User talk:Kkj11210/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

   Tnx. Re nCr, truth to tell, it never occurred to me that i needed to test from that direction, and it seemed so logical to put such directives at the top (just as many other directives go at the top or bottom). Unless you're sure that putting it at the bottom will still break the Rdr, i'll do some sandbox tests and hopefully be in a position to accomplish that goal without breaking anything this time. Do you know that after the Rdr call, or after a type-of-Rdr template, won't work either? (Responding here is fine.)
--Jerzy•t 18:57, 26 & 16:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

   Just on the chance that it's more amusing than annoying to you, i've had further reflections about what my so-called thot process might have been:

   "It's an eff'ing Rdr, who ever heard of testing a Rdr? What could possibly go wrong in coding an Rdr?"

   Even more reasonable thots, that did not take place:

   "Do you recall testing with a space between the # and the R, so that the Rdr is broken & the preview reveals (even within the interminable chain of wiki-engine releases that were so annoying for neglecting to provide a real preview feature for Rdrs) whether you spelled the '{{R from ...' template correctly?"

   "Do you recall putting a space before "#REDIRECT" once, just for the quantum of further insight that it might give about what was different about processing of Rdrs vs. other wiki-constructs?"

   "Do you recall deciding it was best to assume that Rdrs were processed by coding done by someone who really didn't have any idea of what the preview code provides?"

--00:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

   OK, a sadder and a wiser editor, i'm pretty confident that i can get the effect i was hoping for without doing any damage. I'm probably going to be much better at testing the live change than i would have been if i'd tried it further than before, and if i'm still wrong i should manage to correct for it promptly; i'd also be grateful to hear about it (and, as before, to have you again intervene if somehow i foul it up again) -- if you can see a problem that i can't yet foresee and i don't immediately recognize it by (perish the thot!) still being too dense to figure out myself. It always seems easy to figure out abstract things -- including how to look for problems, but there's nothing quite as effective as actually being there when "the [real] rubber meets the [actual critical stretch of] road.
   Thanks again,
--Jerzy•t 04:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kkj11210. 100% my mistake. I strongly encourage you (and any other user) to refer to me as "User:Mister Stoopid-Head" if I make that kind of basic error ever again ! Mister Stoopid-Head AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I added two cites and removed your prod. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bearian:Alright, it looks good. KJ ^Discuss? 23:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for message re removal of redirect: it was done in error so thanks for repairing. I'm not a Wikipedia expert so get things wrong sometimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatkatydid (talk • contribs) 22:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Whatkatydid: No problem. Just for further reference, you want to finish your messages on talk pages by adding your signature by using this markup ~~~~ KJ ^Discuss? 12:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Larry Augustin can be many people. To use Wikipedia for publicity or gain is not good. Erasing my article on my uncle Larry Augustin was not good either. For he just passed away on the 7th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.212.121 (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@108.66.212.121: Please read WP:YFA. KJ ^Discuss? 22:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear User; I see you have just reverted my blanking out of the Chumathang redirect (as it was incorrect) and informed me how to do this properly. Thank you for this, but unfortunately, in the process, you also blanked out all the notes I had made on the village of Chumathang which I had spent hours assembling. is there any way of recovering this information so I can insert it 9with a number of photos) after the redirect is removed? I would be extremely grateful if you could help me with this. it is very discouraging to see all that work destroyed. I know I should have used a "sandbox" first - which is my fault. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@John Hill: Okay, so I'm assuming that you were adding new material to the page when I reverted your blanking, and so you were unable to save the page and lost the material. In this case, you might wish to go to the previous page (by pressing the arrow on your browser) to see if the browser had 'cached' the data. The method will work with Chrome, but I'm not certain about other browsers. If you cannot find your text with this method, then you should probably consider your data lost and work on it from the beginning. KJ ^Discuss? 00:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct - everything was wiped. I guess I will have to start all over again but I am pretty devastated as I spent hours getting the article to that point. By the way the WP:RfD page says:"NOTE: if you just want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold." So, I am naturally feeling upset. No hard feelings, though, I am sure you did it all in good faith. Sincerely John Hill (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@John Hill: For further reference, you may wish to use the Template:Under construction to avoid accidental reverts. KJ ^Discuss? 01:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chumathang. Since you had some involvement with the Chumathang redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Safiel (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I made a quick check since I hadn't seen your user name on DR/N before, and found that you're new, and that the case involving me is probably your first case on DR/N, so I thought I'd let you know that my obvious aversion to the DR/N-case has nothing to do with you, and that you shouldn't let it discourage you, you just happened to stumble across a case that is doomed from the start. I spend most of my time on WP preserving articles, ranging from reverting silly vandalism to fighting groups of users POV-pushing in contentious subject areas, with a focus on the POV-pushing, so I've been dragged to both DR/N and WP:ANI a number of times, cases where none of my "opponents" so far have managed to get any support for their views. Cases like this, and users who think that "the encyclopaedia than anyone can edit" means that they're free to do whatever they want here, bring out the grumpy side in me, though, but you shouldn't interpret that as me feeling any aversion towards DR/N as such, or you as a DR/N volunteer. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheers. Thomas.W ^talk 18:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Lee Hyo-jeong is just one of the actress in the film Chunhyang (2000 film). By re-directing Lee Hyo-jeong to Chunhyang (2000 film), we are saying Lee Hyo-Jeong is the same/equivalent as Chunhyang (2000 film), which it is not--Jjaey (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC).

