User talk:Ahecht/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ahecht. 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.

Hi Sir,I have given the right citations and references to the page it also consists of a scaned copy of a article written about the artist in the famous indian news paper "The Hindu" you can refer to that,while there are many articles about other artists without proper reference the page is been accepted to wikipedia.I cant understand the reason for not including this artists page.He has even got a award in chennai as the "youngest independent musician".I took a personal interview of the artist a week ago to write about the article.And you can see he is a famous person where you can find him in "google" search engine too.You can see this page about a srilankan artist who doesnt has proper reference but the article is accepted.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhilip_Varman.It doesn't even has a proper reference.

            --Joshuaink32 (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Joshuaink32

Hi --

I'm mystified about why this article was declined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:USC-Lockheed_Martin_Quantum_Computation_Center. Your note says there aren't enough independent sources, but there are some links to outside coverage -- & the whole point of describing it in Wikipedia is that it's a breakthrough project. By definition, then, there isn't a lot of outside coverage. In addition, this is a largely academic center -- very interesting to people in the field, not much so to anyone else. The numerous citations to technical articles, which were published in peer-reviewed journals & co-authored by QCC director Daniel Lidar, are themselves evidence of the noteworthiness of research being done there. They would be much *less* meaningful if he wasn't among the authors.

I'm also baffled because a very similar piece, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Quantum_Computing, was approved. Would you please explain?

Thanks!

2blackdogs (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)2blackdogs

@2blackdogs: Looking at the draft, you have a lot of papers by people involved with the center, and external links to organizations affiliated with the center, but no sources that show what other people are saying about the center. What the article needs are independent sources.

Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability -- a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". If there isn't yet a lot of coverage because it is a "breakthrough project", then it may simply be WP:TOOSOON for an article.

If there aren't yet enough independent sources yet for the center to have its own article, you could add a blurb about it to the Information Sciences Institute article, and a redirect could be created from USC-Lockheed Martin Quantum Computation Center→Information Sciences Institute and tagged with {{R with possibilities}} so that it could be expanded into a full article when independent sources are available.

It's usually not a good idea to judge your article based on what other articles exist on Wikipedia, as with hundreds of thousands of articles, it's inevitable that some improper ones will fall through the cracks (we even have a special link for that: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this up! We'll work on improving it over time.

2blackdogs (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)2black dogs

• 2blackdogs (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:USC-Lockheed Martin Quantum Computation Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2blackdogs (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ahecht - Per your note saying that the USC-Lockheed Martin Quantum Center article requires more evidence of notability, I've add 15 citations from outside sources, incluing the New York Times, Forbes, Washington Post, Wired & the major IEEE journal, IEEE Spectrum. I also deleted many of the previous journal citations to research generated by the center, since that seemed to be an issue, though left some to help substantiate the caliber of research. Hope that'll address your concern. 2blackdogs (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)2blackdogs

@2blackdogs: Looks a lot better. I did some cleanup and accepted the draft. Feel free to continue to improve the article as you see fit. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Per note above, thanks! 2blackdogs (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)2blackdogs

May I delete the USC-Lockheed draft from my sandbox now without affecting the published version? Thanks. 2blackdogs (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)2blackdogs

@2blackdogs: yes. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a series which spanded over ten years on Ghana televison and you are seleting for deletion!!,thus not fair,because i added a ghana-stub and a film-stub believing that some one is going to continue the article and make it better please do something about the deletion text. (Jwale2 (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC))

@Jwale2: Articles on Wikipedia need to be verifiable -- we can't just take your word for it. You need to provide citations to reliable sources. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ahecht: you have to take my word,as part of the wikipedia policy which states an article that one has written is not completed then one should obviously put a stab and i did so,i believe other editors in my country would surely follow up and work on it because am not done,so take note.(Jwale2 (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC))

@Jwale2: I don't have to take your word for it, that's why Wikipedia has a policy on verifiability that says "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". The stub tag just indicates that an article is too short, but it does not make it exempt from other requirements, such as the requirement for providing reliable sources. From WP:STUB: "If a stub has little verifiable information . . . it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ahecht: ok thanks for your concern i would do that as soon as possible but not at the moment(Jwale2 (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC))

Hi! I created that redirect as you suggested - sorry for taking so long, I'm not on Wikipedia so much these days and didn't see the message until now. --Stormie (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ahect, Can you help me improve my article on Jim McWilliams by pointing to the content that seems to have been copied from his website? Thank you for your previous help with the footnotes, too. JRCALHOUN (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@JRCALHOUN: http://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Draft%3AJim+McWilliams+%282%29&oldid=&action=compare&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jimcwilliams.com%2Fabout --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Jim McWilliams draft

