User talk:Mrt3366/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Hello Mike,

Comment by 108.120.175.74 (talk · contribs) at 10:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mike, I edited the track listing of Twiztid's ninth studio album, Abominationz, as it currently lists the "Jamie Madrox Version" exclusive track as "She Loves It", but I just purchased the album and that track's title is actually "Return of the Pervert"

108.120.175.74 (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry I cannot let you include that on faith, we need more than just your word for it. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"Reviewed" page

− Thanks for that message. Yes, I saw that the new tool was marking pages as "reviewed" so that why I stopped using it. I did indeed look at the article in question but never clicked on the reviewed button, but it marked it as reviewed anyway. Have you noticed this issue as well? It's a shame, because I love the interface. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by 82.10.154.31 (talk · contribs) at 05:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey. I am more than willing to adhere to the rules and add the requested information to my Wiki entry, however if you could provide me with an example of what it is you require me to add (re: citations) regarding the post I made on behalf of the "Author" (Molly Cutpurse) then I shall do my best to rectify the issue. Thank you :)

82.10.154.31 (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

92 Division Infantry article

[Heading pruned by Mrt3366]
Comment by 71.48.6.132 (talk · contribs) at 05:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Apparently you feel that having a citation that is linked to a page that is a dead link, with no support of a statement is more constructive than replacing the citation/link with the words-- "citation needed". I have no disagreement with most of the information in the entry for 92 Division, but clearly a statement was made which is highly political in nature and which is not substantiated. In professional historian work this would be known as an OPINION. Without a legitimate accessible corroborating citation, it is quite clearly "non-constructive" to the truth, to simply have an opinion vs. verifiable facts. Of course, if your goal is to maintain a false narrative for some agenda, it is to the detriment of this unit of fighting Americans (note that they are Americans-- not some hyphenated sub group which a racial agenda would drive). There are several other phrases in the entry that are left intact of a highly subjective and assumptive nature, particularly as regards white officer leadership and these are not linked to any research page or source at all. In the case of the 92nd Div in WWII-- this is as bad as the documented statements of General Almond. Consistency and accuracy are constructive-- and finding a functional link to support the statement in question would be as well. As it stands now, it is of little value without it. 71.48.6.132 (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The citation already contains {{dead link}} tag and I thought that's enough. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You undid my changes? Why?!??!

Comment by 175.37.114.231 (talk · contribs) at 10:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the problem?

175.37.114.231 (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It appears like you accidentally removed a large chunk of the page. Was that your intention? Legoktm (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If it were your first only section blanking, I would have thought that it was unintentional. Moreover, I think [1], [2] reek of something unsavory about your editing. I believe these edits are based on good intention but they are not constructive nevertheless. If I irked you in anyway unknowingly then I am sorry. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Naia Kete

Comment by Kknoller (talk · contribs) at 18:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I am a little confused why we can't get approval on Naia Kete Wiki page. I updated all the citations and added new ones to included major publications like Rolling Stone. Entertainmenr Weekly as well major TV networks discussing the artist including features? Please advise as to why these citations and why I still can't get approval?

Kknoller (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I see someone has already created that page. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mike. You undid my changes on DjVU page.

Comment by 9RAY (talk · contribs) at 08:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC) I think my changes are quite constructive. Because tens of millions of BlackBerry users also have the ability to read DjVu format. What is a resaon that you downgrade the role of Blackberry OS relative to Android or IOS???!!!

9RAY (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay maybe you're right but I saw that edit was unsourced (unreferenced) and in Wikipedia we tend to look at it as a bad thing. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

IF I make a source link, it will not get nice, because other programs for other operating systems do not have the links. 9RAY (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would have been better to WP:AGF and google "djvubb" (or similar) and add this as a reference. Labeling 9RAY's edit as 'a bad thing' is a horrible assumption of bad faith. →Σσς. (Sigma) 09:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't label his edit as a bad thing. What are you talking about? I said inputting original research is seen as a bad thing, please don't twist my words into implying something I didn't want to mean. That's not what I need. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)May I ask how you came to know that this conversation is taking place here? I have never talked with you nor did 9RAY (not in Wikipedia anyway). I see you have not edited DjVu page, at least not in a while, neither have you edited 9RAY's talk nor the other way around. What is the issue here?
See, if you do not like my editing or something please let me know clearly, I do not claim to be the best of the best here. I am just an editor who is trying to contribute to the project constructively in whatever little way possible. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Your recent reverts