@Jjaey: Redirects aren't only used for topics which are considered the same. In this case, it looks like the actress lacks notability beyond the participation in the movie, and that's why a search for her name would redirect there. If you can demonstrate WP:N, then you are free to make a stand-alone article about the actress. If you think the redirect should be deleted, you should bring it up at WP:RFD, but I doubt that consensus will come to delete. KJ ^Discuss? 06:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just curious, how did my starting edit at Oscar Harris show up on your computer? "new page patrol" or As a "too short" stub or something? Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Special:ShortPages, actually. I patrol there for speedy deletion candidates and unexplained blanking. KJ ^Discuss? 03:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, haven't seen that before. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to AK Plaza may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of notability or substantial content. The page should be deleted to move the former page (located [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kkj11210/AK_Plaza] to be moved into this title]}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to AK Plaza may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 판정승 |publisher=MONEYTODAY |date=July 22, 2010 |accessdate=August 25, 2014 |language=Korean |trasn)title=Lotte Hotel 'Duty-free shop fight' declared winner to Sila}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello KJ, What you are counting as me explaining my view point? I did not make a 5 point attack on kirin. I donot understand how that is okay to be posted just because kirin has an account and I choose to not register.

For sections, it was not to be misleading or bias. I made the section to have less to scroll up and down. I will let you do it fromnow on. I do appreciate your help. This has been ongoing and is tiring. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@65.205.13.26: I apologize if I appeared biased. The decision was not regarding the existence of accounts, but due to the fact that you have already given a 'Dispute overview' in your point of view. There are personal attacks on both sides in the opening statements, but please ignore any personal attacks that have been made (or may be made in the future) during the discussion. I understand about the section titling; it was just a technical thing. If you feel too tired about the issue, maybe try to take it less personally and reach an agreeable consensus. Regards. KJ ^Discuss? 02:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No no you dont appear bias. other editos do feel those with accounts are more important, I dont get that feeling from you. I just did not see why and do not see why kirin was allowed 5 points to attack me. I guess the requst for DRN is where I presented my side in the dispute overview section, right. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

My "5 point attack" a.k.a. "Summary of dispute by Kirin13", had only the first point regarding any user issues. The only reason I included that was because of IP's statement "got her friend to block me". It was not a personal attack, only a response to IP's comment. If he doesn't want to bring up his blocks, he shouldn't bring them up first. IP has now twice responded to collapsed sections – he's gotten the 'final say', so no idea what he's complaining about. Furthermore IP has made a number of personal attacks, particularly that I've used coercion on Metheglyn and that DeltaQuad and I are socks of each other. Both assertions absolutely false. Using an idiom, IP should 'put up or shut up' – either go to ANI to report coercion and SPI to report socking or desist. Kirin13 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

quote : User Kirin, do you disagree that the sources mentioned (books, blog, interviews, pictures) are adequate as sources, secondary or primary, for the homebirths? KJ Discuss? 05:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC

Blog cannot be used. Reading WP:BLOGS, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." He's failed to give any citation for any of the other information. I'm not going to search the several hundred pages of the books or watch the 100+ episodes. If he claims it's there, he must be able to provide an actual citation. Unless he's spoken with Ellie/Lily, he cannot say where they got their info, but that's irrelevant since the blog cannot be used. Kirin13 (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Putting aside the blog for now, common practice in Wikipedia when an editor cannot access the book is to WP:AGF and assume that the material is included in the book that is being sourced, unless there is material that directly contradicts it. With that, is it agreeable that the material can be sourced? User 65, it will still be better if you can give the exact quotes/location of the material, if possible. KJ Discuss? 10:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have access to the books. Feel free to give me the chapters or pages. Kirin13 (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

KJ, do you see how no matter what kirin is unaccepting. The duggar family sanctions the blog and give interviews, still kirin says no. The duggars go on tv and advocate homebirths still kirin says no. Now kirin is saying that I am saying kirin must read hunndreds of pages and watch 100 episodes. When did I say for several hundred pages to be read and episodes to be watched ? All this time Kirin has had the book, look in the index for the source, work together. Instead kirin is against. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, why is it that the disputed section gets to remain in article instead of being deleted until consensus is reached like I have seen done on other articles? 65.205.13.26 (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@65.205.13.26: Before I reply, please be noted that writing about content here, to the DR/N volunteers' talk page is highly discouraged and I will not comment on user conduct or on the content. I will suggest that you make that suggestion to the user; i.e. 'look in the index for the source, work together,' in his talk page or the DRN page, preferably the latter. Regarding the disputed section, I thought that the question was concerning the information being added to the article, so that would have no bearing, and I don't have the power to enforce a particular course of action anyhow. KJ ^Discuss? 02:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

the airline has moved to Higuerote

"Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Click 4 support. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. KJ Discuss? 14:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)" Nope. Check the page history.

I added a pretty detailed explanation of what was wrong with the page some time ago, and it was removed (more than once, if I recall correctly) by another user (presumably an "employee" of that company given their other edits). I'll revert it to the version with that explanation. Cheers.

@14.2.59.186: OK. To start, you cannot put your own opinion on the article or blank it, for that matter. Commentary like this edit goes to the talk page of the article, which would be would have been Talk:Click 4 support, but never mind that, the article is deleted now. For further reference,

• As a general rule, don't WP:BLANK articles
• If you wish to continue editing on Wikipedia, I would highly suggest reading Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in editing and asking other users for help if you're not sure what to do.
• Don't keep reverting to your preferred version if it is reverted. Discuss the changes with the reverting editor.

