User talk:Taroaldo/Archive 3

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

Scientific support for Multi-Regional Theory of Human Evolution & the independent evolution of the Chinese from Homo Erectus

Dear Taroaldo,

Thank you for your concern, but I have never had any intention whatsoever of "edit warring." I am a scientist and my only intention is to introduce to you the peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting a separate independent evolution of the modern Chinese people from an archaic species of Homo Erectus. The current Out of Africa model of human evolution is not entirely correctly, while it is true that the majority of humans are descended from anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens, the Chinese are the exception and they are descended from a separate evolutionary species of humans known as Homo Erectus. This is supported by peer reviewed genetic scientific evidence.

It is tempting to simply dismiss the new peer reviewed scientific evidence that contradicts the previously accepted "out of Africa" theory of human evolution where, supposedly, all humans were descended from the same group of Homo Sapien ancestors and which subsequently gives "strong support" in favor of an independent East Asian origin of a separate archaic branch or separate species of humans, the modern day Chinese people. But unfortunately, the reality of human evolution during the past 4 billions of life on our planet Earth is not as clear cut as the "out of Africa" theory attempts to address it. The "out of Africa" theory tries to say that "ALL" humans are descended from the same group of anatomically modern "Cro Magnon" or Homo Sapien Sapiens and while some of the older previous studies did initially seem to support that theory, those studies were not all inclusive and did not test many aspects of human genetics and evolution. But within the last few years, new genetic evidence has been discovered as a result of numerous scientific studies that have been conducted which lend a strong support for the theory that the modern Chinese people, or conservatively, a subpopulation of the Chinese gene pool are descended NOT from anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens like other humans on Earth, but rather that they are the product of a separate evolutionary lineage going back at least 1.8 million - 2 million years ago to Homo Erectus in East Asia. And that the modern Chinese people today are not necessarily classified as "Homo Sapien," but more accurately they could be classified as a highly evolved anatomically modern form of Homo Erectus. You must remember that regardless of whether we are talking about Homo Neanderthalensis or Homo Erectus that we are talking about human beings. And even though they are a classified as a separate species of human beings, nothing can take away their "humanity," for if one of them were dressed up in a modern day suit, they would still be recognized as "humans."


Please watch these links:

1.) Scientific evidence from the Chinese Academy of Sciences
2.) All Non Africans Living Today Are Part Neanderthal
3.) New evidence that Neanderthals interbred with Humans

Adding further support to the Multi-regional theory of human evolution are the recent DNA discoveries that anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens interbred with Homo Neanderthalensis or the Neanderthal man, in direct contradiction to the thesis of the "out of Africa" theory which specifically states that Homo Sapien did not interbred with Homo Neanderthalensis and that the Neanderthal simply "went extinct." Which has now been shown in peer reviewed scientific studies to be untrue, and that the Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalensis did indeed interbreed with each other. These studies are additionally supported by previous archaeological finds that show skeletons of humans who show hybrid morphological and anatomical traits of both species of humans, both Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis.

Please read the following evidence:

1.) NewScientist Neanderthal genome reveals interbreeding with humans
2.) Archaic admixture in the human genome, Neanderthal genes in modern humans
3.) Signs of Neanderthals Mating With Humans
4.) Discovery News "Neanderthals, Humans Interbred, DNA Proves"
5.) USA Today Neanderthals and humans interbred, fossils indicate
6.) BBC "Neanderthals 'mated with modern humans'"
7.) Official report Neanderthal/Homo Sapien interbred
8.) Cosmos Humans and Neanderthals interbred, according to our anatomy
9.) Neanderthals live on in DNA of humans

Below I have provided the results of scientific DNA studies that provide strong irrefutable support for an independent origin of the Chinese from Homo Erectus. These scientific studies have both been published in peer reviewed scientific journals and are well received by the scientific community. Please take some time to read them and feel free to ask me any questions regarding human evolution.

1.)Genetics Society of America's Genetics Journal, "Testing for Archaic Hominin Admixture on the X Chromosome: Model Likelihoods for the Modern Human RRM2P4 Region From Summaries of Genealogical Topology Under the Structured Coalescent" by Murray P. Cox, Fernando L. Mendez, Tatiana M. Karafet, Maya Metni Pilkington, Sarah B. Kingan, Giovanni Destro-Bisol, Beverly I. Strassmann and Michael F. Hammer.