Hello. It's come to my attention that some of your reverts have been questionable. Would you mind using custom edit summaries, rather than the unhelpful default edit summary provided by automated tools? Also, please be judicious when you are reverting; don't revert if you simply don't understand why the edit was made, or if text was added that wasn't sourced (unless it's for another reason such as it is poorly formatted, or you know it's wrong, or it's a WP:BLP issue). Thanks. --Rschen7754 09:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"please be judicious when you are reverting; don't revert if you simply don't understand why the edit was made" - I don't think I reverted edits just because I didn't understand why the edit was made.
"if text was added that wasn't sourced" - you mean I cannot revert it? Is that what you're saying? I don't understand this line. Wikipedia has a core policy of No original research. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Suddenly it seems that the onus is on the remover/reverter. But I may be wrong please elucidate. Anyways, I will be more judicious, cheers Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What happened with the {{italic text}} issue then?

That is a misinterpretation of no original research. Usually you can tell when something is original research, or a personal opinion. We only start getting picky about that at the GA/A/FA level, or if the article is a BLP. --Rschen7754 09:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What happened with the {{italic text}} issue then? - Sure. IMO that was not contributing to the article constructively. That edit was not helpful. I didn't claim that it was an original research, in the edit summary I said it seemed like a test and/or unhelpful edit. Yes, one editor disagreed, and whatever the case may be the reason was not that I didn't understand the usage of the template. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

But why was it not helpful? That's why those automated summaries... are not helpful. --Rschen7754 09:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not helpful constructive because it didn't add any sourced and relevant information. It seemed decorative at best. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Volga, Texas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Weldon and Crockett

Standard (Indian automobile) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Standard

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ruggero Alfredo Michahelles

Hi there. I just wanted to let you know that when you recently reviewed this article, you missed the fact that it's a copyvio copied and pasted from an external site. The author has recreated the article about 5 times over the last day or so and each time removes the copyvio tag added by the bot. I've reverted your changes to the last version with the copyvio tag (because it was just easiest) and CSD'd it. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, Thank you then. My bad, I was in a rush I guess. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem, just thought I'd let you know. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Warning?

I've just opened a new page and are updating it abit at a time and now i'm getting warnings saying i have 10 days then the page will be deleted, Any ideas?

Jamie Hoult
CityFMNational

Use Article wizard to create articles or sandbox to create anything and then move it to article space when it's ready. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Margaret (Peg) Belson

Comment by PamD (talk · contribs) at 14:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This article has various problems, like needing to be renamed, and having no links, but she's dead so it's not eligible for BLP PROD. Please read the first line of the article next time! PamD 15:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I read somewhere that people that are recently deceased may be covered by WP:BLP. Hence, I chose to prod it. But if it was mistake then I am sorry. I think I might nominate it for not meeting WP:GNG in future. What do you think? Should I? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You're kind of correct. WP:BLP says Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased)... whereas WP:BLPPROD#Scope says ...the use of this deletion procedure is intended to apply only to actual biographies of living people. I believe that in this case that the policy written on BLPPROD would overrule BLP. Legoktm (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the info. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, in the context of "Kai Greene" grapefruit and BBC are slurs

Comment by Churn and change (talk · contribs) at 19:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The first has to with some sex act, and the second seemingly stands for big black crayon. If you see somebody adding references to these in the article, no need to assume good faith; it is vandalism and BLP violation all right.

Churn and change (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I got it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

277 Park Avenue

Comment by Dealwalker (talk · contribs) at 14:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Hi Mike, I am learning how to edit on Wiki. Your comment about 277 Park Avenue, New York, NY might be justified, all I was trying to do was add our firm to the list of tenants. We have been one since August of 2010. I guess I will continue to try to figure out how to do that. I will also be working on a Murray Hill Properties wiki page. You can learn more about us at www. murrayhill.com. Thank you, David Dealwalker (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• You might wanna see this. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

@3DELETED WARNING?

