User talk:Renamed user cdb78c3737e6b7f6ba7e28cedcc6608711202eee/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Renamed user cdb78c3737e6b7f6ba7e28cedcc6608711202eee. 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 5 |
December 2012
It wasn't a mistake, the game is based on Slender Man, which was created by a user on Something Awful, the game isn't based on the German myth, but the internet myth.
- Acknowledged 4DHS Discuss 09:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Can you please tag my IP as a shared IP from the Bunbury Public Library. Cheerio! 203.59.8.23 (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
January 2013
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:STATicVerseatide has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. STATic message me! 02:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry how was the UW-AGF1 template out of place? Respond on your talk page please. 4DHS Discuss 11:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Please take care
I think you deleted a couple of requests in this edit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven
Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:
- We’ve added badges! Teahouse awards is a pilot project to learn how acknowledgement impacts engagement and retention in Teahouse and Wikipedia.
- We’ve got a new WikiLove Badge script that makes giving badges quick and easy. Add it here. You can give out badges to thank helpful hosts, welcome guests, acknowledge great questions and more.
- Come join the experiment and let us know what you think!
- And...for all of your great work and all of the progress that you've helped the Teahouse make, we hereby award you the Host Badge:
|
Teahouse Host Badge |
| Awarded to hosts at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time. Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden. |
- You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here
Thanks again! Ocaasi 01:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The Teahouse Turns One!
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!
|
Teahouse First Birthday Badge |
| Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. |
- --Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users
Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to try out Snuggle and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in #wikimedia-office connect on Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC. See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail(talk • work), Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Vandal~enwiki
User:Vandal~enwiki, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vandal~enwiki and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Vandal~enwiki during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DL9C (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Information Warfare Wing
Hi, I don't understand why you reverted me - I was adding extra details and clarifications to the material you added. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- You reverted my changing of the FEGs title, as it has changed quite some time ago. As per this article para. 2 "Air Warfare Centre (AWC) replaces the former Aerospace Operational Support Group (or AOSG) and achieved an initial operational capability (IOC) on January 11." the information is correct. IVORK Discuss 08:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, The story states "The old AOSG comprised the Development and Test Wing and the Information Warfare Wing, and also had responsibility for the Woomera test range. In its place the new AWC is structured into directorates, comprising Integrated Mission Support, Capability and Logistics, Test and Evaluation, Information Warfare, Air Force Ranges, and Tactics and Training", which obviously means that this wing no longer exists. The wing is also not listed on the (recently updated) official listing of the RAAF's structure here. There's a "Information Warfare Directorate", but this isn't necessarily the same thing. 08:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, however if you look at the structuring of that list you linked, you'll notice that the IWD comes under the AWC, which is at the same level as the rest of the FEGs IVORK Discuss 08:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- If anything, the name of the article should be updated to align with the change as it is cited as the IWD in many other instances e.g. "as part of the Information Warfare Directorate within the RAAF's Air Warfare Centre." - No. 87 Squadron RAAF. IVORK Discuss 08:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, however if you look at the structuring of that list you linked, you'll notice that the IWD comes under the AWC, which is at the same level as the rest of the FEGs IVORK Discuss 08:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, The story states "The old AOSG comprised the Development and Test Wing and the Information Warfare Wing, and also had responsibility for the Woomera test range. In its place the new AWC is structured into directorates, comprising Integrated Mission Support, Capability and Logistics, Test and Evaluation, Information Warfare, Air Force Ranges, and Tactics and Training", which obviously means that this wing no longer exists. The wing is also not listed on the (recently updated) official listing of the RAAF's structure here. There's a "Information Warfare Directorate", but this isn't necessarily the same thing. 08:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
A homage?
Why did you revert "an homage" to "a homage"? That's bad grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.119.161 (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- G'day, in english it is pronounced "a homage" as opposed to the French varient. Even though some places in America do still use the French pronunciation, a consensus was reached with the english varient being used on the english Wikipedia a while back on the homage talk page. IVORK Discuss 04:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
My reverted edits to Doctor Who
I'm afraid the user interface for Wikipedia editing is a little opaque to me, so my apologies if I'm doing this incorrectly... I've just received a notification that an edit I made appears to be disruptive. That certainly isn't my intent. I'm confused as to why it was perceived that way. Nothing I posted is a question of opinion or bias, nor was it critical; my goal was only to add additional, factual information. I did make reference to a division in fan opinion, but only in a paragraph that was already describing one. I'd be happy to discuss it with whomever took issue with it! I don't see a way that it's out of step with the entry as it existed before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loomborn (talk • contribs) 04:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- No problem if you weren't aware. Please in future do be mindful that if your edits are getting reverted it is most likely for a reason and would be listed on the history page for the article. Due to the sheer volume of articles on Wikipedia, a strict Manual of Style is imposed around different words and definitions so as to try keep all articles much of the same likeness. Such as the definition of what a reboot is in this case. The caution wasn't for this alone, but more the fact you had re-reverted and made the same edits 3 times. Cheers! IVORK Discuss 04:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello! Ahh, I see. Sorry about that, I didn't realize what was happening. I was starting to wonder if I just wasn't saving them properly! So, when it comes to my edits, are they acceptable or should I reword?