2.)Oxford University's Oxford Journals, Evidence for Archaic Asian Ancestry on the Human X Chromosome by Daniel Garrigan, Zahra Mobasher, Tesa Severson, Jason A. Wilder and Michael F. Hammer

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.251.209 (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I just reverted my previous "junk edit". So I think I fixed my mistake. You can go ahead with your work. --Gökhan 23:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


Windsor Essex Development Commission

You wrote: "Newspaper articles... are not proper sources." I would agree if the 'newspaper' were a tabloid. However, in this case, the source is the Windsor Star - owned and operated by CanWest Media - a Canadian-based media conglomerate and not the National Enquirer. Kindly withdraw your protest of this article as it is both neutral and factual.

WEWhistleBlower (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is always a potential reliability issue with any news sources whether by CanWest or by the National Enquirer. It depends largely on the specific content of the article. Many newspaper articles contain a mixture of opinion, facts, and general editorialization, depending on the qualifications of the writer and the motivations of their editor. Some are plain "opinion" pieces. If someone wants to advocate a specific position it is often easy to find enough "news" sources to give it a good surface appearance. On potentially controversial topics, news sources can tend to slide more to the questionable level of sources. I also find it hard to believe that this is a neutral article given your username, WEWhistleBlower, and that you don't have a conflict of interest in writing this article. Finally, I have nothing to withdraw since I did not nominate the article for speedy deletion. Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hungary

After banned user Stalker X (talk · contribs) started vandalizing the Hungary article, you reverted to a version previous to my edits. I'm in no way related to Stalker X, and I made literally hundreds of improvements to that single revision, summarizing paragraphs and removing unnecessary content already present in other articles, among other things. That nearly took me two hours, so I think you should discuss my edits more thoroughly instead of just saying I cleaned up too much; which I don't think is true, because I followed the indications laid down by the Manual of Style in every change I made.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I never directly reverted any of your edits. I reverted Stalker X's edits, but then I thought I may have misinterpreted him so I reverted my own change to reexamine the situation. In the summary here I was referring to the fact that I may have cleaned up too much: I was not referring to you or to any other editor. My last edit to Hungary was at 2241 hrs, 14 March 2009, and there have been 12 subsequent edits by other editors from then until the time of your comment at 0148 hrs, 15 March 2009. I hope this clears up the situation. If not, please let me know. Cheers! Taroaldo (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is clear enough. Sorry if I misunderstood you.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem! Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hadrian89 and talk page reverts

I know the guideline says that warnings can be removed - and I've seen a few valuable contributors who do take old warnings off etc - but my decision to revert (and my slightly stern edit summary) was based on seeing a number of other editors doing similar things in cases where the vandalism/disruptive editing has been particularly recent, and plus the guidelines do allow for occasional exceptions. Anyway, I'll cede to your experience/sensible explanation in this case. Hadrian89 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Danielhill1990 and this B.S.

So I'm trying to figure out how to put these references up and all these tabs saying they are going to delete my article show up! That's some serious bullshit mate! If you people would give me a damn hour or two —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielhill1990 (talkcontribs) 08:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Because there is such a high volume of activity around here, stuff can happen quickly. It's usually a good idea to work on a new article within a sandbox on your user page before creating its own page. That will give you the time to get it into shape. Take a look at this page to get an idea of how to start. Also, Wikipedia suggests that people don't create articles about themselves. If you have any questions, just let me know. Taroaldo (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: welcome message

Thanks for moving my welcome message. I put them on the user page a LOT by mistake. I usually go back and fix it but I missed that one! Thanks again mate! Cheers! BIONICLE233 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) Taroaldo (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tammie speedy-deletion

Possibly a new record...page creation, your CSD-G10 tagging, my deletion are all timestamped during the same minute! DMacks (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was freaky! TW sent the notices and by the time the page reloaded, it came up as deleted. Maybe they should implement Olympic timing and go to the hundredth second. :) Taroaldo (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Update: that page was just created again so I gave it another G10 tag. I just love the persistent ones! Taroaldo (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Damn...5 minutes for that time. Oh well:) DMacks (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fast Response