Comment by 99.30.189.65 (talk · contribs) at 17:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

TO FMN= HIT START MENU LOOK FOR DEFAULT PROGRAMS AND FIND IT TERMINATE IT. ITWILL CAUSE VIRUSES IF YOU DONT

99.30.189.65 (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have cut short the heading it was causing visual disruption. BTW, what is this about? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

(tsp) this. :) --regentspark (comment) 17:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks RP. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Cable (club)

Comment by Cable london (talk · contribs) at 10:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Cable (club) not submitted and no explanation. care to shed a little light on the situation?!

Cable london (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "not submitted"? I think the draft was pretty clearly submitted. As for the "no explanation" claim, I do not know what to say if

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

— this doesn't seem like an explanation. The first three sections of the submission were all unreferenced (original research). Nevertheless, you're free to re-submit once you feel like the raised issues are addressed. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

references / deletion of Ansel Faraj

Hi Mrt3366! I have added references to the article Ansel Faraj so that it would not be deleted. What else must I do to save the article...? Thank you :) Gothicfilmhistorian (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You've already much of the fine work sir. Good Job! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Although it doesn't discount the fact that you've put in a nice effort, I think the sources you've provided are not secondary reliable sources. The thing is we need multiple independent reliable sources which talk of the subject in detail and not just trivial mentions. Can you cite some of those? That would be great. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I will try to find more independent sources. How long do I have before the article goes for deletion?

Gothicfilmhistorian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't say if you have much time. However, as of now it's not nominated for deletion, it will be soon if you don't cite reliable third party sources to establish general notability. I asked in another page about the sources you've used and along other things what the reply contained was

I can see no way that any of these sources can be cited to establish that Faraj meets the notability requirements as laid down in WP:CREATIVE. We'd need evidence from reputable independent third-party sources that Faraj has "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work", "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", or otherwise meets the notability requirements.

——AndyTheGrump. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, seeing that this article may not meet the standards of requirement, I have nominated the article for deletion (← this is the link). You've some time don't panic. BUT comment on the page as soon as you can, that will raise the chances of your article being saved. Thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice Taken

Comment by Wutzetian (talk · contribs) at 00:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Hi Mike, thanks for the advice to add source and citation to verify content. I have already done so. Actually, I'd intended to add them after drafting content and checking with source but you have beat me to it. Hope it's okay now - new at edit, still learning.

Wutzetian (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

HVK article

[heading added by Mrt3366] Comment by Aarganesh (talk · contribs) at 13:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike This is regarding the decline of the article regarding HVK (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/H._V._Kumar) Please let me know what needs to be changed because I've provided references of all credible & reliable resource to support his credibility.

Thanks RG Aarganesh (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to get familiar with the definition of reliable sources. For example, you used user-generated cites like Linkedin, Facebook (and at one point even Wikipedia itself) as references but they are not considered secondary reliable sources. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can create a personal web page and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Facebook, Wikipedia fall under the same category I'm afraid! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sir Did you have a chance to see the other links provided at the end? Please let me know if you're still not convinced with the credibility of the following articles, then I can scan few of the pages from real printed magazine & can send them across.

1. http://gulftoday.ae/portal/ccebff5a-dcee-4408-a7d0-37230fc88e3c.aspx
2. http://www.namadhunambikkai.com/2011/10/01/1875/
3. http://motoroids.com/features/motoroids-break-the-limca-record-for-fastest-gq-drive/
4. http://motoroids.com/features/one-india-one-drive-by-motoroids/
5. http://www.carindia.in/features/new-features/815-this-aint-about-the-money-h?start=1
6. http://www.carindia.in/features/38-other-resources/769-tax-on-highways-takes-its-toll-on-users
7. http://www.eclecticmag.com/view_ne_travel_article.php?&per_id=33
8. http://www.asianage.com/mumbai/highway-hell-276
9. http://www.mathrubhumi.com/yathra/travel_blog/pilgrimage/article/150398/index.html
10. http://www.interpv.net/market/market_view.asp?idx=96&part_code=05&page=1
11. http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/technical-articles/generation/solar/renewableenergyworld.com/indian-solar-loan-program-offers-access-to-light/index.shtml
12. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/08/indian-solar-loan-program-offers-access-to-light-53274
13. http://www.scidev.net/en/news/indian-loan-project-gives-solar-energy-to-rural-po.html
14. http://www.unescap.org/esd/bazaar/