- I had no idea there was a style manual. I've just looked through it, but I couldn't find a reference to the usage of "reboot" under vocabulary or miscellany... am I missing it? I also didn't know there was a history page to consult... LOL.
- Thanks! :)
- I think the user MarnetteD was right to keep the text as it is. A reboot is considered essentially a new show with the same plot that does not make mention or reference to the previous timeline, such as the new Spiderman for example. The modern Doctors most certainly do make mention to the entire timeline thus making the wording incorrect.
- The WP:MOS is a general guideline, however for the definition itself see the Reboot (fiction) article. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. IVORK Discuss 04:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm starting to get the hang of how this interface works!
- As for the word reboot, I see what you mean, but doesn't that definition seem a little restrictive? I see its position, but surely some allowance should be made for modern reinvention of years-old media? In this case, yes, some continuity was kept, but an equal amount was discarded. It's not a precise continuation or reboot, but it seems to fit the spirit of the word.
- She's also removing an edit I made in the "History of Doctor Who" section, and I can't help feeling her removal is due to a personal bias. I only added factual information which was in line with the existing paragraph. The tonal difference between the two programs is well-established, and the division between viewers on the matter is an important factor in the show's existence. Doesn't it merit a mention?
- Wikipedia generally does use restrictive definitions, avoid slang and ambiguity.
- MarnetteD is actually a WP:Rollbacker and WP:Pending changes reviewer with over 135,000 edits which places her for lack of easier explaining, as a semi-admin. I highly doubt she would be targeting an individual and I agree with her judgements.
- In the nicest way possible, it'd probably be good for you to refrain from making further edits on the subject. IVORK Discuss 05:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Putting aside the question of "reboot" and focusing only on the other paragraph, then. I genuinely don't follow. I'm not trying to be difficult, but you seem to be saying that because of her position here she's allowed free rein over the content. I thought the purpose of this user-editing system was to gather facts from any source that has them, but here her personal opinion is carrying more weight than objective fact. Her experience with Wikipedia may be extensive, but she states on her bio that British television is a favorite subject of hers, so she's not objective on this topic. I've been studying Doctor Who history for thirty years. I never meant to suggest she was targeting me as an individual; the bias I meant was her own personal views on the program, which are naturally at play. Doctor Who fans are notoriously proprietary and she appears to be demonstrating that. There's no objective reason to remove the edit I made about the new series's tonal shift. It's factual, and has been acknowledged by writers, producers, and performers on the show. It's extremely dismaying to believe that Wikipedia entries can be used to promote the personal views of its admins. Are you saying you agree with that edit, too?
- I'm agreeing with her reverting you as you're trying to raise the same claim about it being a rebooted series even after posting Ahh, I see in response to my comments in this section. WP:EDITWARs will only get you blocked from editting. If you have conflicting views on a matter, take it to the talk page to discuss. Her access groups do not give her personal opinion more weight, nor does having a favourite subject invalidate a persons ability to be objective towards it.
- The issue is that the series by definition is not a reboot. Wikipedia is not a place for loose definitions that contradict its own articles. IVORK Discuss 06:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, by "I see" I only meant that I now understood the warning you initially gave me.
I've given up on the "reboot" thing. Yes, I do feel that the modern series qualifies as one being as different from the original as it is the same, but if Wikipedia employs that definition there's nothing I can do about it, so I'm not trying to argue it. I certainly wasn't trying to upset anyone. It does seem at odds with the "ignore all rules" guideline I keep seeing, though...
And I'd agree; loving something doesn't really mean it's impossible to be objective. It was the speed of her reversion, the tone of her stated reason, and the fact the she reverted a second edit without giving a reason that made me suspect a touch of bias.
I'll keep talking to her and see how it goes. I posted on her talk page as soon as I figured out how it worked. Am I right in supposing you're an actual admin?
