Jump to content

User talk:Myk60640

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently recreated or reposted material at List of online pharmacy which previously was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not recreate this page without prior approval from an administrator or you may be blocked from editing. We ask that you respect what Wikipedia is not. If you disagree with the page's deletion, you may seek an independent deletion review. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UIUC admissions controversy

[edit]

Let's discuss the matter regarding the admissions controversy on Talk:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for all interested editors to participate rather than each others' talk pages. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles in 1968

[edit]

Thanks for contributing information about The Beatles. However, the the existing article The Beatles: the studio years already covers this time period and subject-matter. The new article created yesterday The Beatles in 1968 has therefore been proposed for deletion. Please don't take this personally but please consider expanding the existing article instead, noting that any material not verifiable or directly relevant to The Beatles may be challenged or removed by other editors. Thanks again for your contribution. PL290 (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC) As you suggested, I have incorporated this material into the studio years article. Thank you myk60640Myk60640 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Myk60640, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! <tommy> (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)(Myk60640 (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Steve Buyer

[edit]

By saying that his son "coincidentally" works for a pharmaceutical company right next to a statement that much of Buyer's funding is from the medical industry, you are really implying that it's not a coincidence. That is sarcastic. The fact alone is fine but you must take care where it is placed and how it is worded. Reywas92Talk 22:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Woods and BLP

[edit]

Regarding this addition of lists of "mistresses" and so forth, there is a consensus on the talk page at Talk:Tiger Woods#Dispute that including the names of individual women with whom he's alleged to have had affairs would be undue weight. In addition, several of the sources you mentioned are tabloids, which are not sufficiently reliable sources generally for Wikipedia. This is doubly true in the case of biographical articles, which are covered by our policy on biographies of living people. I suggest you read the introduction of that policy to see what I mean. In brief, we're not a tabloid, so we don't include what the tabloids report unless the mainstream news media does significant reporting on it.--Chaser (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chaser how lovely that you would provide your comments. Unfortunately, it still makes no sense because 1) undue weight: either undue weight should apply to all names or none, so, either all the names should be there or none. It is undue weight for just the one or two ladies now mentioned, isn't it? 2) you stated that some of the sources are tabloids. okay a few media may be but does that mean that you are putting CBS News and ABC News in that category. I think not, and if not, then some of the names mentioned by reliable sources like CBS News and ABC News should stay. Yes? I suggest that you think about how Wikipedia's rules should be applied consistently and not to meet certain peoples' feelings. (That's partly why Wikipedia has a shortage of editors these days as the media have reported) Myk60640 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Myk60640[reply]
Sorry if we've bitten you, newcomer. I try not to contribute to the loss of editors, but it's a secondary concern with BLPs. Anyway, I think this may be the right outlet for your desire to document more detail. And you're right of course, not all the sources you used were tabloids. Just avoid the ones that are and try to find good, authoritative sources that have reported on the tabloids' claims, rather than citing the tabloids directly. Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lieberman

[edit]

Please don't accuse me of deleting information for no reason. I clearly explained in my edit summary that I didn't think the information was relevant. It still isn't: the section is quite clearly about Lieberman's position on health care, not on the filibuster, and I intend to remove it again. Thanks. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hysterics, hysteria. I did not see any explanation so that is why i said what I said. Nothing was put in the edit link that I founds. Since then, I have moved the filibuster reference to the more appropriate Controversy section of the page. Thanks you Hysterias. You are a real character. You don't allow edits regarding controversy in a section, and then when that Controversial post is moved to an appropriate existing Controversy section (like many Wikipedia pages have) , you say that Controversy should be put into the sections. You don't allow either option. I am not surprised you are a child. You need some real help. Have a wonderful day, dfasdfkjasdfkl;Myk60640 (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Myk60640[reply]
Firstly, I hope you don't mind, but I've indented your comment so as to make it more easily readable: the Wikipedia software doesn't notice single linebreaks unless they're accompanied by an indent or bullet point (Help:Wiki markup contains more information). To address your argument, ignorance is simply not an excuse. Perhaps you're not familiar with Wikipedia's page history feature, in which case you need to either become familiar with it or stop throwing around uninformed accusations. I'll also ask you to refrain from trying to subvert my reasons for that edit: as you know, I removed the content on Lieberman's position on the filibuster because it is not relevant to his position on health care. I assume you don't plan on disputing this. I added the {{criticism section}} template to the section because articles with criticism sections typically do not meet the Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy: the correct way to include properly sourced information in Lieberman's position on the filibuster would be in a separate section for that issue, which would include neutral and verifiable information. I'm sorry if I've confused you at all, and I do understand that this can all be rather complicated: if you have any other questions, feel free to ask here, at my talk page, or at the help desk. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil-United States relations