Hi Ahect, thanks for the link to the Earwig page. I will fix these problems and resubmit. JRCALHOUN (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ahect, Sorry to bother you again. I made changes to my draft in Sandbox that I think will solve the plagiarism problem, but I saw no button to push to Resubmit the draft. Would you kindly confirm that it is in the queue for review? Many thanks for your help!JRCALHOUN (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@JRCALHOUN: It's all set and waiting for review. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your nomination of this page for speedy deletion, I would say that a G7 would make more sense. The article in its current state isn't really overly promotional. Not that it really matters, just thought I'd let you know my two cents. Pishcal — ♣ 17:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pishcal: Did you mean A7? I was on the fence between those two, but I'll switch it over. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, that would by A7, my mistake. Not like it really mattered anyways. Pishcal — ♣ 04:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Disney Paint The Night Logo (Hong Kong Disneyland).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I had considered this redirect, but as the target article does not mention the Youth League (and as there is no evidence of the actual existence of such a Youth League outside of a Facebook page), I didn't think it proper. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: Feel free to WP:RfD it. I tend to prefer to redirect instead of delete if possible, but I agree that this is a borderline case. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hllo am maroccain do you help me plyz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.147.44.154 (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ahecht, thank you for taking the time to review my submission and provide comments. I'd like to get a little more clarification, as I seem to be missing the "notability" factor, and I've reviewed the guidelines on Wiki's help pages. First, could you better describe what you mean by conflict of interest? Does this mean the articles from publishers I've cited such as TechCrunch, Crowdfund Insider, Value Walk and CrowdFundBeat are too much about the organization? Is the notability discounted because the articles do not mention the organization's activities in publications unaffiliated with the intent to inform readers about OfferBoard specifically? My understanding of conflict of interest is a relationship between people or organizations with multiple interests where one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of participants. I'm not sure how TechCrunch's coverage - or the other news outlets coverage - of OfferBoard creates a conflict, as the intent of the news outlet is to report on industry happenings, and it is not selling a product directly, which would create a conflict.

Second, could you be more specific when you say "most" of the citations have the conflict of interest problem, and are press releases (1), blog posts (2) and directory entries (1). Is there a best practice as far as ratios for these types of content versus? Currently,it's less than half; 6 citations are from publishers unaffiliated with OfferBoard.

Lastly, I structured this page much like seedinvest, I was hoping you could look at their page and highlight how their references better create notability. Is it because they don't use press releases or their own created content? If so, that's an easy fix and our page should be in good shape shortly.

Thanks again for your time and help in Advance, Ahecht!

(Mikeirun (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC))

@Mikeirun: The TechCrunch coverage was of an announcement made at an event hosted by TechCrunch, so it's not an independent source. The CrowdFundBeat article is an interview with the OfferBoard team, and since it describes what OfferBoard says about themselves, not what other people say about them, it isn't considered an independent source either. The ValueWalk and Crowdfund Insider articles are both reprints of press releases, which are also not considered independent.

Press releases, directory entries, and official blog posts are fine for verifying non-controversial information in your article, so there's no need to worry about ratios, but they don't contribute to notability. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I included all of the information about the article with my reference notes:name of paper, date published, page number, author. So now the problem you have with my article is the tone. Could you please be more specific. I changed it to the encyclopedia format so I don't understand what the problem is now. Please help me! Walking High Point (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Walking High Point: The issue with the tone was flagged by Tokyogirl79, not me. Please see the pink box at the top of Draft:John Harrison Finger - Mr. Walk America for more information. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Awarded to Ahecht for taking the time to both educate and resolve conflict, thanks! Pdecalculus (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Roses are red!

Violets are blue!

Sugar is Sweet!

And Cows go Moo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.79.95 (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice, but they were already warned, and blanked their talk page afterwards. They've been silent since I issued a Level 4 warning. It would appear to be a vandalism-only account, but they've gone silent since the Level 4 was issued, fortunately. Just the same, thanks for backing me up. --McDoobAU93 18:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@McDoobAU93: Thanks, I had noticed the blanking shortly after placing the note but was waffling on whether to self-revert. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Technically registered users can remove posted warnings; if anything, it confirms they've at least seen them. So Knicksfan471 is sitting at Level 4 and should be reported as vandalism only IF their next edit is truly vandalism. A good-faith mistake shouldn't push them over. --McDoobAU93 18:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting this. What happened was my editing page was open and we lost our Internet connection in the village during a storm. When the Internet came back on I clcked 'Save' little realising that the AfD had already been closed in the meantime! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: No problem, it's happened to all of us. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your account has been granted the "template editor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.

Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. 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.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links:

• All template-protected pages
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! Qed237 (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw that you where given this right but not the info so here it is. Congratulations! Qed237 (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Thank you for the edit. I would have preferred engineer as I changed the spelling of George Threlfall on the Phoenix Foundry page and it linked to the wrong George Threlfall. I will link it to this George when I have finished and this guy refers to George as engineer. Sorry, this is my first try at this Gthrel (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Gthrel

Thank you for some of your recent uses of having Template Editor rights, such as the page notice for the PETA article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

On your user page, you said that you are not an admin. Isn't there a template that says about "...but would wish to be one" or "... and does not wish to be one" Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Qwertyxp2000: See Category:Not an admin user templates. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 12:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Never mind... Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ahecht, I notice you have sent me a message about the mistake I made in the Disneyland Forever page. Oh yes, I did forgot to add a reference into the source I add. I will add back that later, but if it is not reliable enough, I better have to wait for a while when more reliable sources can be found on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TV KERORO (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

articles for creation
Thank you, veteran editor and new template editor, for watching over language and facts from your first edit, for redirects and project assessments, for supporting articles for creation and for trust, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It's been a while since I read the story. 85.178.203.135 (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there,

Just to ask you about something. You just accepted your own redirect request. Are you allowed to do so? Vincent60030 (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Vincent60030: It was mostly a test of how the template handles equals signs, not a real redirect request (the redirect request tool, apparently, can't handle equals signs, which is why my comment to that effect didn't show up). However, since any autoconfirmed user can just create a redirect without a request, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to accept my own request. WP:AFC/R is really for IP users, non-autoconfirmed users, and users who don't know how to use the #REDIRECT syntax. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sorry :p Vincent60030 (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA. Since you had some involvement with the AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Software-Defined_Enterprise

There are three issues:

ON THE LEGITIMACY OF THE SOURCES CITED

1. 1 One reviewer accepted 11 out of 12 sources and another accepted 1 out of 12 sources

QUESTION 1 => may I formally cite the first reviewer so as to stop further rejection on that basis?

ON WHETHER THE ARTICLE CONTAINS ORIGINAL RESEARCH

1. 2 It is common knowledge (i.e. there is a Wikipedia article) that:

1. a Enterprise applications may be defined in software using Software as a Service that enables any enterprise to virtualize such applications, such as a Salesforce Client Relationship Management tenancy;
2. b Enterprise networks may be defined in software using Software Defined Networks that enable any enterprise to virtualize such applications, such as a Virtual Private Network between a supplier and its client for transmitting invoices;
3. c There is a 7 layer Open System Interconnection model for B2B and other inter- and intra- enterprise communications

3) Wiktionary rejected my proposed definition for "Software-Defined Enterprise" on basis that it is simply a compounding of words that requires no disambiguation (which I believe is not true, please see "History" in the rejected S-DE Wikipedia article)

QUESTION 2 => If an article is verifiable based on logic: "a network defined in the OSI application layer is called a Software Defined Network, therefore an enterprise defined in the OSI application layer is called a Software-Defined Enterprise", does that not stop further rejection on the basis of being original research?

ON WHETHER THE ARTICLE CAN READ LIKE AN ESSAY

QUESTION 3 => If an article addresses a real need (see History) and is only being rejected because of style and not content, could it be published with the note "This article is written in essay style, please help to improve it!"?

QUESTION 4 => If no to the latter question, would it be more appropriate to submit this article to http://www.webopedia.com/ ?

70.24.145.219 (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@70.24.145.219: I don't see anywhere where a reviewer agree to the "legitimacy" of a specific number of your sources, and in any case that isn't binding in any way (this is a volunteer review, not a court of law). If you disagree with a particular reviewer's assessment, contact that reviewer directly on their talk page or make any necessary changes and resubmit your draft. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, please see: From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joseph2302/Archives/2015/June#Software-Defined_Enterprise:_more_appropriate_for_Wiktionary.3F "I think it's got a decent chance of being accepted, as I think 8 of those sources look to be reliable source..."