Thanks Aarganesh (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw them. And few of those I think are reliable and contain mentionable material. But there are other issues. Even if you have some reliable sources available, you cannot just publish data based on original research in any article and that won't bode well for the future of the submission.

However, I think I owe you a clearer answer. Here some of the issues which caught my eye:

1. Too many unreferenced assertions. There are section after section filled with such content. See WP:BLPSOURCES.
2. Use of unreliable sources to such an extent where reliable sources become virtually indistinguishable.
3. Not a clear indication of why the subject might be notable.
4. Last but by no means the least, too much focus on what the subject himself has said/written rather than what has been written about him by independent sources.

Get rid of these issues first and we might have a fine article. This (no. 9) source says it's a blog. We don't generally accept blogs as reliable sources even if one can vouch for their credibility. Thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Superb; I value your time & your suggestions; will do as you say

Ciao RG Aarganesh (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

AWB access request

You recently requested access to AutoWikiBrowser, however you've already had access for two months, see [3]. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have decided to revoke your AWB access given you have claimed not so long ago that your edits thru automated tools are not your responsability but the tool's developer's. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sir, I don't understand, why did you revoke my access when I have not got a chance to even use it? And for your kind information, I never claimed any such thing as my edits through automated tools are not my responsibility. I think you're referring to this discussion on my talk page. Where a novice editor asked me to modify the "automated response" (automated warning messages of Stiki, not to be confused with automated edit summary) in such a way that it mentions that it's automated. In that context I merely responded, "I have not created those messages nor did I build that software, so I am really the wrong person to complain to."
I didn't say I do not take responsibility. I take responsibility for the message but if someone asks me to change the wording of twinkle warnings or Stiki warnings that I do not know how to do. Hence I wrote that I am not the guy one should be complaining to about the wording of the warning messages. Please do not take this too far. I am not a vandal or a disruptive user. I am trustworthy enough to be bestowed with such access and I know what I am doing. Please restore the access. Thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I do hereby solemnly swear to take full responsibility for the tool. And the thing is, I never said or meant that I do not take responsibility. I in fact do take responsibility for anything that comes with the tool. However, if someone asks me to change/modify the coding of the tool itself, then that I cannot do as I don't know how. Modifying the tools (e.g. STiki, Twinkle, AWB, etc) themselves is just not within the purview of my knowledge. Hence I wrote that I am not the guy one should be complaining to about the automated/default wording of the warning messages (this is different from edit summary which can be and has been customized in STiki). There has been an unfortunate misunderstanding.
I concede, I should have been more precise while saying these things in that other thread. I am sorry for all the confusion it caused. Now, please restore the access and also I didn't abuse the tool and I have never even used it since I didn't know that I had access to it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The wording's automated nature hardly matters. What you post thru STiki, AWB or Huggle is entirely your problem, the automated nature of the message is irrelevant, and if somebody has an issue with your usage of a certain edit summary or warning or whatever, pointing to the tool's developer and saying "go complain to him" is not a valid reply. And yes, if people have concerns about what your edit summaries or warnings or whatever, you don't point them to the tool's developer, you stop using the tool, then you go yourself to the tool's developer and say "I got problem X", hope he fixes and use make manual edits in the meantime. I remain unconvinced that continued access to automated tools when in the last couple of weeks several people have raised issues with your use of another automated tool and all they got out of you is that you have no idea how to fix it and will keep going on the same is wise, let alone that access to additional automated tools be granted. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What you post thru STiki, AWB or Huggle is entirely your problem - of course it is, when did I disagree?
the automated nature of the message is irrelevant - irrelevant? Okay. Then tell me if someone requested me to change the color of the default font of the automated warning (in such a way that the warning will every time display such font color) or something that is not by default accessible to the tool-user, what should I say to the requester? Should I not inform that it is not something I can do? What don't you get this simple fact. Had that editor asked me to simply change that very message on his talk, I would have gladly helped. But he was asking for something completely different that will need knowledge which I do not possess. What do you expect me to say?
and if somebody has an issue with your usage of a certain edit summary or warning or whatever, pointing to the tool's developer and saying "go complain to him" is not a valid reply - I was not using that statement as an excuse I was simply informing him the nature of STiki. Again, I didn't say "go complain to him". I repeat, he didn't complain about the fact that I warned him. He, instead, asked me to change the warning itself. I, for better or for worse, didn't entertain such demand.
But anyway, I have already told you that I almost always do take and will take full responsibility from now on for any automated tool I use on wikipedia. That's only one time where I spoke out of turn and I regret that. Besides, whatever little confusion there might have been in my mind, is all dispersed now thanks to your cogent revelations. Now, what's the problem? Please restore the access. Now that you've informed me and I know how it works, this is not an issue anymore. There is no need to further keep the access away from me. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