[edit]

Hello. Do not call my edits vandalism when you clearly know they are not. You are adding controversial material that is not worthy of mention in that article. It is a civil custody case being handled by the judicial system of Brazil. Limongi (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual

[edit]

It's known by all that homosexuals exist in every society so you don't need to go around and highlight this in specificly picked ethnic related articles. Your edits to Pashtun people makes the article stand out as if they are the only people to have homosexuals. Your news reports are talking about bisexuals, men who love women but sleep with young pretty boys. Another editor, Ketabtoon, is also opposed to your recent edits to Pashtun people.[1]--AYousefzai (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like you mentioned, the main point is that homosexuality exist in every society (among every ethnic groups and nationalities) - it is common sense. There is no need to add anything about homosexuality to any ethnic related articles. And, the most important point is that, just because some information can be sourced, it doesn't mean that they should be added to an article. And the last point, why single out Pashtun people? There is nothing about homosexuality in Punjabi people, Tajik people, Hazara people, Uzbeks, Hindkowans, French people and so on. (Ketabtoon (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The news reports written by Americans (Jews-Christians-Athiests) contain many flaws, religious/cultural misunderstandings as well as clear intentions to abuse and defame or demoralize Muslims. These reports emerged right after the West (nonmuslims) attacked Islam in late 2001.
Muslim men sometimes hold hands, hug and kiss each others, play around like brothers or cousins, but under no circumstances are these prohibited by any government law, religious law, and doesn't in any way violate the universal moral ethics. It is by no means a homosexual behaviour, it's considered "brother-hood" in the Muslim world. The uneducated American news writers even mentioned kohl use on eyes which people (men and women) did in the Afghanistan region for many 1,000s of years, at least since Zoroastrianism period. Then they mention henna usage on hands, also ancient, and women and men both do this during celebrations especially on Eid and the day before the wedding. The misled American writers also mentioned "high heeled sandals", which are popular South Asian sandals that all males wear in the Afghan-Pakistan-India region. There is a bunch of other junk.
These Americans are legalizing same-sex marriages and looking at Muslims as if they are crazy. Right when Americans are at war with Taliban the American news writer is taking the words of a Taliban Mullah who said about 50% of people in Kandahar are gays, haha. Where did that fool get his information from? Most likely from the lying satan inside him. So where are these pride parades in Kandahar?
I don't know a single notable gay person from Kandahar, nor is there a single one among the 42 million Pashtuns. I'm really disgusted at these people, it's pathetic. They want to say that their western culture is better but from any religious point of view they are heading for great punishment, and I refuse to become part of it.--AYousefzai (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

[edit]

Your recent edit to the page Homosexuality in India appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. SBC-YPR (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Homosexuality in India

[edit]

Just one of your edits was supported by a reference - which I promptly restored back after formatting as it was deleted along with the reverts. The rest of the information, describing s. 377 being a 'former' law, is incorrect - it was merely read down by the Delhi High Court, still exists on the statute books, and continues to operate in other circumstances. Further, the legal challenge is still on, as the judgment of the Delhi High Court is under appeal in the Supreme Court of India, and Naz Foundation is still a party to the case and involved in the campaign. Declaring that the battle is over at this stage is premature and could mislead readers into an incorrect understanding of the legal position. Also, the external link to the Naz Foundation is not appropriate per Wikipedia policy on external links. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop POV postings