ADDED: Hello again. I'm really sorry to bother you, but I've been discussing this with Marnette on her page and I'm at a loss. I can provide citations for the points I'm making, but she's using her own opinions to insist they're invalid. If the words of the program's actual producers aren't a valid source, what are?
I'm only engaged in this conversation with her because of her Wikipedia experience, but I don't understand why she would be the arbiter of this issue. It's a subject I know a lot about; I'm not a random disgruntled reader trying to push an agenda. She said I would need citations, I said that I'd provide them, then she ignored everything I said and angrily told me that I'm not to post to her page again because "it's not a debating society." I thought we were *supposed* to discuss it to resolve the dispute. As far as I can tell, I'm following the guidelines, being reasonable, and not being impolite. I know my writing style's kinda formal, but that's… just how I talk. I'm honestly not interested in a battle of viewpoints, I'm just trying to post a fact. Discussion about the new sexiness of Doctor Who has gotten a fair bit of press; it's certainly not fringe. I really don't know what to do here. If you could read over the conversation I'd be very grateful. This whole experience feels like an episode of The Twilight Zone...
(I should warn you that I did discuss the reboot thing again, but only in response to another user's comments about it, I didn't raise the issue!)
Loomborn (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- In order to follow the guidelines you need to stop re-reverting your edits as you have already been undone by multiple users for valid listed reasons. As mentioned above, I agree with the reasons listed as to why you have been reverted. And a user is fine to request that. In depth discussions about finite details of an article are better dealt with on the article itself's talk page. IVORK Discuss 07:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I haven't re-reverted an edit since you asked me not to. I was specifically not doing it because I wanted to make it clear that I respect the guidelines. Honestly, the reason I did it before was because, not knowing the system, I thought my edits weren't saving properly.
- Ah, I didn't know there was a talk page for the article itself; I thought I was supposed to discuss it with the other user specifically. Thanks for explaining.
- So, clarify for me, please: I have a factual edit I want to make (NOT the one about calling the series a reboot), and I have multiple sources to cite. One user has objected to my edit. What should I do?Loomborn (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, I had assumed you were talking in reference to this edit. For your next intended edit, I would suggest checking wikipedia policy articles about the reason the user objected to it. If you can't find anything in violation, I would post it to the article's talk page asking if there are any objections to make the edit for a more in depth explanation. IVORK Discuss 04:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Response to Extended Confirmed edit request
Excuse me but when you said i only have 30 out of 500 what did you mean? ~C.S.~ (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- G'day, 30/500 refers to Extended-Confirmed users. It is an access level that is granted after a user's account is over 30 days old and has performed over 500 edits. This is required to edit Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing as in order to be a Teahouse Host, you are required to be highly experienced and at a minimum above the level of an Extended Confirmed user. — IVORK Discuss 07:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Charanjeet Singh Sondhi
You accidentally helped a blocked user evade their block and continue editing. I have deleted Draft:Charanjeet Singh Sondhi once again. If you disagree with my actions in doing so, I'm very happy to discuss it with you. --Yamla (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- No problem, my apologies. — IVORK Discuss 23:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Happily accepted. Have a good day! --Yamla (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Rollback granted
Hi IVORK. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
- Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
- Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
- Rollback should never be used to edit war.
- If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
- Use common sense.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Kalika Prasad Bhattacharya vandalism
Hi. I've been active of late in trying to prevent some pretty untruthful information being introduced into the article mentioned, and I'd just like to thank you for your efforts in dissuading the latest round of idiocy. Just one point: in an edit summary, you mention "BLP violations"? For the record, the subject of the article is deceased, therefore a warning of that nature wouldn't be appropriate, I assume. Thanks a lot though for the vigilance. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 12:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
fake parties
can you please help me delete all that fictional political parties without reliable sources and a incorrect assumption of the constitition 194.68.94.68 (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- G'day, unfortunately I am unfamiliar with the specific topic enough to follow through and propose deletion as per WP:PRD even though all the page links are seemingly broken. I would suggest either creating a proposal for deletion yourself as per WP:PRD with reference to articles stating it as non-existent or by doing the same on a talk page. Be aware that your edit summary in a separate article on the same topic removing unsourced and uncorrect fictional nonsesns per WP:SOUCE. in cuba there is olny one political party legal conflicts with WP:NPOV and as such may be the reason you were reverted in your other edits. Sorry to not be of much help. Ultimately I undid your addition of fake into the intro for Cuban Liberal Union as you would need to cite sources to support that significant of a change to an article. Perhaps @Acroterion: could better explain the situation if he has more to add. — IVORK Discuss 13:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Prod
FYI: once a wp:Proposed deletion (prod) is removed (by anyone, IP or autoconfirmed), it may not be restored. The next step is a wp:AfD. BTW: have you checked applicability of a wp:speedy deletion? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
CSD
Slow down on speedy deletion, please. Remember that it can drive away new editors making good-faith contributions. I stumbled across two inaccurate deletion nominations, and then looked through your contributions:
- SS Robert E. Lee (1924) is about a ship, not a person, and is thus not an eligible subject for A7.