I apologize for giving you the impression there is some kind of legal issue, and I fully intend to contribute according to the spirit of what Wiki is all about. That said, reviewers are as pressed for time as I am, are you saying all volunteers who have contributed must agree, or only the most recent one? Is it possible/considered acceptable practice to resubmit to a specific reviewer rather than start from scratch each time? As one reviewer said, this is a "whopper", and therefore bouncing from reviewer to reviewer may not be appropriate for all concerned.

Please also reject following if appropriate to save time for reviewers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Virtual_Asynchronous_Private_Enterprise_Resource_Network — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.145.219 (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Thanks again.205.237.65.132 (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

70.24.145.219 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance with the Sunbury skiff club page - references added & page resubmitted. Thank you so much.

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the extra support! Thewizardsgirl (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I need some help changing the title of this page to correct the spelling.

Current: Joseph Krauskoph Correction: Joseph Krauskopf

The name is correct throughout the article and it does redirect on a search, but I would like the title corrected as I am working on research and an update of this page. I just don't know how to change the title -

Thanks --Thewizardsgirl (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thewizardsgirl:  Done, you can now find the page at Joseph Krauskopf. For future reference, you can change article names by using the "Move" function, which can be found under the "More" tab near the top of the page (see HELP:MOVE for more info). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ahecht. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga/Contact Info, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Account has 600 edits - perhaps simply discussing with them is a better option. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Why did you delete my additions to the Costa Concordia pages? 86.205.21.106 (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@86.205.21.106: As I explained on your talk page, those links didn't meet Wikipedia's external links policy. External links shouldn't be to sites that contain "unverifiable research". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ahecht, do you have any thoughts for where articles like Turner Broadcasting System Africa and Nickelodeon (Africa) and Nick Jr (Africa) might reasonably be merged? This Nigerian crew is creating a lot of pointless stubs with litanies of programming that is typically unsourced and needless. Thoughts? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Congrats on your hard-fought RfA! With TBS, I would convert Turner Broadcasting System Europe into Turner Broadcasting System EMEA (since that is how Turner divides it up on their website at http://emea.turner.com/) and redirect Turner Broadcasting System Africa to it. Nickelodeon and Nick Jr Africa at least have their own websites, so barring a drastic effort to consolidate the dozens of localized Nickelodeon and Nick Jr articles into Nickelodeon (international) and Nick Jr. (international) (which I am ultimately in favor of but have failed to get consensus for in the past), I'm not sure what to do other than trying to limit it to a perma-stub. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the STATS LLC page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naga fireball, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Laotian and ITV. 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) 09:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	I really can't overstate how helpful the IRC help channel nickname randomizer is. Thank you very much for working on this awesome technical solution. APerson (talk!) 03:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ahecht, The page I created David Richter was redirected by you. He is the CEO of a large international company, so I was just wondering why this happened. If the sources are not valid, I can fix that, but most of them are news clippings and magazine articles. Thank you Keelsh01 (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Redirect request: List of serving 3-Star Officers of Indian Army

All the members mentioned in the list are of Lt.Gen rank which is 3-Star RankKrishna Chaitanya Velaga _Talk 13:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Sorry for not responding sooner, I didn't have internet access for the past week. Please provide a reliable source that all 3-star officers are Lt. Gen. Thanks. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Three-star_rank Krishna Chaitanya Velaga _☎ 07:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Disney California Adventure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High desert. 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) 09:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Law school tuition (and university tuition generally) is different from "prices for goods and services." Particularly in Canada, where universities are still ostensibly public institutions, the tuition price paid directly by students is a very important piece of information. It is not at all comparable to the price of consumer goods and services. Can you please reconsider this request? Alternately, can you tell me how to re-open a discussion on this issue? I believe there is strong support for including tuition as part of the infobox.