We hope you continue to edit on Wikipedia, and be assured that we will help you as much as we can. KJ ^Discuss? 14:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources. Should I keep the headings as "Allowed and Questionable", changed it to "Reliable and Unreliable" or a combination of both? ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 16:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jay2kx: How about considered reliable and considered unreliable? And you might want to add a description/justification of each source. KJ ^Discuss? 22:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That's even better, I'll change it to that and add descriptions to each source. Thanks. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 00:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jay2kx: Alrighty, I'll try to add sources and give justification (or the lack thereof) whenever I can. KJ ^Discuss? 01:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I added descriptions to the sources so you can check to see if anything needs rewording. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 01:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AK Plaza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lotte. 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) 08:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you noticed these templates?

• Template:South Korean awards table
• Template:K-pop group members table
• Template:South Korean music program awards table
• Template:Infobox K-pop artist awards is similar to Template:Infobox musician awards

I think these are not needed. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 17:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jay2kx: Why do you think so? KJ ^Discuss? 22:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

All the table templates are the headers of a table, it would of been different if it was made differently. The infobox is okay but how much weight does winning on Music Bank (TV series) and M! Countdown hold? I feel like it's basically like having your music video ranked #1 on Total Request Live. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 23:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jay2kx: Well, I'm not too sure about the templates. I think the general rule is that if they're in use, then we can keep them unless it can be merged. As for the Music Bank and M! Countdown, it's more like being ranked on the Billboard than Total Request Live, so it has some merit. KJ ^Discuss? 00:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll keep an eye on them since the creator is adding them to pages and who knows if a random person might afd it at anytime. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 02:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jay2kx: I'm Keaclamviectot, creator of four templates you think they are not needed. :First, I will talk about Template:Infobox K-pop artist awards. Of course, it is similar with Template:Infobox musician awards, because I used almost code from that template, but I also added Music program awards box, and slimmed the original code (removed some awards and add some ones). I don't say my template is better than the original template, but it is more suitable for K-pop artists.

Now, I talk about three table templates. When I use them in pages, I have reduced a lot of unnecessary code (align center). And you said, they are not needed?

If you are afraid of security of them, don't be worry. I will look after them, you have my words. Sincerely. Ke ac lam viec tot (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sinking of the MV Sewol may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Cause" /> 45 degrees to the right,<ref name="NPR 0518" /> made between 8:48 and 8:49&nbsp;a.m. ([[Korean Standard Time|KST]],<ref name="NPR 0418">{{cite news |url=http://www.npr.org/2014/04/18/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You restored my removal of the redirect from Occupied Ulster to Northern Ireland, probably automatically. It is pretty offensive to refer to Northern Ireland as 'occupied'; also I note there are no pages on Wikipedia which link to Occupied Ulster (except now, of course, our mutual talk pages). The user who made the original redirect has since been deleted as a sockpuppet.

The redirect should be removed; I am therefore reverting your edit and would appreciate it being left alone or the page deleted. 78.146.229.185 (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@78.146.229.185: First, please be noted that blanking the page is not tantamount to a deletion request. For a redirect, I would have recommended that you nominate the page at WP:RFD, which has been done at this point. Just for further reference, being offensive is not a reason to delete the redirect as Wikipedia is not censored. Regards. KJ ^Discuss? 14:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears that a category page by the name "Parks in Bhubaneswar", added by me, was first tagged for speedy deletion and then got deleted because of the CSD#A3 guideline. The reason why I did not add any content in the page is just simple which is, at that time, I didn't have time back then to continue editing WP. I, like most others, have other things to do also. So, when I returned to add the content to the page after one day, i.e today, I found out that it got Speedily deleted. So, now, I wish if I will be allowed to add content to the same page after its undeletion. Thanks. Rishidigital1055 (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rishidigital1055: If you have enough material to create the Wikipedia page following policies and guidelines, feel free to create another article with the same name, along with the content. However, please be noted that creating blank pages or 'fill-in' pages are not allowed in Wikipedia. Although I did nominate the page under speedy deletion, I am not the administrator who deleted the page. In case that the article actually had content that you wish to retrieve, you want to contact the deleting administrator as seen here. Just for further reference, you might wish to read WP:YFA and use the WP:AFC process to ensure your article is not speedily deleted. KJ ^Discuss? 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

SantiLak (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That page was deleted by MusikAnimal. it is been recreated by wikipedia editor.

• this company is not a notable company
• the cited sources don't belong to any one popular media.
• the editor payed for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxzius (talk • contribs) 10:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That page was deleted by MusikAnimal. it is been recreated by wikipedia editor.

