User talk:Intermittentgardener

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Intermittentgardener, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Silicon Forest. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Independent Payment Advisory Board

Between 01:53 and 03:06 UTC on Jan 25 I made very many edits to this article to correct numerous problems with it which I summarized in each edit summary.

At 19:35 UTC on Jan 25 you deleted ALL my edits at a single move claiming "the edits made over the last few hours seem extremely improper"

At 03:29 UTC on Jan 26 I posted a very extensive explanation on the TALK page for each edit justifying to yoy (and re-justifying to myself) the reasons for each edit that I had made. As it happens I did find one area where I may have deleted too much but I did not accept that I had overstepped any rules.

At 03:32 UTC on Jan 26 I therefore reverted your unjustified deletes and invited you to reply to each of the points that I had made on the TALK page.

At 15:15 UTC on Jan 26 you reversed my content changes yet again with a simple statment "Reversed improper deletion of content. Will ask for page protection if this continues." This was your second revert without proper explanation.

At 15:18 UTC on Jan 26 you expand on your reasons for the delete with the words "You do in fact explain your reasons but the (sic) are all incoherent."

At 17:43 UTC on Jan 27 I for the second time reverted your edit with the edit summary "(undid edits by incalcitrant editor User:intermittentgardener who refuses to engage at TALK and justify his edits" I feel totally justified in doing so because you refused to give a single reason for your deletes other than you feel them to be "improper".

At 19:58 UTC on Jan 27 you, for the third time undid my edits without proper explanation.

At 20:15 UTC on Jan 27 YOU had the cheek to post a complaint about ME at Wikiquette aerts [1]

Because you have reverted my edits three times without proper explanation I am going to raise a complaint about you at AN/I. I am also going to reinstate my edits. Hauskalainen (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Can both of you (with respect to the above logs), remember the Three Revert rule? For sake of clarification, I'll post the template below. Dusti^*poke* 17:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to read WP:BRD. This is the only known method for determining when an edit war starts and who started it. Discussion doesn't justify continued editing of the contentious material. You must reach a consensus first. To do otherwise is to treat the article like a battlefield. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Independent Payment Advisory Board. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dusti^*poke* 17:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have made another complaint at AN/I as the editor continues to insert improper text and refuses to engage in normal discussions at the article's talk page.Hauskalainen (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reposted the complaint after the first was archived without comment.Hauskalainen (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your POV editing is unacceptable

You are engaging in edits that are adding a strong POV to the article Independent Payment Advisory Board. This diff with its 18 different edits, almost all of which are yours clearly reveals your editing tactics

Examples

1. You removed from the lede a very important element of the bill that it DOES NOT PERMIT rationing via changing cost sharing, cutting benefits or changing eligibility rules and demoted it to a section called "Allegations of rationing".
2. You DEMOTED in the order the factual information that the CBO estimated that the IPAB would save 15.5 billion over its first 5 years.
3. You PROMOTED text about claims of rationing that were in an OPINION section and moved them to the section you created called "ALLEGATIONS OF RATIONING". It is hard to see how there can be any serious allegations of rationing when the law actually forbids it and what's more the board has not even been formed, let alone taking any decisions. As I said before here, these are opinions and are not particularly noteworthy. WP rules quite clearly state that we have to include the views of mainstream experts in their field. As to the source of these allegations, we have one, which is a pure opinion piece and not from any expert in medicine or government. He is a college lecturer. His opinions are not all worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia as I have already indicated here. The second "opinion" is from one Sarah Palin, a private person who hold no public office (and who is not running for one as far as we know), and who is no medical expert. I don't mind her opinion being here as she is a rather prominent person renowned for her outlandish use of language ("death panel" and "blood libel" for example), and she was roundly criticized for her claims, but in my opinion it was better when her OPINION was clearly located in the OPINION section as it was here (i.e. before you moved it). Creating a section called "allegations of rationing" in a Wikipedia article adds a level of credibility to these allegations which, quite frankly, they do not deserve. I am sure that was your intention though, but it is POV pushing and therefore highly inappropriate.
4. You added back a piece about the comments of congressman Pete Stark. To be sure, he is a congressman but there are hundreds of others. Ehy pick on his opinion? I think the reason you chose only his comments is that it fits nicely into the POV that you seem to be pushing (i.e. that IPAB will ration care and be a generally bad thing). Personally I think this edit needs to come out because it is not balanced. Incidentally, do you think that this Pete Stark is the same as Fortney P. Stark who ran as a candidate in the election in California and whose political campaign was stuffed with money from the medical industry? See [2] I guess we should not be surprised that congressmen and women make loud noises which might please their political sponsors. Really though, this view is hardly as noteworthy as the other two opinions that you removed from the article (see below).
5. Here comes a whopper. You moved this text "The bi-partisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform supported the board and in a 11-to-7 vote the commission recommended strengthening IPAB further. The vote however failed to reach the supermajority of 14 required to refer its proposals to Congress. The majority opinion was that the exemptions in the law that prevents IPAB decisions affecting certain providers for several years should be lifted" which was in the section called OPINION (for this is what it is) and demoted into a new section right next to the section which you entitled REPEAL EFFORTS under Proposed Legislative changes. A casual reader at first glance may well think that there are serious repeal efforts to change the law and that the Fiscal Commission report wanted to repeal the law. The demotion and the creation of another POV section heading coupled with its close alignment is not so subtle POV pushing. There have been NO SERIOUS REPEAL EFFORTS as far as I can tell and the commission was actually in favor of the IPAB and wanted to bring in its provisions sooner than planned. This is unacceptable POV pushing.
6. You deleted altogether the comments Peter Orszag and his quote that IPAB is "perhaps most important" among the cost-containing steps taken in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Again a clear act of POV pushing.
7. You also deleted another passage that does not seem to concur with the POV you are pushing. This is the bit where Princeton University health care economist Uwe Reinhardt said that he thought the board was the most potent tool to restrain health care inflation