Also note that the not including price for goods and services practice is already not applied to law schools, as the tuition is included in the body text of most law school Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivavoce23 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Vivavoce23: The previous consensus was to remove this information from the template. If you wish to add it back, you must establish a consensus at Template talk:Infobox law school. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern about the wiki page for David L Richter, CEO of Hill International. The fact that the creators of this page are associated with the company (and him) does present a potential conflict of interest. The creator of the page did their best to back-up everything with independent sources. As you can see by my wiki history, I am quite the novice editing wiki content, as is Bethann Richter, however as the CEO and founding family member of a 600 million dollar publicly traded company, David Richter warrants at least consideration for a separate profile page apart from Hill International. If there is a different way that we should approach this, I welcome your advice. I appreciate your objective consideration.Jpaolin (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I notice that the entry for Cryo-Cell International still has orphan status but there is a link to Cryo-Cell from another Wikipedia entry, namely Life Cell. how does the orphan status get removed? thank you Wuenschp (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wuenschp: Tags get removed manually. You can remove the "{{Orphan|date=July 2015}}" from the top of the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Good solution! 110.78.187.38 (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the shuffling and re-categorizing you did with these pages. Your solution is much more elegant than having Good hair redirect to the disambiguation page as I had suggested. :) —2601:19A:4000:4A02:A557:F880:6369:E1E1 (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ahecht. I was just looking at Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations (side note: I believe the entire category should be cleaned out and should not exist but that's not why I'm here). In looking at entries, I'm seeing that user talk pages, where the decline has been placed, are being included in the category and I was wondering if that was an unintentional side result of your April edits to the template or if it was always like that. If it was or even if it wasn't and always did that, can the template be changed to not place the category when a decline is added to a user's talk page, as opposed to a decline added to the draft itself? It seems to me the category is for flagging actual pages that have been declined as copyright violations, not talk pages of users who posted the AfC submissions that were declined on that basis. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: When I made those April edits I tried to categorically prevent User Talk pages from being tagged, but I was stopped by T13 who claimed that a User Talk page was a perfectly valid place to put a draft article. I finally worked out an acceptable workaround with T13 on May 20th, but pages tagged in the meantime ended up in the category. Are you seeing any User Talk pages that were added to the category after May 20th? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Hmm, let me check.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I went through about twenty, none were from after May 20 but there's many more. Anyway, I'm planning on cleaning out the category first and then probably doing a CfD but that's certainly going to take significant time. The good part – that cuts both ways – is that even though these are cluttering up the category with false-positives, they also mean that the total number of actual copyvios to clean up is less, since these talk pages in the category are not actual copyvios. Copyvios should not be declined and retained but deleted or in some cases sent for investigation and/or cleaned and revdeleted. What we should not be doing is having any process that invites declining and keeping them, with the copyvio sitting in the page history and a category that flags for the world, here be copyvios! Explore at your leisure! I don't know how this ever got started where our policies are clear and the problem of keeping them and amassing an index of them so blindingly and obviously problematic. Many moons ago I had noticed that the AfC instructions said just to decline, and I put in place the current instructions for tagging them under G12 or sending them for investigation, but obviously the retention is ongoing and having this category is part of the tail wagging that dog.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've cleaned out all the talk page that had the category placed through the template so the issue that brought me here is basically moot (there were over 300, meaning there are far fewer actually copyvios to deal with than I thought).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Great. One of these days, now that T13 isn't around to oppose it, I'll have to get around to submitting a bot to clean out the other categories. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I do think that would be a boon. Doing this by hand was a pain in the ass and it appears there are thousand between all the decline categories. If it's any use in making the case for appropriateness of a bot to handle these, hand doing 349, I did not find a single user talk page in the category that was actually an AfC draft.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ahecht. Sorry to bother you again. I just thought since you're involved with AfC and also seem much more template sophisticated than I am, you might be able to help with a possible template change at Template:AFC submission/comments. If you can't I'll understand.

