User talk:Evenmadderjon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Notability of Alfred Sorensen[edit]

A tag has been placed on Alfred Sorensen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Improbcat 17:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Image source problem with Image:RobertBald.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:RobertBald.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Robert Bald image[edit]

I wish to challenge your deletion of an image.

  • The image's title is Image:robertbald.jpg.
  • I understand that the image was deleted because it was listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images and no reason was advanced within 14 days of that listing for keeping the image.
  • However, I feel this image can be used on Wikipedia.
    • This image is available under the following free license: INSERT NAME OF LICENSE
    • This license is verified by: INSERT WEBSITE OR OTRS TICKET NUMBER
  • I did not provide this reason during the 14-day period while the image was listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because I was on holiday and have returned this very morning. I do not know what free licence this image falls under, but the photograph is one that I own, scanned and posted. Please help.

Please consider restoring this image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evenmadderjon (talkcontribs) 09:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Robertbald.jpg has never existed. Please specify the exact image name.
Just because you own a particular copy of an image does not mean you own the copyright to it. You must own the copyright if you wish to upload it on Wikipedia under a free license. Who created the image?
When replying, just edit the section at the bottom of my talk page to include your reply. Stifle 09:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The image was called RobertBald.jpg The image is a photograph of an engraving by Thomas Dick, after a portrait by Sir John Watson Gordon. I have no idea who owns the copyright. The National Portrait Gallery of Scotland also has a copy of the engraving, but the original portrait seems to be lost.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not delete this image, SkierRMH did. Please contact him if you would like the image restored. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It might be PD-art-life-70. Kittybrewster 13:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:RobertBald.jpg is still there. The old revision was deleted but the current appears to be identical, less the image size. SkierRMH (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, yes. I spoke to someone on the wikimedia help pages and they restored the image. --Evenmadderjon (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for help on Hinduism section of Nontheism article[edit]