- Makeblock had a fairly obvious context ("the next generation of construction platforms"). It is not eligible for A7 either, as it is a product and therefore out of scope.
- Panzerselbstfahrlafette is clearly about a tank, and therefore out of scope of A7.
- Hill Street Neighborhood, Comer, Georgia is about a place, and also out of scope for A7.
- Polymer matrix composite clearly expanded on other articles.
In light of these, I would advise that you either stay away from the speedy deletion process for a bit or very carefully review the criteria, particularly for A7. It is far better to be conservative with CSD and instead choose to tag/nominate for deletion through AfD than to overuse CSD nomination which bypasses consensus in favor of efficiency in only the most blatant of deletion cases. Appable (talk | contributions) 08:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Appable:@Appable: Understood and no problem, those articles have either been expanded or proposed for deletion. It may be worth noting that the Makeblock article has been deleted now as per my WP:CSD#G11 nomination, as it has before as well as once for WP:CSD#A7. The majority of my nominations are due to articles being non-noteable regardless of topic category due partly to the apparent the admin irregularities as well as per WP:IAR — IVORK Discuss 14:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, as I recall Makeblock was quite promotional. Remember that while ignore all rules is a nice general policy, applying it to a process that specifically bypasses typical consensus-based decision making is a bit of a stretch in most cases. In particular, including products, software, books, and vehicles into A7 has been discussed countless times with consensus against it. Also, WP:A7 describes explicitly that it is about lacking a credible claim of significance - notability is a far higher standard, and if you can't find evidence of notability nominating for deletion under AfD is far better. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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 Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure why you tagged this article for deletion under criterion A2 (foreign-language content), as the article was entirely in English with the exception of the original titles of the albums. We can debate the exact notability of the band if need be, but there's at least an assertion of same. As per the above comments regarding CSD tagging, please do be careful when applying them as it's usually preferable to massage a borderline article into a better one than delete it entirely, and moreso when the original contributor is left wondering what's going on BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, this is just to let you know that I've boldly redirected Local TV Channels in Krishnagiri to Krishnagiri, as I felt there wasn't any substantive sourced material to merge. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 10:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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 Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Un-Genuine Bloods and Crips - CSD tag
Hi IVORK. I've removed the CSD tag from this article as the reasons given are not CSD-able. I agree that it's an example of an essay and is pretty irredeemable, and deletion would seem to be the logical path for this article, but please review the valid CSD reasons before tagging articles in future. As discussed before, you do a good service by identifying articles which need to be deleted, but the point about a CSD tag is not to shoehorn articles into it - per the explanation of the policy at the top of the page, deletion is usually meant to be by discussion and consensus, and CSD only exists in those special cases where we as admins have the authority to bypass that and delete straight away.
I know you're not keen on the generic templates being used, but this is the second time I've had to flag this with you, and at least the third overall judging by your Talk page. I may need to use a template in future instances.
Please feel free to respond either here or on my Talk page if you have concerns. Otherwise, I'll take it as read that you're across the situation. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- @BigHaz: Understood, however is it actually policy that an administrator can't delete a page if the wrong CSD template is used, regardless of the fact it meets others? Seems a bit strange that you went ahead on an A11 yet not in the first instance. — IVORK Discuss 07:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- The policy as far as I read it is that if the CSD rationale is incorrect (or nonexistent, as in this case), it comes down to the admin's call. I'm not a big believer in saying "Well, this may not be advertising, but it's certainly got no claim of notability" (for example) and deleting it accordingly, because I don't believe in being judge, jury and executioner on an issue like that. Additionally, I've seen instances where an article is written, gets tagged with something a bit line-ball, gets de-tagged and then gets improved, so the completely summary process doesn't always work. I always keep articles I de-CSD on my watchlist to see where they go afterwards, and in this case a much better tag was added and I acted accordingly. Regardless of what the policy is regarding admin activity, the policy is also to use CSD tags when they're appropriate, and that was the difficulty we ran into here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Dushyant yadav
Hello IVORK. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dushyant yadav, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: being the winner of a notable TV show indicates significance. Thank you. SoWhy 07:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- @SoWhy:No problem, I was just restoring it as it had been removed by the article's creator. — IVORK Discuss 07:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Capital punishment, Benin
I see you rejected my request. Aren't the sources provided good enough? Please see the talk page here: Talk:Capital_punishment#Benin. 2A02:2F01:506F:FFFF:0:0:50C:FFD6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
FKP is now Aveo Group
Hey,
I'm not a mod so cant move the FKP page to Aveo Group but am doing the edits on behalf of the Aveo Marketing manager, stephen gook.