Wow. I am impressed with the speed that people are working on Wikipedia. I created the page for the book and a disambig page for the other two titles. I will be adding content to all three, but I need some time. Please be patient as I work on these pages. Thanks!
Artful Dodger 101 (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. First {{hangon}} tags are only used to contest speedy deletions. They are not to be used in any other case. Second, it appears these books do not meet criteria for notability of books. If you do have additional information and would like to develop the article(s) over time, may I suggest working on them in a sandbox in your userpage instead of in the main encyclopedia. Also, this information may help. Cheers! Taroaldo (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. The book I know the most about is the Tumult in the Clouds, General Dynamics publication from 1990. However, I did not want to neglect the other two identically-titled books which are referenced on this site. I was trying to create a disambig page so those two books would be properly referenced. I do not know enough about them, though, to add complete information. How would you suggest that I proceed on those two titles?
Artful Dodger 101 (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi. Whether or not one or more of these books belongs on Wikipedia depends largely on its/their notability. For example, if all three would be considered notable, I would suggest developing all three articles within your userpage. When these articles are ready, a disambiguation page could then be created and the three articles moved to the main namespace at the same time. However, if (again for example) only one of the three is considered notable, then that article could be moved to the main namespace without the need for a disambiguation page
  • But if you really only want to work on the article for the book by General Dynamics then I would suggest focusing only on that one. A disambiguation page wouldn't really be needed unless someone else wanted to create an article on one of the other similarly-titled books. (Plus, if you only want to work on the General Dynamics book, you wouldn't even need to worry about whether or not the other two are notable). Hope this helps. Taroaldo (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
This helps greatly. I will only focus on the one that I know the most about. Can I remove the Deletion tag from that page?
Artful Dodger 101 (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately Wikipedia does not allow for the removal of AfD tags. Deletion discussions are normally open for five days, and you can continue to edit and improve the article. If you can demonstrate that the article meets the criteria of WP:NB in the interim, then the article should survive. Taroaldo (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I will work on it.
Artful Dodger 101 (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

CHVRS

Hi, many of the previous edits were typed in a very informal tone for Wikipedia, and some were incorrect in regards to the information provided. So, I simply reverted to the last correct version. I guess it may have been inappropriate to call it "vandalism." 142.166.201.61 (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


Tsunomix

Hello, i am unsure what the message you left was supposed to mean but i have been posting pertinent, notable, and verifiable information on wikipedia. It has been taken down by GUD UK to whom i posted an appropriate response(the questions i asked are still unanswered). In regards to your post, can you explain to me what it is, specifically, that you deemed disruptive or maliscious? And if you are in authority to answer the question i asked GED UK I would appreciate it. Looking forward to your response.

Elias —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsunomix (talkcontribs) 01:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The article Tsunomix was deleted, and normally the associated talk page from a deleted article is also deleted. In the course of tagging Talk:Tsunomix for deletion I noticed that a user talk page (for User:Tsunomix) had been redirected to this article's talk page. It is not appropriate to redirect a user talk page to the talk page of an article. At the same time I also noted that you had redirected your user page to the deleted article Tsunomix. This can cause obvious confusion if someone is trying to reach you and ends up at an article instead. Hope this helps explain why the message was left. Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the response. I was unaware that was what had happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsunomix (talkcontribs) 19:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)




Personal attacks? care to explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.168.203 (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Making blind assumptions about another editor and referring to an editor as incompetent, as you did here, isn't constructive. Disagreements can be worked out through reasoned discussion, without resorting to ownership-type arguments. ps please sign your posts. Thank you. Taroaldo (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks! I clearly was not paying attention. Luminum (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem! It happens to everyone from time to time. Taroaldo (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Contest proposal

A proposal has been posted for a contest between all 200 country WikiProjects. We need to know how this contest should be run, and what problems to look out for. And we're looking for judges, coordinators, ideas, and feedback.

(And we have some really cool awards for the contest).

The Transhumanist 18:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Medal (band)

I have reverted your edits to the article on the English band Medal. The article is not written in "American English" as the subject is not American - the original grammar was correct as per English usage.

92.12.58.92 (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bert Tatham has been nominated for deletion again here

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

IP vandal on Dinosaur (film)

I see they're making threatening edit summaries now, they even threatened me on my talk page--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a strange one. All the edit summaries with the allcaps and the "I'm not lying" protestations seems indicative of someone with a child-like mentality. Taroaldo (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
they're blocked now, thank goodness--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Fortunately the troublemakers are vastly outnumbered. Taroaldo (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

removal of comments from Abdali

I removed the section as I felt it was nit picking and served no real purpose to the article at hand. I felt this minor section seemed to be more befitting of a political or foreign relations section on wiki versus in this article. Furthermore, Abdali, while the founder of modern day Afghanistan, was incidently born in Pakistan in the city of Multan. The other names Ghorids and ghaznavids are individuals from a time prior to the establishment of the country Afghanistan and are often considered having used cities now based in the modern state of Afghanistan to (ironically) conducted raids into Pakistan and South Asia but not ethnic Afghan themselves. Factoring all this into account, I felt that the article would seem more appropriate minus this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.55.99 (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. (Section blanking will often attract attention if there isn't a clear edit summary.) I have no objections if you wish to edit out the material again. Taroaldo (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Im still a relatively new user to wiki, is there an appropriate term to use when making this correction in the edit summary field? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.55.99 (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In a case such as this, where an editor feels that some content doesn't belong in an article, a good way to start an edit summary might be with "cleanup.........." followed by a short statement of reason. In a hypothetical case I might say "cleaning up article--removal of extraneous material". This type of comment would give other editors a clearer idea of the general thought process behind the edit. However, if other editors subsequently disagree and feel that the material is relevant, then the issue should be discussed and resolved on the article's talk page before the change is made again. Hope this helps. Taroaldo (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Complementary color