if people have concerns about what your edit summaries or warnings or whatever, you don't point them to the tool's developer, you stop using the tool - You're presuming it is always I who can be in the fault, why? If I, right here, raise concerns against your usage of administrative tools should you stop using them and go to the developer and ask them to fix the tool for you? This is getting silly. I, as a matter of fact, don't have any problem with any tool I use. On the other hand, if somebody else has problems with my editing they are invited to inform me and if that discussion fails they can report me. There you have the protocol.
You're yet again misinterpreting my statements. I like such tools, and like to notify users that I reverted their edit (if any). This gives them a chance to get back to me or improve their edits or re-add the deleted data with sources.
P.S. Although I am in no position to teach you anything still arbitrarily divesting somebody of the tool he never got the chance to even use, based on your inference or construal of others' inadvertent or rather accidental comments by making these slips/gaffes the nucleus of your attention to such an extent where you don't see anything else that the user did or said, is surely not the way veteran administrators like you are expected to work. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Suzy Lee

I've declined your A9 on that because the band does have an article. A9 is only for recordings by artists with no article. Might be the way that things are displayed in Page Curation. I've had quite a lot of wrong tags come up since that thing came in. Peridon (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation display might have played a role in that but I, nevertheless, take full responsibility and promise to be more cautious from now on. Thank you for your comment. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Royal Victoria Teaching Hospital

Comment by Gatherinformation (talk · contribs) at 00:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC) This article needs additional citations for verification and may contain original research. (November 2012) Hello, I don't know where my article requires further citations for verification. I basically have tried to provide everything possible. The problem is I know more about the hospital, than sources that are published and available... but I was able to add some. please tell me where I am lacking verification.Gatherinformation (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You added 3-5 refs after I curated the page. Still if you want some content that lacks reference I might be able to help you with that. The following is without inline citation and seemingly based on original research:

It was originally built under British colonisation of Africa in 1853. The operation of Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH) was improved with the help of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny in 1903.
The Hospital's name was extended to Royal Victoria Teaching Hospital in the late 1990's, since it became part of the newly founded faculty of medicine of the University of the Gambia and therefore includes the training of medical doctors and other medical professions. The first 15 Students started schooling in November 2002 at RVTH. The Hospital is further more participation in international research-studies concerning the fight against malaria and hepatitis.

Royal Victoria Teaching Hospital

Thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr.T, for the first part of the article (about the history of RVTH) I used the information from the German Wikipedia article and translated it into English. The first part of the German article has been in sxisting for some years already and was based on German publications (compare litrature ref.) and I have added my informations about the med.school. That's how I found out there was no english article which made me writing it. However I am not in possesion nor do I have access to compareable english litrature to be set as ref. Should I just add the German books as ref. ? Gatherinformation (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually doesn't prohibit you from using non-English sources provided that there are no equivalent English ref available to you. However you should know that

1. if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.
2. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations.