• this company is not a notable company
• the cited sources don't belong to any one popular media.
• the editor payed for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxzius (talk • contribs) 10:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your reversion of my effort to stop the incorrect redirection of Panalba to Famotidine, Panalba has no relationship to Famotidine. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Food_and_Drug_Administration, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1979/11/upjohns-shuck-and-jive-routine, and http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&context=marketing_papers.) How might this situation be corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilienfeld (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lilienfeld: Please bring it up at WP:RFD. KJ ^Discuss? 01:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi KJ! Thanks for posting to my talk page about my effort to fix a redirect - you're right that my effort to blank the redirect wasn't effective, so that was a useful piece of information. I hadn't heard of WP:RFD before, so that was a helpful pointer too. I found it discouraging though to be advised against bringing up the topic at WP:RFD - when I write talk page messages with advice, I like to phrase them more positively to be more encouraging and to leave lots of space open in case I incompletely understand the topic. Something more like "People at WP:RFD are likely to want to keep the redirect to help readers find the topic most closely linked with the redirected topic, so I recommend taking this into account if you choose to propose it for deletion at WP:RFD." I believe this redirect qualifies for deletion under reason for deletion #10 ("If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself."), so I'll bring it up there. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi!, thanks for your comment and don't worry, now you can watch the biography of Marie Charlotte de la Trémoille without being redirected. Aldebaran69 (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Aldebaran69: Yep, it looks good. KJ ^Discuss? 23:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question. The exact scenario is that for the Pakistani actor Fawad Khan, there have been numerous reports that he was born in Lahore, Pakistan, but there are also a lot of reports saying he was born in Karachi, Pakistan. In an interview/public event, Khan briefly mentions that he was born in Karachi and I wanted to use that as a absolute reference for his birthplace as it was coming from the actor himself. I hope that makes it clearer! Thanks again Kazmia92 (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kazmia92: In this case, it will depend what you mean by 'a lot of reports.' If there is a substantial amount of sources that mention him as being born in Lahore (compared to, say, one or two), then you would want to give both sources. Something like: Although he has claimed that he was born in Karachi(ref) and reports have claimed this (ref), other reports placed his birthplace at Lahore(ref). Remember that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. KJ ^Discuss? 23:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have an issue with an edit I made, by all means discuss it. aprock (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Aprock: Alright. One: Johnuniq is not an editor that has been included in the list of users involved. Two: The first point might be ignored if the post has been helpful to the discussion, but the comment could be reasonably interpreted as a WP:PA, due to the fact that the comment ignores the discussion entirely and focuses on alluding that the editors who are against the mainstream coverage of the topic as 'GamerGate hordes' from Reddit and 4chan. Three: I am the DRN volunteer and therefore responsible for overseeing the debate and hiding (not removing) any comments which are irrelevant to the discussion, which included the comment above. If a user believed that my action was flawed in some way, the proper method would have been to discuss with me first, not arbitrarily removing my structuring of the discussion. KJ ^Discuss? 16:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why you want to edit war to maintain a collapse inserted by one of the participants in the DRN. Addressing your specific points:

• One: Any user can contribute to the conversation. Collapsing their comments because they they are not listed in the parties is not ok.
• Two: The entire discussion has been largely unhelpful, collapsing a comment which explains why that is the case is disruptive. The personal attack was quoted from elsewhere, and is still viewable.
• Three: You are not the one who collapsed the comment. [1] I'll note that you neither reverted, nor discussed the issue with the original collapser.

aprock (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Aprock: In DRN, comments concerning behaviors of editors or motivations behind such editors are not entertained; the discussion is about the content only. A comment which 'explains' why the case is unhelpful by accusing editors of being 'GamerGate hordes' from Reddit and 4chan is not only against WP:AGF, it is a WP:PA. Furthermore, such comments have no place in actual discussion of the content material. Whether it's a quote or not is also irrelevant; although such comments in the summaries of cases by individual editors are left solely because it's their initial viewpoint, same comments in the discussion will be closed. I have not closed the comment since the user was not an editor who was not included in the list (I have mentioned that the point could be ignored if constructive, but wasn't) and I have not discussed with the original user since the user was essentially correct in closing the comment, which I endorsed my changing it to the correct formatting. KJ ^Discuss? 16:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Your continued assertion that editors "included in the list" have more leeway to comment than those who don't is not supported by guideline or policy. If you had an issue with the comments that were collapsed you should have taken it to the user in question, something which you did not do. As for WP:AGF/WP:NPA, if those are in fact active concerns of yours you need to strongly reign in the discussion there. When you implicitly support disruptive edits of DRN participants without discussing them, and then allow the discussion to spin wildly out of control, your credibility as a moderator suffers greatly. That you have edit warred to restore this collapse, while being a moderator, also erodes your credibility. aprock (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Aprock: OK, honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. Given the nature of the user's comments and the fact that the user was not in the list of involved users, I construed his behavior to mean that he was not interested in taking part in the discussion, only in noting his rather irrelevant point. And what do you mean by 'reign in the discussion?' I've noted that Personal Attacks weren't allowed, collapsed the one personal attack that occurred, and has been directing the discussion ever since. The discussion has been in the first part of the outline that I've suggested (Decide which sources can be used, and decide due weight). I in no way have 'supported disruptive edits' by... closing them? I'm happy that you're worrying about my credibility as a moderator, but I have no idea which behavior of mine is worrying to you, or why you have taken to revert my edits in the first place. Are you arguing that the comment needs to stay? Or are you stating that my behavior as a moderator is inadequate? KJ ^Discuss? 17:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Your continued assertion that an uninvolved editor should be treaded differently is unsupported by policy or guideline. Your characterization of the users' point as rather irrelevant is startling; that comment was only lending support to another comment above. Either both comments are irrelevant or neither are. On wikipedia, It is considered poor form to collapse the comments of other users with you who you disagree. In that regard this edit is certainly disruptive. The only comment that you've supported culling is one that was collapsed by one of the active editors. Moderation is a thankless task, so I'll end with; I think ... your characterization of the comment is wrong, and your edit warring over the collapse is poor form for a moderator. aprock (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Aprock: Alright, I still have no idea what you're talking about. There's no official policy or guideline about DRN mediation (save Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering, which is neither). As for the response, arguing that the topic should get proper due weight and/or arguing what has transposed in the media is a little different than accusing editors of being 'hoardes.' Yes, it's usually considered poor form to collapse comments of other users with you who you disagree, unless you're mediating on DRN where moderators can and do close comments, the comment you've singled out is a personal attack (which are usually closed on DRN), and you don't personally disagree with the comment (really? Where was I partial to one viewpoint or another?). Please read the comment again and tell me how the comment

