page of the talkback template.Alexnia (T) @ 10:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
RfA Coaching
Hi Alexnia, I've just gone through your edits, and don't think I would be a good coach for you. There are too many things that I don't like, that's not to say that you can't fix them, but at this point in time, *I* would not be a good match for you. Let me give you some quick observations:
1) I hate your sig---just watch list people's pages when you comment on their page. Conversations should IMHO always be continued on the page where it started, and it should be a given that people will watchlist the page. 2) I hate how you have mizabot set up to only archive comments if there is a response. One of the things people want to see in potential admins is, "Do they respond to questions/comments?" By failing to archive communications that you don't respond to, you could potentially hid things. This is honestly one of the big reasons why I won't coach you, and why if you ran for admin, I would oppose. You've set your bot to "hide" potentially negative information. It may not be your intent, but that is the effect nonetheless. 3) I am not a fan of speedy deleters. People who enjoy speedy delete, and don't contribute to the project, have a very difficult time passing RfA's. CSD is one area where over eagerness and poor communication skills can really damage the project. 4) I am not a fan of people who rely upon tools. I want to see more of the candidate, what they think, how they reason... not huggle/twinkle/etc. Using tools is OK if it is in conjunction with non-tool usage, but when it is heavily biased towards tools, forget it.
If you want to run for admin down the road:
1) Start building the encyclopedia. While article contributions are the best and most favored manner, there are other ways that you can "Build" the project. While anti-vandalism is a necessary part of the project, many people view it as a necessary evil. It is seen by some as power hunger/bullying/destroying others creativity. People want to know that you as an admin can empathize with people. 2) Start participating in areas that show policy knowledge/expertise. 3) Use the automated tools less---you don't have to stop, just show a little more of yourself in your edits.
Again, don't let this turn you off on becoming an admin. I know that there are some admin coaches who specialize in vandal fighters... I'm just not one of them.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
He is the worst tekken character of all time. Prove to me that he isn't. Jim's 21st birthday party is legaly a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintsrow2 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry my mistake Bihco (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
no problem I just recognised that I accidental created that abuse report on the mainspace how silly :) Alexnia (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
The pinkprint
Look at my edit once more. My edit summary states that i blanked the tracklisting paragraph because it was a fake, unsourced tracklist. - Thewormsplayer (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- jup my mistake, sorry about that. Avono♂ (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Choi Myung-gil
I added more references and information. The only thing I removed was the Best Couple nomination because it's not listed in 2009 KBS Drama Awards. 203.215.116.168 (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- then make that edit with your message as a summary so that other editors know why you removed that content Avono♂ (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Noted. I hope you'll also check/compare the content of the edits first before reverting.203.215.116.168 (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi! That was ok because I was trying to put some fresh photos, but without success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airpink (talk • contribs) 23:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
edits to Freedom Socialist Party page: delete "Controversy" section
Avono,
You recently undid my deletion of the section entitled "Controversy." You said that it was heavily sourced and that I should talk and reach consensus. (These are my first edits so I'm still figuring this out but I think its a relatively short learning curve.) The major edit was a good one. All the sources in the part that was about alleged support for Mr. Purdy are irrelevant because they bolster an invalid controversy that a user or users claimed. FSP prints letters to the editor in its newspaper, Freedom Socialist, which do not necessarily reflect its views and often don't. The content of the letter was not related to the convictions of Mr. Purdy. FSP's printing of the letter by Mr. Purdy had nothing to do with supporting him or not supporting him. Based on the nature of the convictions and the socialist feminist ideology of the party, that would be a bizarre contradiction of their political program. If this was a controversy then the only relevance of all the sources related to the convictions would be that FSP should have known who the author was and about those convictions, and then not published the letter. The whole premise of the controversy was fallacious: FSP supports Mr. Purdy. It does and has not. So all those sources would only be relevant if FSP supported him but this was never substantiated.