I hope this helps. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Any audio converter

Hello Mrt3366. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Any audio converter, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Though it might have been a borderline G11 when it was first created, it isn't now due to the copy editing. Also, A7 doesn't apply to software. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to PROD it but you beat me to it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That was probably bad timing on my part, then, considering it's the first time I've looked at speedy deletion candidates in a while! I saw a few foreign-language hits on Google News for AAC, but they looked more like PR/download sites than significant coverage. If the PROD gets removed all I'll AfD it if you don't get there first. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the race is on. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Have a beer!

Have a beer - you just reached 12345 edits! — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

 Cheers then. I could sure use one now. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Carl Fredrik Meinander

Hello Mrt3366. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Carl Fredrik Meinander, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Professor at the U of Helsinkii and obituary in Helsingin Sanomat is enough to pass A7. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arthua, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aurangabad district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

hey sorry i dont understand why my article is being deleted, sorry for the inconvenience

Comment by Jma2o9o (talk · contribs) at 12:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC) hey sorry for the inconvenience but why is my article being deleted ? Jma2o9o (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You're a little late. It's already been deleted because a biography of a living person must have credible references. If you didn't want Karanjit Singh to be deleted, you should have added a reliable reference to the article. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Su-kam Power Systems Minor Edits

Comment by Ankursharma88 (talk · contribs) at 18:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Hi,

You added the orphan tag to the above mentioned wiki page. I'm new to wiki and not sure why it is so. As per my understanding I've linked the page to other wiki pages wherever possible throughout the article. Please let me know what else can I do?

Ankursharma88 (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

{{orphan}} ← this is the tag you're talking about, right? It is used to tag orphaned articles (i.e. no other articles link to it). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

About Åge Vedel Tåning

Thank you for most kind and thoughtful message. There is an ongoing inter-wiki mud-wrestling match about this topic. Thank you again. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Two things,

1. I should be thanking you for your kind appreciation.
2. I was simply doing my job so don't mention.

 Cheers and best of luck with that article (I hope it doesn't get deleted). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mrt3366. You have new messages at Talk:Putrada_Ekadashi#Contested_deletion.
Message added 13:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

AWB

I've reverted this good faith AWB edit of yours, because in trying to fix a typo you inadvertently changed the file name, and broke the image. Please do try to manually review the edits before you commit them! Thanks for your help, though... I'm sure there are plenty of legitimate typos fixed elsewhere! Cheers. Yazan (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I did review it before committing it. But I didn't notice the <gallery> tag. My bad. I will be more judicious from now on, thanks for notifying me. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries, except you seem to have passed the article again. I've reverted, and will suggest renaming the file at commons! :) Cheers. Yazan (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Now, it won't happen again. I have set it to skip any article which contains "collonade". I don't think there are too many article with this typo. Sounds good? BTW, I f**king hate typos (even more when I commit it). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second I don't get it, I actually changed "collonade → colonnade" (twice) and that seems to be the right edit. colonnade-picture exists and collonade-one doesn't. Did you do something? Were you complaining about it or just letting me know? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I get it now, the page was moved. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I requested a file move on commons and our friends there obliged promptly. I say we blame it on the guy who thinks a colonnade is a collonade ;) Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zozo2kx (talk • contribs) 10:41, November 18 2012 (UTC)

WP:CSD

A person like Åge Vedel Tåning who is said to be the director of a laboratory famous enough to have a WP article, fully meets the conditions at WP:PROF for notability. A longer article would be desirable , but even a sourced article saying that is a fully valid stub.

But even more important, even without sources, and even if the laboratory were not notable enough to have a WP article, it would still pass CSD. In order to satisfy WP:CSD#A7, it is not necessary to be notable, or even probably notable ; it is only necessary to have some indication of plausible importance. This is a very low bar, and deliberately so. Even an undocumented article is not A7, for someone might find documentation. For a further explanation see WP:CSD and the many discussions in its talk page archive. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Even I was iffy about the article's nomination through CSD. I generally tend to AFD or PROD such articles, I don't know why I did it. Won't happen in future. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 19:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mrt3366. I'm User:Shirt58 (call me Peter, or Pete, or maybe even call me Ishmael), and I started the Åge Vedel Tåning article. New page patrolling is very important to the project. Please do read what David (one of the most approachable admins here, btw) suggests you read. That said, everyone make mistakes, please don't let one little thing stress you out. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Pete. Yes, we're all human-volunteers here, every now and then we commit minor miscalculations. Admittedly, it took me quite some strides to get au fait with WP:A7 (I didn't quite understand it at first) but now I am getting there. Surely, I understand it better after DGG's suggestions.