DRN should not be misused to provide yet another forum for the hordes to express their indignation

is relevant to the conversation. As for the edit warring, I reverted on :11, you left a message on :17 and reverted on :18, I replied to you at :27 and reverted on :28 with an edit summary to comment on my talk page, and you've reverted again at :33 without an explanation. I only reverted at :38 to follow the spirit of WP:BRD. Please don't make generalized arguments that will work in any other areas of Wikipedia (unsupported by policy or guideline, On wikipedia, It is considered poor form to collapse..., etc.). KJ ^Discuss? 17:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed the link as I'll be creating a new page about a site that is called Anime fandom: http://anime-fandom.com/ I'm sorry I didn't leave an explanation as I was creating it right now, didn't know moderators wouldn't even leave me at least an hour to organize myself :P

Elshobokshy (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Elshobokshy

@Elshobokshy: Alright, sounds good. I'll add the {{Under construction}} tag on the page. Feel free to remove it when you think the article's ready. KJ ^Discuss? 11:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You probably forgot to sign! xD (Special:Diff/628897128) If you want a bot to automatically sign for you when you forgot to do so, put {{YesAutosign}} on your userpage. — revi^☏ 08:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Revi: Thanks KJ ^Discuss? 08:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure who did the redirect, but as far as I can see it makes no sense whatsoever -- so, I'd suggest even a blank redirect would be better than the one that applies. As-is it's essentially a link theft and defacto spam. There is absolutely no connection I can observe between the target and the initial subject. I haven't "reverted" your revert, but would recommend it be cleared off somehow. It's utterly confusing the way it is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBloodyHell (talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@OBloodyHell: It looks like the redirect is apparently due to Chemda Khalili's involvement in the film. I don't have a particular opinion on the appropriateness of the redirect, but per WP:BLANK, you should nominate it for WP:RFD if you wish to delete it. KJ ^Discuss? 23:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of atheists in film, radio, television and theater may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)

and artist.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/Kari%20Byron/| title=Interviews > Kari Byron| author=Suicide Girls| date=March 30, 2011| accessdate=2011-03-30}}</ref><ref>[http:// http://www.wga.org/organizesub.aspx?id=1095 God and Woman at America's Next Top Model], John Bowman]</ref> com/2007/12/17/tudors-beauty-nude-scenes-were-harrowing/ Tudors beauty: Nude scenes were harrowing (interview with Natalie Dormer]</ref> http://www.wga.org/organizesub.aspx?id=1095 God and Woman at America's Next Top Model], John Bowman]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the Jenglot article because it's entirely unsourced. It's not "disruptive" editing. You should assume good faith and not make assumptions that I'm just a troll instead of a new user. -College Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.162.212 (talk • contribs) KJ ^Discuss? 05:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@134.50.162.212: Please be noted that blanking an article is not tantamount to a deletion. Editors cannot delete pages off Wikipedia; only administrators have that power. If you wish to delete the article, please nominate the article following the procedures at WP:AFD. If consensus is reached in the discussion, than an administrator will take appropriate steps to delete the article. As for the assertion that it's not 'disruptive' editing, you have blanked the article and reverted an anti-vandal bot without looking to see whether the blanking is appropriate (in this case, it isn't, per WP:BLANK). You are encouraged to be WP:BOLD but also WP:CAREFUL while editing articles. If you have any questions, I suggest the WP:TEAHOUSE or asking experienced Wikipedians for guidance. KJ ^Discuss? 05:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

--Jwj335 (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, KKJ - I think you might be mistaken. I didn't create that article. I was a new page patroller who came across it this morning and moved it to a correctly-titled page. I don't mind being templated, but I thought I ought to set the record straight, because I'm otherwise part of the Guild of Copy-Editors and don't want other people to see that I'm supposedly creating poorly-titled or vandalistic articles. Thanks for the consideration; I hope it's not a problem if I delete the template from my talk page. LS1979 (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lstanley1979: Yeah, it was weird for me too. I was looking at the page history of the article, and it began when you moved the page from a previous title. The template was automatically sent by Twinkle, which also thought you were the creator for some reason. You're free to quote me saying I'm not aware of the creator either. KJ ^Discuss? 22:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. I just activated TW on my account and didn't realise it did that. I've removed the template altogether. LS1979 (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

With regards to this edit please see my message on Talk:Timeline of the Napoleonic era and maybe monitor any conversation that develops. -- PBS (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kkj11210 ! Thank you for your welcome and the help section! I was really confused and kinda of lonely in front of my screen and your message supported my fainting heart :-) 91.76.23.41 (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I want remove the Acarigua-Araure redirection because it doesn't take me to the right topic.... That redirection has nothing to do with "Acarigua-Araure". Acarigua-Araure is a conurbation formed by the cities of Acarigua and Araure, that's why the redirection doesn't make sense with the main topic of Acarigua-Araure, since it's talking about a religious topic and not the conurbation/metropolitan area. Thank you --Gabrielsanchz (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gabrielsanchz: The redirect was probably placed as a shortened version of the entire name. I agree that a stand-alone article about the conurbation might be more appropriate for the article title, but if there's not enough material to warrant an article, than there's no reason to not have a redirect. If you want to delete the redirect, you would want to bring it to WP:RFD. KJ ^Discuss? 05:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kkj11210: well you're right, I'll sooner make a topic for the conurbation and then fix the redirect. Have a nice day :) --Gabrielsanchz (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kkj11210
I was a registered wikipedia user, but then I leave the project because I can't agree the rules and the organization from it. If you will help to improve wikipedia, do what you have to do to delete the Redirect. I will NOT do anything about it anymore. --84.75.225.142 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I agree that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a dictionary.