[edit]

Wiki policy requires a [wp:npov neutral point of view] in articles. It appears you have had numerous edits that strongly promote a particular point of view, e.g., the Fat Tax and Soda Tax article edits. There is also a warning to similar effect on your talk page. Please moderate your expression of views. Wiki should not be a soapbox. Continued use as such may result in sanctions.TaxPOVcop (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Yesterday, I had only begun to add info to the Fat tax and soda tax article. Please do not jump to such immediate conclusions based on two related stories as you can see my many posts over the years have been for the most part very balanced. And, I have MUCH more experience than you editing these pages, as I see you are a brand new user. Thank you. 14:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Credit Solutions

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Credit Solutions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Codf1977 (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend that this page for Credit Solutions (aka Credit Solution of America) be retained because:

+ It has nothing to do with a previously deleted page called "Credit Solutions"

+ Credit Solutions or Credit Solutions of America claims to be the largest debt settlement company in the US.

+ The company is the subject of at least four lawsuits by Attorneys Generals in four US states for its false and deceptive business practices. By shedding more light on this company, consumers can be better informed of the issues involved in debt settlement.

+ The company has been featured in many national and local news media including Dallas Morning News, Chicago Tribune, ABC News (see http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7932088&page=1) and many other media about its financial services.

Thank you. Myk60640 (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

[edit]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Mitch McConnell. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 14:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC) My oversight with not using reference. So sorry. And I have successfully created and edited hundreds of Wiki pages so I am not going to go to discussion pages to see if people will approve them. I have had that same type of edit approved as edition to dozens of politicians websites. So there, Neil Thank you anyway.Myk60640 (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding citations

[edit]

Hi, as you have been here quite some time, please if you are going to add citations to article please attempt to format then. A unformatted citation does not allow the reader the pleasure of knowing who published it and when and so on. Please consider reading WP:Citing sources

Use this style to add them

<ref>{{cite web|url=add url here|title=add title here|publisher=add publisher here|date=add date the article was published here|accessdate=add the date you accessed the link here}}</ref>

Thanks Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Will doMyk60640 (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:BP Oil spill Chandeleur IslandsLA.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. On May 26th, another contributor tagged this article for copyright concerns. It has now come due for admin closure, and I do see some content from the official website interspersed particularly through the lead and early part of the article, but it seems that you were not given the requisite notice, which would allow you time either to revise the content or verify that it was used with permission. Accordingly, I'm providing it to you below and relisting the article for another week. After that time, another admin or I should visit the article to see what further actions may have been taken or may be necessary. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as National Foundation for Credit Counseling, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.nfcc.org/about/index.cfm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:National Foundation for Credit Counseling saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl 21:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim DeMint

[edit]

Just to let you know that the comments he made in 2004 were already in the article. Truthsort (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Fine, thanks. Myk60640 (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

liu xiabo

[edit]

nice work Decora (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

[edit]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Three Eldridge Place.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Three Eldridge Place.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ShanghaiTowerwithHuangpuRiver.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ShanghaiTowerwithHuangpuRiver.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other users

[edit]

Hi. Could you let me know what connection, if any, there is between your account and those of User talk:Mykjoseph1958 and User:Mykjoseph. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

[edit]

Hi, Myk60640. According to the page editing statistics you have been among the most active editors of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. There is a request for comments if the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was split correctly from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and if it should be merged back there. Related sections for this discussion are also this and this. Your comments are appreciated. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deepwater Horizon oil spill

[edit]

Hi, Myk60640. You have been an active editor on Deepwater Horizon oil spill and/or its related articles. During some last months there has been an active development of cleaning up that article by splitting off large sections into separate articles. A Deepwater Horizon series were created (all the articles accessible by Template:Deepwater Horizon oil spill series. You are invited to assist by cleaning-up and copy-editing these articles. There are also ongoing discussion concerning additional split-offs. You could see split-off templates at the article's page and find discussions at the talk page. Your input would be useful for building consensus on these issues. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Myk60640&oldid=1087680466"