{{helpme}} I am trying to contribute to the Hinduism section of Nontheism article and am finding another wikipedian is undoing my contributions according to (what I consider) their personal agenda, rather than a response based on serious scholarship. I'd like to discuss this with an editor please. --Evenmadderjon (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking a look.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, Evenmadderjon, I think you need to WP:AGF on Mitsube's part. It is not clear to me what sort of "personal agenda" they are pursuing. In fact, it seems like they have contributed more to the section than they've taken away, so far. The edits that have removed content seem to be clearly justified in keeping the article in line with our policies on original research and neutral point of view. Try to grit your teeth and work with them politely, the article will probably come out looking better for it. Don't take it personally! We're all here to improve the encyclopedia.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I would say Mitsube's edits are unscholarly, and it is the degree to which this is so that makes me think they are are agenda-based. It is their biased nature which is most important however, rather than any speculation about agendas.
The most important flaw in Mitsube's edits are his use of Catherine Robinson's book "Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gītā and Images of the Hindu Tradition: The Song of the Lord.". This book (as the title suggests) is an overview of interpretations of the 'BG' and furthermore does not maintain that either the Bhagavad Gita or Hinduism is theistic. Rather, Richardson shows us that the BG has been subject to a variety of interpretations and does not maintain one particular as the 'correct' take. It certainly would not support the bald statement 'The Bhagavad Gita upholds theism over monism' as Mitsube makes it seem.
Mitsube draws this reference from Robinson's examination of the interpretation of RC Zaehner. Although Zaehner is an important scholar, his perspective is one amongst many. Richardson shows that there are other equally reputable writers who give the BG a nontheistic interpretation (Sivananda, Prabananda and Isherwood, Radhakrishnan, Monier-Williams, Mahesh-Yogi etc). As this article is supposed to be looking at nontheistic traditions, surely we should allow these.
I would like to write about the nontheistic interpretation of the Gita. Unfortunately, Mitsube deleted a previous attempt to refer to the nontheistic interpretation on 15:28, 15 October 2008 calling it 'partisan source is not reliably neutral, and cannot be used to oppose a reliable source'. Why is an English translation of Sankara's monistic/nontheistic interpretation of the Gita more partisan than Zaehner? Perhaps a nontheistic example given by Richardson would suit him better, but surely the point is that numerous interpretations are possible and we are writing about the nontheistic ones here.
The Bhagavad Gita is open to any number of interpretations and to say the theistic one is primary would be like saying 'after much study, scholars can now conclude that the Roman Catholic interpretation of the bible is the correct one' - nonsense.
Mitsube however cuts out my statement 'More broadly 'Hinduism' holds to a diversity of beliefs, thus...' calling it 'original research'. This is firstly a clear summary of a generally held point of view. After all Robinson maintains in her book, the Bhagavad Gita 'continues to be the basis of many versions of the Hindu tradition' (P. XI), a tradition which she goes on to say contains 'a plurality of perspectives and an immense variety of beliefs and practises.'(P.17). Secondly, it is also a useful introductory clause to lead into the quote that follows: 'it is perfectly possible to be a good Hindu whether one's personal views incline towards monism, mono­theism, polytheism, or even atheism.' Plus, shouldn't we source the quote as 'Zaehner, RC (1966) Hinduism OUP' rather than Richardson? Perhaps I should rephrase this: 'Philosophers such as RC Zaehner maintain that "it is perfectly possible to be a good Hindu whether one's personal views incline toward monism, monotheism, polytheism, or even atheism", supporting the argument that the broad Hindu belief system incorporates a diverse array of religious positions.'
Finally, Mitsube concludes the article with another quote from Zaehner that sees theism as 'last and perhaps most significant stage of Hinduism's development.' But that is Zaehner's opinion, and there are many who would disagree with him. Once more, the section should examine the nontheistic tradition within Hinduism without making value judgments on which of the multiplicity of approaches is the 'most significant stage'. But then in this light, perhaps the final Chatterjee quote is also too biased? --Evenmadderjon (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Evenmadderjon, it is obvious that you extremely well-versed in this field, while I am most decidedly not. ;) So, I will try to avoid making judgements based on the content, and stick to Wikipedia's policies and culture, instead, where I feel a little more comfortable. I'm not going to say that the article looks better one way or the other unless it's clearly violating one of our policies and guidelines.
  1. You say Mitsube's edits are unscholarly. Probably he is not a scholar. (I certainly am not.) I don't know him personally, but most editors here are not trained scholars in their areas of expertise. This has been a big debate in the past here on Wikipedia. See (among others) WP:Expert retention for a good history of the debate. So don't expect scholarliness from your fellow editors. Anyway, this is why I say that I don't get the feeling from Mitsube's comments and actions that he is pushing an agenda. Rather, he may just not be as well-educated as you in this area, and is therefore acting from ignorance of the topic. An option here: source everything. For every sentence you add to the article, add a specific reference. That way, there's no way that he can claim anything is original research. Any bias you see in Mitsube's edits can best be countered by complete neutrality on your part. So, anything that is biased, reword to make neutral, or add a following statement to display the countering view. (All sourced, of course.)
  2. But which sources? You claim that there is a flaw in the sources he is mainly relying on. Well, there is certainly no reason why you can't go and find two or three other reliable sources to counter that. (You listed a number of authors above. Go make use of them!) Have you asked him why he finds your Gambhirananda source to be "partisan"? Even if you can't convince him that it is a neutral source, it is ok to use partisan sources, as long as you are countering them with others. Also, you say you can use Richardson to prove your point. Do so! Better to use something which is acceptable to both of you than to have a long, drawn-out back-and-forth on it.
  3. The only content advice I will give: remove the current last sentence completely, as "the most significant stage" is an inherently subjective judgement, especially in philosphy/religion. I would also look for a different quote than the current Chatterjee one, or maybe a paraphrase of it. In general, I think the section needs to be rewritten to remove its reliance on quotes. Most of the better articles I have seen on Wikipedia rely more on paraphrasing than quotes. Especially because the audience your sources were writing for is different than the general audience Wikipedia is aimed for. Cheers, --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. When leaving a {{talkback}} template on my talk page, please put it at the bottom, not the top. My usual practice with other editors is to create a new section simply labeled "talkback" and put it there. Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Aervanath, thanks for your kind assistance, it has been most helpful. I will try and respond to your points:

  1. Sources, sources, sources. This is a very good point. I will try and follow this to a T. What I mean by being scholarly is not necessarily working in a university, but his (to my mind) biased marshaling of quotes as I detailed in my last Talk section. I don't have much more than an amateur interest in this subject, but I do know that this is a tradition which exists and deserves to be detailed in this article. Anyway, as you say I will reference every sentence. (I was a bit surprised when he got rid of my sentence saying the Bhagavad Gita quote might be taken as nontheistic. To me that would be like removing a comment on Marx's 'Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains' that said reflected a revolutionary ideology by saying this was original research. None the less, you are right - SOURCES.)
  2. I will now specify those sources I mention referred to by Richardson. Good point. I have found a way to balance the Gambhirananda quote.
  3. I think you are right, the section needs to lose its reliance on quotes - i'll try to paraphrase and reference this. I'm glad you think we can get rid of the final 'significant stage' quote as a value judgement. I will also get rid of the final Chatterjee quote, I think it is insufficiently verifiable/a value judgement.

Incidentally, part of the reasons I was ABF (assuming bad faith!) on the part of Mitsube and his edits on the article are because of his remarks on the Talk page of the article. See below for his points, followed by mine:

"Advaita is closer to "nontheism" but this school also has a God who assigns karma and so forth. As for the last sentence, "Hinduism as a religion is centred not so much in the belief in God, as in faith in the reality of spirit and the spiritual order of the world", it is misleading because the majority of Hindus are, according to our articles on Vaishnavism and so forth, staunch monotheists!" - Mitsube seems to regard Hindus as staunchly monotheist, this is a) questionable b) not the point of the article. Further, Advaita certainly does not believe karma is assigned by a God (it's an impersonal law as in Buddhism) and although many Vaishnavaites may well be monotheists, that's just one sect in the very diverse field that is the Hindu religion.

"Most Hindus are monotheists. A large reason why Hinduism successfully outcompeted Buddhism in India is that once Hinduism had absorbed much of Buddhist ideas, the atheistic message of Buddhism was the main apparent difference, while Hinduism was worship focused. But now the shoe is on the other foot and atheism is becoming more popular so people produce sources claiming that Hinduism is nontheistic. It's not accurate." This is all Mitsube's opinion, probably something that historians can go on arguing about til the cows come home. We're meant to be writing on the nontheistic tradition in Hinduism, which like it or not does exist (and, to really annoy him, is found in the Upanishads and thus predates Buddhism).

"As a side not, my own opinion is that if you have read the Bhagavad Gita then you know that it is as theistic as it could be. Please put the definition of "supertheistic" into the article with the proper attribution." - Some say it is, some say it isn't, but this is not the point and his opinion does not allow him to get rid the Gambhirananda quote as one side of a long and ancient debate. Plus, I put a definition of 'supertheistic' in my first draft of this article.

Finally, this is not an article assessing the demographics of various beliefs in Hinduism, which most of Mitsube's points seem to be making. And no one has edited the article on Spong or Tillich in the Christian section of the article to say 'Christianity is a theistic religion, Tillich and Spong are not really Christians', although no doubt they could.