Some of us —how should I put it— are more competent than others? And the rest is trying to get to their level of competence. I am doing my part. I probably would have been better off not nominating it for speedy-deletion esp since I was myself unsure. Having said that, I wasn't stressed out but thanks for your kind concern. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikify

Comment by Delusion23 (talk · contribs) at 18:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Just to let you know that the Template:Wikify has been deprecated. If AWB suggests you to add it, please replace it with Template:Underlinked or Template:Dead end instead. AWB will eventually updated to take into account the deprecation of the Wikify tag, it's currently in the works. Thanks.

Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Article for Paranjoy Guha Thakurta‎

Hi, thank you for taking the time to review the Paranjoy Guha Thakurta‎ article. From the very outset I realize that the notability of this person might not stick, but that's the strange thing in his context: although he has been an outstanding journalist and activist who has been referenced quite thoroughly by the media and academia, he himself has not received any coverage. The only real coverage to show for his notability I can point you to is an interview by Madhu Trehan at [4], specifically between 0:10 and 0:58 mark. It would be nice if this article for this good-guy-journalist could be put up. If you have any suggestions on how I could improve the article specifically to establish his notability, that would be great too. Thanks again for your time. Nshuks7 (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

All I can say at this moment is that either lose all the unsourced statements or cite sources for them (because a more fastidious editor might consider their existence as a demerit or even problem, then decline) and hope for the best. In my experience I have seen it go both ways from there.

All you need to show is that the biography of this person (at least covering more than one aspect of his life) has been the focus of multiple (as in 2+) reliable sources. Nevertheless, some hold the view that if the person has been involved in doing something outstandingly notable, then we need not be finicky about the scope of his biography.
Hope this answers your call for suggestion. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Leo Jee

Hello what about article Leo Jee i don't understand reason "This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions may be available. (November 2012)" can u elucidation of the rule? Thank you so much... best regards Alex --AlexSpancer (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I found a link so it's no longer an orphan. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Project Cloud Gap

I've reverted your edit. The orphan tag doesn't look very nice; I'd rather you did something to actually improve the article. FWIW, some people really frown upon the automated addition of such tags when nothing else is done to the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• I see that common sense actually agrees with policy, in Wikipedia:AWB#Rules_of_use item 4. Adding orphan tags and an empty line is, in my opinion, "insignificant or inconsequential". Please refrain from using AWB if all you're doing is adding such tags. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

What I would rather do is refrain from interacting with you, Drmies. Your claims are downright arbitrary, unhelpful and vague. At least that's what they seem to me. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, stop tagging articles I wrote. Try writing one yourself. Surely there's nothing vague about "stop using AWB to add useless orphan tags." Besides, I note, above, that I'm not the only one who finds your AWB edits problematic. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, I am not as great an editor as you're Sir, that's why I can only make useless edits. But I think you do not own anything here, let alone an article. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice fake argument there. I don't own anything at all. Your refusal to actually address the matter at hand forces you to sidetrack, but it doesn't take away from the fact that adding AWB to add a useless orphan tag is useless. And I didn't say you can only make useless edits: I'm just looking at this one. Now, you could have just looked into the matter and said "OK", and we wouldn't be doing this. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing with you I was informing you that I am not as great as you are. Please remember to assume good faith Administrator!
Anyways, I initiated a thread a about these concerns you raised, if you want to say talk about AWB's addition of {{orphan}}, do it here. I think our conversation here won't pique generate any conclusive end (I am not equipped with the knowledge to dispel your misconception or concerns). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Hello i updates Leo Jees article and is it satisfactory? thank u --AlexSpancer (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to ask anybody here. If you have any queries about your edits you should ask at Talk:Leo Jee, cheers. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)