Let me explain why I created this article: In the "Maurice Eisenberg" article that I created, somebody commented that there was a need for disambiguation w.r.t. the word "soloist" and indeed, there was nothing in the "Soloist" article addressing the soloist of a concerto, reason why I added a relevant line in the "Soloist" (disambiguation) article and a "Soloist (concerto)" article to have a consistent whole.

Would you have any other scheme for solving the requested disambiguation, I would be glad implementing it.

Best Regards,

Lomosizo (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lomosizo: per WP:DICTIONARY, 'a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject,' and I believe that Soloist (concerto) has enough merit to warrant an article, but not at this point. However, the article in its current form only serves to define the term with no other encyclopedic merit. I suggest that you leave the wikilink on the Einsenberg article as a WP:REDLINK for now, and work on the creation of the article either by asking relevant Wikiprojects or creating it yourself. If you agree with me on this point, feel free to blank the article, which will be taken as a deleiton request. KJ ^Discuss? 09:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do as you recommend.

Best Regards. Lomosizo (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Oleaster (talk·contribs) 01:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with 2017-18 ICC World Cricket League Championship. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Note The AFD template has linked its discussion to a nonexistent page, which is why I believed that the template was incorrectly transcluded. The bot has fixed the template and is now leading to the correct page. KJ ^Discuss? 11:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I realize a lot of worthless new pages show up at NewPagesFeed, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the limitations of the speedy tags. Danowita, although a short new article, clearly identifies the subject - a city in Sri Lanka - and is a good candidate for expansion. When you apply speedy tags inappropriately, you push away potentially valuable new editors who haven't learned how things work here yet. Be more careful in the future. —Swpb^talk 14:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Swpb: Really? So you think the article which has 'this city situated in western province.danowita is very beautiful city...' is enough context without identifying what 'western province' is? The page clearly met the speedy deletion criterion at the time. You are free to remove the CSD tag and improve the article like any other editor, but you cannot say the current state of the article would make a past speedy deletion tag inappropriate. If you're against speedy deletion in general, I would suggest that you bring it up somewhere else. KJ ^Discuss? 22:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It took me two seconds to drop the title in Google and figure out the country. So yes, I stand by my assertion that that was a wholly inappropriate use of the speedy tag, and lazy to boot. So watch how you deploy that Twinkle. —Swpb^talk 00:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Swpb: The tag was applied after the usually accepted 10 minute delay, and the article was unacceptable as it existed. Do you understand that an editor is not required to improve the article to the point that does not pass the speedy deletion criterion, except a reversion to the point that would fail the criterion (only if appropriate, and not in this case). You might argue that the article might not have met the criterion, but the application was appropriate as it was. KJ ^Discuss? 04:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kkj11210. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Avec Sans, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: Fair enough, the article has improved to the point where A7 will no longer apply. KJ ^Discuss? 22:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, your tag was correct when it was placed given what was there. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies - wrong article! Understandable reply though. November 7, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 442macsat (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! I just wanted the opinion of an experienced editor on what date format to use in citations. I've been using YYYY-MM-DD, but I've seen a lot of different styles being used and I wanna use the accepted one. Thanks! StewdioMACK (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@StewdioMACK: According to WP:CITESTYLE, 'any consistent style may be used.' This refers to MOS:DATEFORMAT, including the YYYY-MM-DD format but allows formatting such as (8 November 2014 or November 8 2014). My personal preference is the Month, day, year format, although you can choose your own preference. Also, please note WP:CITEVAR, which states that the original citation format should be consistently used, assuming it was correct. KJ ^Discuss? 08:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi i want to delete for my personal reason the page I created for Mahmoud Khatami and remove it permanently. I tried thrice by entering {{db-g7}} but the page returned again!could you please help me to remove it completely? either you yourself remove it or tell how to? Mostafavimaryam (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)thanks

I followed to enter {{db-g7|rationale= }}. and told that as I have created this papge mahmoud khatami I want it to be removed, please help! thanksMostafavimaryam (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is that there have been too many editors on the article. G7 or blanking are not appropriate. It will have to be discussed at Articles for Deletion, with a reason given for the deletion (and I don't think that 'I am the author' would work there with so many editors. We don't know who the IP edits were by, and there are other named editors.) Peridon (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I did not remove anything, i just moved it because its page name was not complete and i thought it is so clear and no explanation was needed. M.Sakhaie (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@M.Sakhaie: You did move the article, but you also blanked the redirect Aboutorabi with this edit. That's the one I have reverted. KJ ^Discuss? 22:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kkj11210: ok. what should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Sakhaie (talk • contribs)

If it was a mistake, it's fine; I've restored the redirect. If you want to delete the redirect, you should bring it up at WP:RFD, although I don't recommend it because there doesn't seem to be an adequate reason for it. KJ ^Discuss? 05:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, yes I am a music and promotions student at Winchester university, currently there is no reason cited for the glum redirect to go to a Germanic Deities, the first band I am reporting on is Glum, the next being maths and the moon. I couldn't find any reason for the current glum redirect? (lulapoppyLulapoppy (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC))

@Lulapoppy: Alright, I will be answer this comment and your {{help me}} request here.

Firstly, concerning the redirect Glum, it seems that Glúm seems to be a Germanic deity. I'm not sure how appropriate the redirect is, especially since that name is not mentioned in the target page, but I have reverted your edit since blanking a page is usually not procedure (per WP:BLANK) and if you wanted to delete the redirect, you should bring it up at WP:RFD. In case that you wanted to start a new article, you could have just done in the page currently located at Glum. If this was the case, I could have helped you add tags to let people know that you were creating a new article there.