Thank you once more Aervanath, I will try and follow your suggestions - especially on the matter of sources. Incidentally, this should make the Hinduism section much more thoroughly sourced than the other sections on this article. --Evenmadderjon (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation! Let me know if you have any more need for assistance, moral or otherwise.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, this is Richardson's conclusion on the final page of her book: 'The significance of the different interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita is thus that they have proved to be particularly influential on images of the Hindu tradition. This reflects the primacy accorded to the Bhagavad Gita in the construction of the Hindu tradition in the modern period and indicates, whatever changes have occurred, that the Bhagavad Gita is still central to its character in the contemporary world.' So, she's really looking at how the Hindu tradition is constructed in the modern world through interpretations of the 'BG', rather than which is the right one - theistic/non theistic or anything else.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
What follows is a detailed list of his changes, but my basic point is that our friend is deleting sourced points using 'bias' to justify this. What can be done about it? I have done more work on this section, but I'm reluctant to put up as I'm sure it will be deleted - not a good situation. --Evenmadderjon (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Aervenath, I rewrote the article, including new research and trying to source every single statement. Of course, my friend Mitsube has been in there tinkering. And in my opinion not for the best. I wonder if you could take a look at the page.
He's rewritten my introductory paragraph - in which I had used sourced paraphrase (as you suggested) rather than quotation. This has meant he has taken out the Robinson mentioning that Hinduism is 'characterised by extremely diverse beliefs and practises', and Radhakrishnan on it not having 'a dogmatic creed' as well as adding the quote by Zaehner in Richardson about 'devotion to a personal deity as the ultimate reality is the last and perhaps most significant stage of Hinduism's development' - which I think we agreed is a value judgement. Anyway, it is certainly overshadowed by Ninian Smart's point that there are three major trends: theistic, nontheistic and 'other' - ie it is not germane to the presentation of the Nontheistic and non-absolute traditions of the religion. Afterall, the equivalent statements don't exist in the Christian and Buddhist sections - I'm sure one could find sources which hold such beliefs etc.
Secondly, in my new paragraph on the Vedas, he has removed my introductory sentence on the Vedas and the source I used to justify it. Then removed a ISKON source in the Sankhya/mimansa sentence.
Thirdly, my new improved para on the Bhagavad Gita he's chopped the verse which illustrates the nontheistic reading - why? He's then changed my balanced sentence: 'book as a whole has been interpreted by some who see it as containing a primarily nontheistic message, and by others give it a theistic message.' (with sources) to 'Generally, the book as a whole has been interpreted by some who see it as containing a primarily theistic message, and by others give it a theistic message.' - Gazounds!
He mentions partisan sources three times in his comments - but this is the whole point is to reflect this 'partisan' position: the nontheistic tradition in Hinduism. I don't think his edits are helpful. --Evenmadderjon (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The following was copied from User talk:Aervanath: Hi there, I hope it's ok to leave a message on your talk page. I wonder if you'd had time to consider what I should do with the Nontheism/Hinduism article where I'm having points and their sources removed because they are 'biased'. They seem to fit the criteria for reliable sources, so I am confused as to what to do now. I'm fairly certain that any contributions I make (however well sourced or unbiased) will be removed.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried just directly asking what is wrong with the source? Also, I notice that you have yet to respond to Mitsube's latest comment on Talk:Nontheism. While it can be frustrating to deal with someone you feel is targeting you personally, in my experience (and I've experienced it, too) this feeling of persecution is almost never justified. Usually if I'm feeling that way, I take a week off from the article, and go find something else to do. For me, it's de-orphaning articles. However, there's plenty of other backlogged tasks to take care of. If that doesn't satisfy, and you do want to keep working on the article, then my best advice is to never stop engaging the editor you're having a dispute with. If you're not communicating, then there's no chance of solving the dispute. If the editor stops responding to your talk page posts, or doesn't address the points you raise, when you've raised them simply, clearly, and inoffensively, then you have a real grievance that can be taken to the community at large. But I wouldn't recommend starting the dispute resolution process yet, since I don't think you've exhausted the possibilities of simple discussion yet. Just focus on keeping your emotions disengaged while you're at it, and you should survive the wiki unscathed. :) Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The above comment was copied from User talk:Aervanath.

I apologize, I wrote the above without seeing that you'd replied to our earlier conversation on your talk page. I guess I forgot to watchlist it, which is my normal practice. I've watchlisted it now, so you shouldn't have to worry about leaving a talkback for me. However, after going through Talk:Nontheism, I don't feel that my initial reaction is invalid. Have you thought of telling User:Mitsube what you told me, above? I don't see from the record that you've done that. You could even just point him to this section of your talk page and ask him what he thinks of your summary of events. I think it would be interesting to see his version of what he's done to the article. Also, just a word of advice: be careful when you talk about "my introductory paragraph". I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but there is no "my" on Wikipedia, (see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles), and use of that pronoun is particularly discouraged. Anyway, I've gone on about this longer than I'd planned. One final recommendation: should you prove unable to come to an understanding with Mitsube, post on WT:HINDU to find more editors who have direct knowledge of Hinduism. I can give you advice on Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc., but I honestly couldn't tell you which sources are better than others as far as Hindu philosophy goes. I hope I've helped you. Good luck!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for your help once more. I will ask him what is wrong with those sources and attribute the quote he queries, good idea! I'm sure his targeting is not personal against me, but I do think he has an agenda. But you are correct in that communication is the best policy.
When I said 'my introductory paragraph', I hope I meant 'the paragraph that I wrote' rather than 'the article I take ownership of'. My basic point still holds however: He's replaced paraphrase (which you said is preferable) with direct quotation, and removed the references to a diversity of Hindu beliefs - which is both an important characteristic of the religion and it's removal could be seen as better serving his 'most significant stage' opinion. If the worst comes to the worst, I will try the WT:HINDU page.
Thanks for suggesting other helpful 'wiki-tasks', I'll try and get involved. --Evenmadderjon (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, Aervanath. I put my points and he doesn't seem to have given a serious response. How should I go about replacing those sourced points that Mitsube deleted? --Evenmadderjon (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Try leaving a polite note on his talk page asking him to continue the discussion.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Crank's Ridge[edit]