Oh, hmm, wow. It just occurred to me that there might be a really easy way to do this, one even I could do. Instead of using some kind of #ifeq parameter to swap the categories in the current cv comment, I could just add a new comment called cv-cleaned with the same content as cv, except for the different category. Maybe that is all that's needed?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I've sorted it all myself.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"Wheaton spoken out against..." is ungrammatical. Then you added a storify, which is not RS. Please fix this. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@The most effectual Bob Cat: I appologize, I left out the word "has". I added storify, because it was better than the previous situation which was no source whatsoever. I have provided better sourcing. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I asked here because I am trying to avoid us editors correcting each other on minor details a lot. I have to point out Jimbo said Gawker properties are not RS, we'll find a better one. Oh, and do you think I need CoI warning when I edit, Wil and I have friends in common and have msgd on social media, but only briefly. Thanks again. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@The most effectual Bob Cat: I honestly would have no problem removing the first half of that sentence. I originally tried to just find a source for the claim about Wheaton being a feminist (self-proclaimed or otherwise), but the only ones I could find were on attack sites and forums associated with the "Men's Rights" movement. I was trying to avoid a content dispute by removing the BLP violation with something that somewhat resembled it but at least had a source. I had to tread lightly, since anything that mentions (or used to mention) Gamergate can be a powder keg around here. I think citing the tweet is sufficient, since there is no commentary and it seems to pass the requirements of WP:PRIMARY and WP:TWITTER. On the COI, while it seems like having mutual friends and messaging on social media isn't a "personal connection" per WP:COI, erring on the side of caution when disclosing COIs is usually a good idea. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ahecht. Apologies that Special:AbuseFilter/690 accidentally disallowed one of your bot's edits. The filter is designed to catch a particular socking user's edits, and you happened to trigger a false positive with your bot because their user talk page was in the category you were listing with it. I've removed that category manually from their talk page so that you shouldn't run in to the issue again, but do let me know if you do. Sam Walton (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: No problem, I wasn't using the bot for anything important -- just testing out pywikibot at the moment. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hello Ahecht, I am wondering about the pages K-Town Hardcore, K Town Hardcore, K-Town punk, K Town punk, Ktown Hardcore and K-Town Hardcore. At the time of this post, the pages dont redirect anywhere and from the looks of the pages, it appears that you were attempting to redirect it to some page. Can you please fix it? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• @AKS.9955: Strange, I've never seen the AFCH tool mess up like that. I'll manually fix them. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Ahecht, very good. I thought as much that something must have gone wrong and also missed your attention otherwise with your experience, page creations like these were next to impossible. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey there, I was helping on IRC today and noticed "urial" - apparently it's a sheep (today I learned!). Personally, I think that shouldn't be an option. It too closely resembles "urinal" and may be prone to vandalism. I would support the hippo being added as an animal ;) What do you think? — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 22:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kikichugirl: The second noun list currently has one animal/fruit for each letter of the alphabet. The only other options I could think of for "U" were urchin, ugli, and ugni. Do you think maybe unicorn would be better? Maybe ewe, even though it's not technically a "U" word. I probably won't have access to the computer with my tool labs certificate until Tuesday, so I'll give it some thought over the long weekend. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I think unicorn would be best. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 00:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kikichugirl: My plans changed, so I was able to access my tool labs account today and change Urial to Unicorn. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Like — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 21:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I see that you reverted my disambiguation of two links on Sesame Place as unsourced. Was it your intention to revert further back? -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 19:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Niceguyedc: Oops, you're right. I meant to revert further back. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Honbasho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basho. 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) 11:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The article Muscle Hamster has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wgolf: I didn't create the article, I just created a redirect. That honor goes to User:Jv1621. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

welcome-I usually do check, I just was looking over and thinking wow this is odd-I didn't even pay attention to the date the page was created till after that (I was on the new page feed and didn't realize I was still looking at descending order as well) Wgolf (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding Caitlyn Jenner's birth name several times to her wikipedia article is absurd to me. However, I suppose I can see where you're coming from. Please do not come on my page requesting me not to do something that should have obviously not been done in the first place. I will not make the edit again, however.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristianObviously (talk • contribs) 15:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, we really need birthday days. 197.144.200.102 (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Where is all that hate coming from on my page? Where did I assume no good faith on Caitlyn Jenner? I LOVE CAITLYN. She is a hero to me and many others, so don't you DARE SPREAD LIES ABOUT ME NOT HAVING GOOD FAITH ABOUT CAITLYN.

This just a warning, but don't spew that crap on MY PAGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@100.2.244.59: I wasn't saying you didn't have good faith about Caitlyn, I said that you failed to assume good faith about the other editors on that page. Since you have chosen not to register for a Wikipedia account, the talk page for your IP address is shared with any Verizon FIOS user in the New York area that happens to be assigned that IP address. While you are free to remove content that you don't like, you can't put a blanket ban on all users from leaving messages for users of that IP address. If you don't want negativity, stop telling people to "step to the fucking plate". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

HI Just following up on your revert of my adjustment of the displacement of QM2. A bit baffled by something that is correct ? is put back to previous figure which is vague . Would this be sorted by adding extra line detail rather than replacing the about 75,000 and linking to GT entry

I came to this part when looking at P&O Australia fleet which showed references to DT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.65.123 (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.65.123 (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@125.238.65.123:, if P&O articles are taking numbers from the DWT listing on Marine Traffic and listing them as displacement, that is incorrect as well. DWT is how much cargo a ship can hold, whereas displacement is a measurement of the volume displaced by the ship itself (see the article Deadweight tonnage). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)