Concerning your block, it seems that the administrator DGG blocked you on the basis of being a sockpuppet. A sockpuppet account, like the name suggests, is an alternative account created to abuse the procedures of Wikipedia. It seems that the administrator believed that you were a sockpuppet of User:Mobyg. If this is not the case, then this should be the main factor you should be talking about in your block request. The block was not based on any Conflict of Interest or disruptive editing. KJ ^Discuss? 00:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi i'm Angel Chao45. I'd like to know how you can delete something on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel Chao45 (talk • contribs)

@Angel Chao45: There are several procedures of deleting articles, but the method most used is deletion through a discussion then a consensus. For articles and disambiguation pages, the discussion venue would be WP:AFD, and for redirects, WP:RFD. The discussion is opened by following the steps exactly as outlined in the deletion guideline pages. For example, if you want to delete an article, you should follow all the procedures of WP:AFDHOWTO to the letter. Other deletion methods include speedy deletions and proposed deletions, which I don't suggest you use until you read each page and become familiar with the procedure.

However, this doesn't mean that you should just delete whatever page you like. You should check to see if your reason for deletion is adequate to propose it in a discussion. The best way to do this is to see if the reason falls under any of WP:DEL-REASON and make sure that it's not one of WP:AADD. Since you're a relatively new user, I suggest that before you ask a more experienced user about your specific actions before starting a deletion discussion.

P.S. Also, when you write on talk pages, remember to sign your statement with 4 ~s, like this ~~~~ KJ ^Discuss? 00:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday I worked a lot on Kardan Institute of Higher Education's article and added information, I also wanted to change the name to the new name according to their website(http://www.kardan.edu.af/), but I couldn't and got confused. I presume that you're an admin and you can do it, so I request you to change the article's name to "Kardan University" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseebullah123 (talk • contribs)

@Haseebullah123: I'm not an administrator, but these are the steps you should follow if you ever want to make an uncontroversial move (that is, a move that is likely not to be objected on), given that there is already a page under the name you want to move the article to

First of all, make sure it follows WP:TITLE. The easiest way to make sure of this is to confirm that the name is the one most common (WP:COMMONNAME). There may be exceptions to this case, but this is the rule of thumb.

Second, tag the page with the name you want to move the article under the speedy deletion criterion G6. This can be done by adding {{Db-move|page to be moved|reason}} to the redirect. Keep the Db-move part, but put the current name of the article in the second section and the reason for doing so in the third. In this case, 'institution changed its name' may be an adequate reason.

If the move appears uncontroversial, then an administrator will delete the page and move the article for you.

P.S. Also, when you write on talk pages, remember to sign your statement with 4 ~s, like this ~~~~ KJ ^Discuss? 12:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Peter Frans Casteels and Pieter Casteels III are two different persons so it makes no point to redirect the one to the other.FRAYK (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@FRAYK: That's fine, but instead of blanking the redirect, please bring it up at WP:RFD. KJ ^Discuss? 14:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kkj11210! First of all I want to apologize in advance about my eventual english mistakes, I am a french student. In fact, in the case of my studies, for a class project we have to build a wikipedia page from A to Z and me and my workmate chose the topic "Vincent Callebaut". And so, we putted some link in for our draft page and every link in we did were redirected to the "Floating Ecopolis" via your Vincent Callebaut page. So excuse us if we did some mistakes by deleting some things on your page. Is it possible for you or an other person to let the link go to our page (I said it earlier, actually it is only a draft page for the moment). The dead line of our work is on the 7th of December.

Please let me know if it is possible to fix this problem, you or me. Please let me know. And I apologize again if we did something bad.

Laurentlouis, the 17th November 2014

Laurentlouis (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Laurentlouis: Thank you for your attempt to improve Wikipedia. I have reverted this edit because your edit broke the redirect without contributing anything to the page itself. If you wish to create an article, please feel free to do so, but I will suggest that you read WP:YFA and use the WP:AFC process to ensure that the article is up to Wikipedia standards.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here or visit the WP:TEAHOUSE. KJ ^Discuss? 01:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, Kkj11210-- I'm not sure which changes/edits you may have made, but I am the Board President of Hinoki International School, which is not affiliated with Niji Iro Elementary School in any way, so our page should not be redirected to theirs in any way. Hinoki is indeed a bilingual school, so it makes sense for our page -- which we will be fleshing out over the next several hours/days -- be listed under that category. Merci beaucoup! KyouikuKaizen KyouikuKaizen (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@KyouikuKaizen: You can remove categories that the article does not belong to, but please don't list article topics under non-existent categories. It's technically fine to edit the page to be a stand-alone article, but please be noted that Conflict of Interest editing is strongly discouraged. Per WP:BLANKING, I'll restore the redirect for now. If you still wish to create the article, I suggest disclosing your COI and using the WP:AFC process. KJ ^Discuss? 05:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So you are not an administrator i can give you this.. :D Haroldok (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Haroldok: Sure, thanks! KJ ^Discuss? 13:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Kkj11210. Sadly I have not the English proficiency to expand this lemma. CAM published soundtracks like the ones of Otto e mezzo, La dolce vita and Amarcord by Fellini, Il Postino by Radford, The Godfather by Coppola. Greetings.--Adriano G. V. Esposito (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Adriano G. V. Esposito: Before working on the article, you would want to see if the company is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. The general rule of thumb is WP:GNG; if a subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,then it's generally considered reliable. Please be aware that a company does not have inherent (WP:ORGSIG) or inherited (WP:INHERITORG) notability. If you've determined this, I can help you make the article itself. KJ ^Discuss? 04:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It is too hard for me to determine this. Thank you for your effort anyway!--Adriano G. V. Esposito (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello. In an article named "Navy Day (Iran)" I'm waiting to find information about this event and forwarding to Public Holydays make confusing. The page Public Holidays gives nothing about the seeking subject. There is nothing about celebrating or history of this day. Maybe you can provide some description about this day in other case the page Navy Day(Iran) doesn't do any sense. Anyway the automatic forwarding to another page with completely another contain is not very fair for the readers. Maybe it would be possible to write few sentences into Navy Day(Iran) and to say that it is a national public day in Iran with a hyperlink to the article Public Days in Iran. Regards --Retro917 (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Retro917: In this case, the page deserves its own article if it is notable enough. On Wikipedia, it means that it passes WP:GNG (received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) or for this specific topic, meets WP:EVENT. However, if the topic does not meet either criterion, then the topic may be redirected to a different article which should contain information of the redirect topic. It's true that there is no 'Navy Day' section in Public holidays in Iran. However, this does not mean that the redirect should be changed into a stand-alone article if it is not notable; rather, it encourages editors to add the information to the redirect target, which I highly suggest you do. Feel free to ask anything else. KJ ^Discuss? 04:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well You know KFTI AM is now on 1070 Because KLIO Is not there anymore. 68.102.58.146 (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to create a page about Robert Blakey, but it keeps redirecting to some American chap I've never heard of called G Robert Blakey. I don't want to blank him, but I do want to be able to create a new page for Robert Blakey. Whatkatydid 16:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatkatydid (talk • contribs)