The change happened a few years ago - http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/fkp-going-in-a-new-direction-20131101-2wpo1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knect Digital (talk • contribs) 01:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
there is a draft for the new page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aveo_Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knect Digital (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located 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:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
NPP
Hi. I noticed you just tagged Umapathy Srinivasa Gowda. Did you remember to notify the creator? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Non English
Hi IVORK you reverted this edit [1] but I wondered if you where reverting it thinking I added in the word down by the External Links. I couldn't see any reason why the word was there and had removed it but you put it back? Didn't want to go and revert again. NZ Footballs Conscience(talk) 22:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- No problem mate, I honestly hadn't noticed your change as I was looking at difference over multiple edits. I have restored the article to the last good revision. Cheers! — IVORK Discuss 22:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Image without license
Unspecified source/license for File:RAAF KC30A F-A18F OP OKRA 2017.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:RAAF KC30A F-A18F OP OKRA 2017.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 00:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Removing character names
Hi. According to your edit summary there's a consensus on Wikipedia that the names of actors shouldn't be included in the plot summaries. You have already removed the names of actors from the plots for episodes 7.01 and 7.02. Shouldn't these changes be applied to the previous 60 episodes as well? Keivan.fTalk 02:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- G'day, per MOS:TVPLOT, yes. They are all already covered in List of Game of Thrones characters. — IVORK Discuss 03:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- And what about the opening paragraphs? Do we have any guideline for that as well? I don't know whether you have noticed it or not, but currently the names of all the actors appear on the lead paragraphs after the names of characters. Should those be removed as well? Keivan.fTalk 20:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Here it is said that "Subsequent paragraph(s) should summarize the major points of the rest of the article: basic production information (e.g. where the show is filmed), principal cast of the show, ..." Does it mean that the current format is correct and can be used? Keivan.fTalk 20:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Request for not deleting Dr. Mahesh Kulkarni Page
Dear Ivork,
Good Morning. Thanks for permanently deleting the page and protecting from creating it permanently. Only one last request ? Can you please remove the permanent mark on making the page ?
This is unfair as there can be always a chance in future where the page will be worth making with Noticeable content. We had no intention of spamming or using the page as hosting the generic information. Initially the page was deleted as there were no citations mentioned, however later we did add lot of them on a serious attempt to make the page.
Giving us the right to make the Doctors page in future when there will be an opportunity will give us a fair chance. Hope you would be able to help by removing the protection for permanent delete tag.
Thanks for the understanding
Shailesh.destylio (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- G'day, when an article is in development, it is advised that you use your sandbox or create a draft. Additionally I am not a WP:ADMIN and only requested the page deletion / protection, I didn't actually place them. I'd suggest completing the article there first, then approaching an admin such as the one listed on the article that had origionally deleted it. — IVORK Discuss 23:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! When the time comes to have a page again, can I keep in draft version and then contact an admin for an unlock ? Is that possible? How do I know who is an admin?
Shailesh.destylio (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Shailesh.destylio (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- I would suggest reading through WP:AFC and following that line, it is a good place to figure out where your article stands in the creation process. I'm sure once it is suitable for creation, one of the Reviewers will escalate it to an admin in order to un-protect the page. — IVORK Discuss 05:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks IVORK, that was of great help. Your extended help is appreciated!!
Shailesh.destylio (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer granted
Hello IVORK. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
- URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
- Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
- Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
- Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex ShihTalk 16:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Page mover granted
Hello, IVORK. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Useful links:
- Wikipedia:Requested moves
- Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Yasin Osman
Hi, please, mark article as reviewed, when you put a deletion tag on it. It means you reviewed it, decided to put a tag and follow up until administrator make a decision. Thank you Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- No problem — IVORK Discuss 21:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Updated
Hi IVORK,
I've updated the article with citations. Still working on it.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inlinelife1234 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Inlinelife1234 Goodwork, I have responded further on the article's talk page. — IVORK Discuss 21:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)