Is that you in the photo ?? Did you visit Crank's Ridge?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iknowmyrights (talkcontribs) 21:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, on both accounts I'm afraid. A picture without myself and of better quality would be better, but until someone finds one, I think we should leave that one there.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

ibid – The Doors of Perception[edit]

Hello to the Jon, who is even madder than Mad Jon! I have a request to improve a wikipedia article...

By reading the article The Doors of Perception, I stumbled over a big tag on top that "ibid" should not be used. By checking the history, I detected that it was you who added the ibid reference.[1] I assume it's either the Jay Stevens reference or the Letter to Humphry Osmond reference. The Letter seems more plausible for me, but before myself doing it wrong I ask you instead: Can you modify that article appropriately?

Best Regards --Cyfal (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You don't need to put the {{Talkback|Evenmadderjon}} on my talk page, I simply add the article and your talk page to my watchlist.

London Wikimedia Fundraiser[edit]

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Benoit Viellefon and his Orchestra[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Benoit Viellefon and his Orchestra requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. E. Fokker (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, Benoit Viellefon and his Orchestra seems to have been deleted already, I wonder if it could be moved the special category on my user section where I will increase it's notability references - I thought a couple of mentions in the media might be enough, but apparently not. (I also think they've been reviewed by The Times so I will try and find the exact date of that review and add that, which should be enough) Thanks --Evenmadderjon (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 17:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In Lamps of Fire, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Wonderwall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 10:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hair[edit]

Hi. I saw that you added some assertions to the Hair article, but the reference that you added did not support the assertions, so I have removed it until you can find a WP:Reliable source that does. The reference would need to state clearly that Rado was influenced by this musical (and preferably in what way he was influenced). All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, if you can see the documentary The Story of Musicals part 1, at about 31 minutes in James Rado says that Oh, What a Lovely War was in influence on Hair, specifically he enjoyed the staging, that it was a musical and was also anti-war. The best written evidence I can find to support this is a blogger who watched the documentary http://fergieinfife.blogspot.com/2012/01/story-of-musicals-from-british.html (although on the Oh... film wiki page, it says that Rado also mentioned the influence in 2008 on Google)--Evenmadderjon (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I have asked another editor who is very knowledgeable about Hair to look into this. The BBC link does not play in the U.S. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of ClinicalKey[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on ClinicalKey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. TeaganK (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

How do I remove an advert template?[edit]

Pictogram resolved.svg
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

I created the 77 Diamonds page and a wikibot immediately gave it a Template:Advert warning, since then I have removed some of the text that might be construed as advertising. However, the template warning is still there, so how would I go about getting it removed? Also, as I cannot find any information about how to do this on the Template:Advert page, it might be good to have something there for users like me. (Although it could be that I haven't managed to find the guideline somewhere else.)--Evenmadderjon (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Simply remove {{advert}} from the page. Rcsprinter (gossip) @ 10:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Ha ha! OK, it's as simple as that. I just didn't want to do anything unethical.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Sultan Khan (musician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zakir Hussain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eureka (1983 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Cousins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: DialAFlight (October 22)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.


Teahouse logo
Hello! Evenmadderjon, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

A page you started (Phantom India) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Phantom India, Evenmadderjon!

Wikipedia editor Sam Sailor just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I have this on DVD from Criterion. Hard to believe Wiki did not have an article already. But now we have! Thanks.

To reply, leave a comment on Sam Sailor's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Lotus Group (December 12)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Your submission at AfC Lotus Group was accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Lotus Group, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Miniapolis 18:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

File:77 Diamonds logo 2012.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tootsa MacGinty logo 2014.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tootsa MacGinty logo 2014.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)