Hi!

Re my blanking of the redirect Australian socialism (to Economy of Australia), which you reverted.

My intention was to contest the existing contention that Australian socialism is equivalent (or near) to Economy of Australia.

I came across the redirect via Helen Palmer (publisher). The "magazine of Australian socialism" spoken of there would probably not identify itself with the present (or past) Economy of Australia. As neither that nor any other article seemed to fit the bill I thought it better to divorce the two. Perhaps some use of the phrase Australian socialism in another article may come closer but a search for "Australian socialism" doesn't yield any clues.

So my question is if you think Australian socialism is equivalent to (or near) to Economy of Australia.? DadaNeem (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@DadaNeem: I don't have any opinions on the validity of the redirect itself. By revert was due to the fact that blanking an article is disallowed (WP:BLANKING). Please consult my message on your talk page. KJ ^Discuss? 06:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The article Thank You (4Minute song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is just a song on the album that was released as a music video. It did not have a campaign to promote it as a single and thus does not have notability on its own. It should be merged into the 4Minute World. The chart performance data is copied from the album and does not reflect the individual single.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

The article was re-created by an unregistered user who has been trying to add unsourced secondary singles to 4Minute albums, so I am hoping this can be deleted without controversy. Would appreciate your help on this. Thanks. AngusWOOF (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Barteria is a genus in the family Passifloraceae, and also it seems a synonym for genus Brasenia in a completely different botanical family. Why should a genus listed on the Passifloraceae article be linked to something not in Passifloraceae? I have found dozens of these misdirected links in plant genera, I thought it would have been obvious why it was changed so didn't see the need to explain. Sorry for any inconvenience on your part but I think you should correct or delete the link as the synonym Barteria for genus Brasenia is rather obscurely attested,^[1] cheers Nickwilso (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

References

{{Reflist-talk}} put by — Revi 09:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is evidently biased, and is written by the subject. The page is in apparent violation of Wikipedia's policies of "Neutral point of view", "Notability", and "Conflict of interest". Additionally autobiographical content is also strongly discouraged as per Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiModEd (talk • contribs) 08:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@WikiModEd: Regardless of the problems the article might have, you cannot just blank the page as it's not tantamount to a deletion. If you wish to delete the article, please nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. KJ ^Discuss? 23:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The reason I blanked the page was because Dave Mirra Freestyle BMX: Maximum Remix and Dave Mirra Freestyle BMX are two seperate games, yet the former is just a redirect page to the latter. Thanks for showing me Redirects for discussion though! I didn't know about that page, and I'll bring it up there.

Yours truly, --Emitewiki2 (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Emitewiki2: Alrighty, no problem. KJ ^Discuss? 23:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. The blankening was part of my unsuccessful attempts to move Arthur Wellesley, Earl of Mornington to Arthur Wellesley, Marquess of Douro as according to the courtesy rules of the British peerage the Earl of Mornington became Marquess of Douro upon the death of his grandfather (8th Duke) and the succeeding of his father to the title of Duke of Wellington as 9th Duke. Therefore any need to redirect to the now 9th Duke became unnecessary. I therefore tried to move Arthur Wellesley, Earl of Mornington to the correct title but apparently such a move could not be done. I have therefore a couple of hours ago already made a comment on the talk page (Talk:Arthur Wellesley, Marquess of Douro) and have also logged a formal move request. See Talk:Arthur_Wellesley,_Earl_of_Mornington#Requested_move_31_December_2014. Perhaps you want to partake in the discussion and/or aid in the move? -- fdewaele, 31 December 2014, 18:11 CET

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Davis Guggenheim "The film was critiqued for failing to mention the social and economic costs of illegal immigration, especially the downward pressure on low-income Americans."

This quote is completely inaccurate and misleading, that is why I wanted to clarify its slanted nature, and I resent your correction and even more, I demand that you edit and fix that quote or allow other people to expand on it and specify the nature of such opinion. 24.147.201.250 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.