I reached 3RR too; maybe he should be reported for edit warring? Bart133 t c @ 19:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I see we crossed-warnings on that editors talk page. I've reverted his last. If he doesn't engage in dialog soon, AIV is the only answer to protect the article. ArakunemTalk 20:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Arakunem. So far it's been only one-way communication in the case of this editor. Judging by the content and style of his edit summaries, it doesn't look like that will be changing anytime soon. As far as the article goes I can't do any more reverts today. Hopefully he will change his mind about communicating. Taroaldo (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: user talk:Ibraheemraja edits

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Taroaldo. You have new messages at MithrandirAgain's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Taroaldo. You have new messages at Empty Buffer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk pages

Thanks for that... I'll bear it in mind. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Taroaldo (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

your vote is early for xfactor deletion

Why have you submitted a vote so early, without first giving the article a chance to develop? the article is only 1 day old, yet your death call came within hours after it went to the main site.I placed it on the main page to get help, not to have people spit on me. Is that how you treat fellow contributors?--Robtencer (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Wikipedia is a large community and it can take a bit of time for new editors to become familiar with the way things work.
I would suggest to any new editor to read some of the general policies and guidelines before jumping into article creation. This helps to avoid situations such as having an article speedily deleted or deleted through AfD (and it helps avoid a lot of frustrations too).
You can also work on an article within a subpage of your userpage first (and seek the opinions of other editors there) before bringing it into Wikipedia's mainspace.
I'm sorry that you feel that people are metaphorically "spitting on you". I can assure you that is not the case. The goal of most editors is the improvement of Wikipedia, and deletion requests, edit reverts, or other actions are not meant as personal attacks. (Civility also applies to comments on article and user talk pages.)
For help getting started in Wikipedia, see for example:
WP:FIRST (helpful for people working on their first article)
WP:5P
WP:V
WP:STYLE
Hope this helps. Taroaldo (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

deleted x factor?

Can I count on you to help me get my article about the x factor fan site, to a level worthy of non-removal. I need your help. PLEASE --Robtencer (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Give me a day or so to take a look. The AfD will be open for a while, so you will still have plenty of time to work on it. Taroaldo (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fire iron

Sorry for offending your sensibilities. And I thank you for the fact that, despite the fact that I offended you, you checked out my edits and found them to be worthy of keeping. I truly think things are much better now. 98.82.22.154 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You didn't offend me or my sensibilities! When reviewing 'Recent Changes', certain types of edit summaries (especially when coupled with large reductions of an article's text) are usually a strong indicator of vandalism. In this case there was obviously no vandalism so the reversion was an error and was itself reverted. Cheers! Taroaldo (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

x-fer x-factor to soapbox?

  • can you please help me move my article into a soapbox? I have to much work to accomplish and edit before the article could be saved. Your help is kindly requested. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robtencer (talkcontribs) 20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I was going to move this to a subpage of your userpage, but upon reflection I realized that this should be up to the admin who will end up closing the AfD. Remember, even if the article gets deleted you can still request a copy from the closing admin. It will be up to him/her as to whether or not it will be provided. Taroaldo (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Can an article survive in USER mode, or is that also subject to deletion, at the whim of admins who want to further stunt my work?--Robtencer (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The short answer is yes. (See WP:UPYES which outlines what users can have on their user pages.) Taroaldo (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Fiend(band)

I considered speedy deletion, but there are claims to have had releases, so that's why I just tagged it for sourcing and notability. But I have no objections to your tag. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal without explanation.

