User talk:Thedarxide

Hey Thedarxide, I work for Press TV and my name is Aamer Trambu. You can view my recent reports either on Press TV or their website. I realise you're in charege of cleaning up. I just want to know why you felt the need to pull off details regarding my work fr Press TV and that of my videographer Mikhail. It took us 2 weeks to report on the issue of Maoists and according to he MSF, this is the most under-reported issue in India at the moment. Do you need details for me to verify my claims, id be glad to give you everything. I hope you've nothing against me, or the work of my crew in Mumbai.

Um, I'm not "in charge" of cleaning up, and I simply reverted some edits that I felt were incorrectly labelled as vandalism. With out a specific diff, I'm not sure what it is you're referring to? I certainly have nothing against you. Thedarxide (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

 : Dear Thedarxide, When you compare Press TV - Wikipedia edits

Revision as of 17:06, 20 April 2010 and Revision as of 18:04, 21 April 2010

Compare Line 128. You've reverted the edit to an incorrect one. Notice News reporter name "Munawar Zaman's" hyper link about his news reports is linking to my work "Aamer Trambu" I need to bring to your attention that you also, as part of reverting good faith edits by 217.218.67.253 managed to completely remove the following fact found in Line 128:-

Aamer Trambu is Press TV's news and current affairs correspondent for South India. He is based in Mumbai. Aamer Trambu and his cameraman Mikhail D'Souza were the first international TV crew to report on the plight of India's internal refugees in Khammam, Andhra Pradesh. In his 5 minute report on the Chintoor region, neigbouring a Maoist conflict zone, he tried to throw light on the sorry state of 16,000 tribal Gothikoyas ( Internally Displaced Persons ) who were caught in the crossfire between Maoist and Salwa Judum inflicted violence in Chattisgarh.

Can I add it back again or can u reverse your edit on Line 128. How does it work now? 15:00, 26 April 2010 (IST)

The content you reverted to was simply content you previously deleted as vandalism. The text you reverted to was obviously written by the blog writer that it linked to, was badly written, and made an assumption with no intelligent or technical basis. Rather, their argument was that the site being down was due to Torne taking it down himself and that a cached image was proof. I have never read anything so ridiculous. I have also told you before that I have nothing personal to do with David Thorne. What is your particular interest in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Dempsey (talk • contribs) 11:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever removed that paragraph, let alone tagged it as vandalism. The site's arguments have merit, and provide an alternate view point to the publicity that Thorne presumably expected. You've told me before that you worked with David. We've had this argument. Thedarxide (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes we have. And I told you that I work in the same industry in Adelaide which is a fairly small city. In regards to the sites argument, their only basis of their *opinion* is that they could view a cached image from the suspended site. This makes it obvious that they have no idea what they are talking about. The edit was also only made so that they could link to their own page and ride on Thornes popularity. I have no desire to have an edit war with you as I think you generally do an exceptional job but this edit was obviously non verifiable. Simon Dempsey (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

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) 18:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ride The Lightning

A lot of the wording was taken from some of the sources I used, there was no original research done. I'm willing to dig up as many sources as you see fit to be encyclopedic content for Wikipedia. If you would restore the edits, and allow me to make more source citations, That would be great. Or, you could send the old page to a Sandbox, and I could add citations until you see fit. I would really like to have the section added, as it would clean up the arguments on pages getting different articles

Maelstromlusby (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have done some browsing around, and noticed you have made many many controversial reverts and deletion nominations. I appreciate you tagging your revert of Ride The Lightning, by claiming I had Good Faith. Tomorrow when I have time I will be reverting the article, and adding sources for the statements, removing phrases that could be interpreted as original research "The lyrics also open interpretation as an escape" sourcing statements such as: "The song working title was originally "When Hell Freezes Over" and changing the "Choice of language": e.g. "nightmarish epic"

This should satisfy your reasons for originally undoing my edits to the article. If you have further issues, I will have User:Jeff G. or User:Steven Zhang review this problem posthaste so this does not become an edit war. Wikipedia:Reviewing process

Hoping you are well, Maelstromlusby (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

More controversial edits

Again you are like in the above implicated to this day in more radical editing of the controversial topic it is precognition and in every case you do not force yourself to explain one iota in the eye why you are doing this radical cutting! Please you do not more cut out the contributions of the others without a simple reason and without any say for or against what it is proven by the citations they make. You must not be a blanket and blind censor here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.23.49.26 (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hayley Leggs

Including someone in a list of alumni requires some form of notability to be established for her (in brief: a list of alumni is only useful if they are notable, and if they are notable they should have their own article). And as she's a BLP, the fact that she went to the school also requires sourcing (it being about verifiability, not truth). ninety:one (reply on my talk) 18:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's just how it's got to be. We know it's true, but how would anyone else? And the problem with people with no articles is - why should we list them? We've got to draw the line somewhere. I'm still not entirely convinced that Hayley is notable enough for inclusion, and I also can't find any mention of her name(s) and "Royal Latin" or "Buckingham" on Google. Maybe this is something that could feature on Ed Grimsdale's Alumni blog? I think it would be a reliable enough source, but even if it was, there is still the issue of her notability as well. Not easy! ninety:one (reply on my talk) 14:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Thedarxide! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)