As for the first sentence about being critical of the U.S. prison system, and supporting political prisoners like Mumia Abu-Jamal, that would be all that would remain if the obviously out of place sentences about Mr. Purdy and his convictions were not there. It is somewhat controversial to be critical of the U.S. prison system, but it is also very common. Supporting Mumia Abu-Jamal IS arguably controversial. It is also not unique to FSP and many positions FSP takes (like calling for supporting the Iraqi resistance in its slogans against the war in Iraq) are considered controversial. If this section is going to exist then it should be more robust then just one issue and one sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwik One (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have reread the paragraph. https://web.archive.org/web/20140729193535/http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/articles/freedom-socialist-newspaper-letters-editor shows that the letter was published by the party. See the word published, therefore the section is not biased ( and it is relevant to mention why it is controversial to mention that person) Avono♂ (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Before it said FSP "lent support to" and then only said "published" (because of me)
Here is the content of how that section (Controversy) began before I did any edits:
"The FSP has published a number of articles critical of the U.S. prison system,[23][24][25] and in support of prisoners such as Mumia Abu-Jamal.[26][27] Similarly, the FSP lent its support to Duncan Wells Purdy, who was first convicted in April 2007 of using his Cambridge, Massachusetts massage parlor to pimp women, and then convicted in December 2007 for raping a woman"
Notice the words "the FSP lent its support to Duncan Wells Purdy"?
You reported me and I think I'm not banned or anything if I refrain from removing content. While I did not know about the consecutive reversion rule, that does not matter and I hope I'm not found to go past the three strikes or reported as such because one time I accidentally forgot to add a brief description or something like that in trying to get the page to be accurate.
Please look at the history of the edits and also if possible please do not say it's unbiased when it was only "unbiased" because of my, at first, rather small corrections. The part of the section about Purdy, before i did anything to it clearly stated FSP supported Purdy and that's what I have been arguing. That was bias. The rest which is "factual" about the case loses its relevance and would deceive readers to think that FSP supported Purdy in the matter regarding the prostitution and sexual abuse charges which landed him in prison, of which there are details provided RE the circumstances around that (which has nothing to do about the subject of the letter to the editor [see http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/articles/freedom-socialist-newspaper-letters-editor Behind Bars...United...]). Look again and thanks for what I take were good intentions in keeping an orderly and accurate wikipedia site and community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwik One (talk • contribs) 02:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
This is where the unsubsantiated support claim arose: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_Socialist_Party&diff=617638819&oldid=607576690
Check that out. Thanks. Apologies for being longwinded. I think that link quickly resolves the misunderstanding.
Cwik One (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think you could have merit regarding WP:NOR. until there are sources that say this is a controversy the paragraph can be safely removed. In the future please remember that you can only revert an article a maximum amount of 3 times. That is why I reported you Avono♂ (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Mr Ma and Son
Not notable? The novel is published by Penguin under modern classics, Lao She is one of the most famous writers of 20th century China and I haven't even completed the article yet. Please refrain from too enthusiastic deletion. DORC (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- then please add a source to prove your statement otherwise there's no way to know if its a made up article Avono♂ (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
History of Education Society
I am not sure why you regard the History of Education Society as an unreliable source. Please look at the calibre of the people who serve on their committee. Then please look at the page describing their History of Education to reassure yourself that the operate an effective peer-review policy., Then, I would be grateful if you would reconsider whether the posting you made on Society for the Education of Africans is appropriate.Leutha (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- this is not the source you linked in the article. It was a book which did not turn up during a google search. Avono♂ (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply. I must admit I do not know what book is of which you speak. In fact I do not think such a book exists, which might be why it does not come up on google. I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to follow the links I mentioned above, bearing in mind that with citation template, the Volume and issue come up as shown in the reference I did give. Then I would urge you reconsider whether the posting you made on Society for the Education of Africans is appropriate. Thanks Leutha (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- then link the sources in the article otherwise your argument is moot because you a describing the article at a state it dosn't exist. Avono♂ (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, you can't use A7 on 'educational establishments' (says so on the label...). As primary schools aren't considered inherently notable (not that inherent notability is considered to exist - except that it does...), they can be prodded or AfDed. Other CSD areas can apply to educational establishments, but none apply here. Peridon (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion criteria
You tagged Francis Bashforth for deletion as a "non-English article", and you tagged Ede-Enu as "made up". In the former case, this is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion: articles that are not written in English should be tagged as {{notenglish}}, but WP:CSD clearly states that this alone is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion. In the latter case, although WP:CSD#A11 does allow for the speedy deletion of things that appear to be made up, a careful reading of the article as written at the time you deleted it would have indicated that this was the name of a place in Nigeria, not a concept made up by the article's author. Please be more careful in your speedy deletion tagging. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Pakistan Institute Of Engineering and Technology
Hello Avono. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Pakistan Institute Of Engineering and Technology, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)