Taroaldo's unhelpful attitude was not appreciated. Her/his Wiki experience is superior to mine. But my Graboid comments were not made with any commercial intent in mind for me or anyone else. I shall not attempt to debate with Taroaldo. I believe others opinions of me are none of my business and vice versa. I hope all experienced Wikipedia users will seek to encourage those less experienced, notwithstanding foolish errors and mistakes that others may make.Stranger on the shore (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well you really do need to read WP:TALK. It says that the purpose of a talk page "is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." And editors certainly shouldn't be using an article's talk page to promote some unrelated corporate entity. As you have edited on and off in small quantities since November of 2004 you should already have a basic working knowledge of how things like talk pages operate.
The removal was thoroughly explained. Try reading the edit summary next time.
If you are serious about creating an article on a corporate subject, then I suggest you look at some useful pages which are excellent help for less experienced editors who are looking to become more involved by creating an article: WP:My first article, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Corp. Articles on corporations must meet the criteria outlined in WP:Corp or they are likely to be deleted. Good luck.

Taroaldo (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I am glad I am not required to attend Taroaldo's charm school before posting.Stranger on the shore (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Aren't people silly?

Seriously, he isn't even gay; yet someone thought that would be funny to add. There was an IP address last year that kept adding some hoax to Jake T. Austin saying Jake and Dylan Sprouse had an affair. - Donald Duck (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's amusing to see how determined some people are to keep adding silly material. And they don't even realize that even if the person were gay, it's no big deal and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia anyway! Taroaldo (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

JTF2

Yo they showed up to his school because there was a bomb scare in the Ottawa area. Who else would it be? You tell me, edit on here (i don't have an account). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.64.237 (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't them. JTF2 is special forces....they don't deal with bomb scares. It was probably a police strategic response unit. Taroaldo (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats what they want you to think...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.64.237 (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

lol Taroaldo (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Your CSD of Faith47

I have removed your CSD from Faith47, in my opinion "She is quickly establishing herself internationally as an artist mostly recognized for her one-of-a-kind graffiti and street art work. She participates in galleries, shows, and projects all over the world" is a credible assertion of notability sufficient to overcome CSD criteria A7. I have no objection if you want to PROD the article or start an AFD; but I would note that the link at the end in the Bibliography, while not an in-text citation, does seem to be a pretty good claim of notability. Monty845 22:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. The article is puffery bordering on blatant promotion/advertising, but your point is well-taken. Have moved it to AfD. Cheers. Taroaldo (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

re:Zenon Ivanovich Borevich

I removed your speedy-deletion tag from the article. Being a published author is enough that the page did not qualify for speedy-deletion under the narrow wording of CSD#A7. I have no opinion on whether the page would or should survive regular-deletion through the AfD process. Rossami (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the publication was not there when the CSD was put in place. (In fact, another version of this page has already been deleted.) Amusingly, we are still waiting for the article's author to put a credible indication of notability into the main body of the article! Cheers. Taroaldo (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahmad Al-Shukairy

is an important person in Arabic TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by رائد 1991 (talkcontribs) 09:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Then you need to provide an assertion of that in the article, with reliable sources. At this stage, nothing in the article indicates the importance of the subject. Taroaldo (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Why to add protests in Bahrain with Hamad's article?

Please justify.. It seems most of the wikipedics are blatantly adding protests with the king's life. Its like attributing Toyota car's tire burst with Toyota. Protests are taking place separately. The article is quiet biased , please dont involve politics in some one's life. I suggest there should be a different article something like Protests in Bahrain to mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwasif (talkcontribs) 00:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. If someone is a leader (of a nation, province, state, etc.) certain controversies may be relevant to their page. A biography is an account of the events making up a person's life. The protests are a significant current event, and so are certainly part of the account of the events in the life of that nation's leader. Taroaldo (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The protests are indigenous.--Alwasif (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey

I know that minor characters do not need their own pages. I'm doing this for a project and need to make an article for a minor character in the book. I will move it back to the book's original page as soon as I'm done.

Hmm. It's too bad so many teachers remain ignorant of Wikipedia's function. Good luck with your project. Taroaldo (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

WTF?!

Dude you suck! If i want to put "on Wheels" on a ---damn page you and Wikipedia can't stop me! free country, and the internet is free too! -Long live Willy On Wheels! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.97.44 (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Taroaldo. You have new messages at 78.26's talk page.
Message added 06:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Usertalk: Lerdthenerd (my block warning)

I just tried to erase what i wrote to: Lerdthenerd. i did't know that I can't do that. My mistake I guess--70.130.144.54 (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

BNP talk page

I am deleting my OWN posted sections and posts. I can only presume you are not familiar with wikipedia rules, whatever the case you made a foolish post on my page. Please do not waste my time and read wikipedia rules before making other mistakes. Thanks. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You deleted entire sections of all editors' comments on the page, as you well know. See WP:REDACT. You're not making a good start coming back from your block. Taroaldo (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)