Enough already! Your edits are clearly done with a view to pushing a particular POV and this is unacceptable.Hauskalainen (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to add in the material that you mentioned. It sounds relevant. However, please do not use this as an excuse to blank out huge blocks of content. Intermittentgardener (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

fyi

hello, i don't know if you "crossed the line" but there is something to be aware of, called Wikipedia:Canvassing. basically we don't want to select a biased sample of editors to comment on a discussion, as it would bias consensus. just something to keep in mind. thanks again. Jesanj (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of it. I intentionally picked a wide range of folks to be involved in the discussion.Intermittentgardener (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

And the comments supporting Hauskalainen by some of the editors I contacted seems to be proof that my attempt to contact folks on both sides of the issue was successful. :-) Intermittentgardener (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it appears you did a good job with that. Thanks for your effort. How about reading this: Help:Talk_page#Indentation? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Intermittentgardener. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 03:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

unwise?

please use the talk page to explain your feeling, at least, as to why you feel so strongly.[3] i don't think it is wise to add that much material back to the article without any talk page discussion. the article was recently protected for a week because of a content dispute/edit warring. Jesanj (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I really have nothing more to say than what is already in the discussion. I do not see why we have to be held hostage by Hauskalainen. This material is NPOV, notable, and directly relevant to the topic at hand. In fact, the death panel remarks by Palin are probably the biggest reason why IPAB is famous.Intermittentgardener (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, this talk page has gotten out of hand. Hauskalainen is filibustering here and still engaging in a slow motion edit war. I mean look at all the comments here. It defies belief. Intermittentgardener (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the IPAB talk page.Intermittentgardener (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree that we shouldn't be "held hostage". I think that the revision that was protected, after Haus' removal, wasn't the "appropriate" version. To correct that problem I suggested a sentence at the end of this section: Talk:Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board#Palin_WSJ_charge_.26_FactCheck_response. You added some things I wouldn't have. Should I revert those and then we can discuss? It just looks like it is going to get messy again. May I suggest you self-revert and then we can discuss? Just because Haus isn't a collaborative spirit doesn't me we shouldn't try, it seems. =) Jesanj (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I would rather just see you make the revisions you want. If there is a problem we can revise and discuss. Intermittentgardener (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. For what it's worth, I am skeptical "the death panel remarks by Palin are probably the biggest reason why the IPAB is famous". Serious health care reformers point to it as an enitity that may do some good while health care providers are concerned about their revenue. The death panel attacks have brought in some attention, but I'm skeptical of the importance you see. Jesanj (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you have done so much I disagree with I think I will have to revert it all. Otherwise, it is an inefficient use of my time, in my opinion. I think proposing edits on the talk page is the way to go on this page. Jesanj (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Nothing would ever get done on the article. Look, everything that I just put up meets the requirements for inclusion into Wikipedia. It is properly sourced, notable, NPOV, and on topic. What exactly is the problem?Intermittentgardener (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I just went through the text line by line and compared it to the sources. I have to stand by what is written. The current text accurately reflects what happened as written in the sources. Intermittentgardener (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we can make progress by proposing edits and then waiting for comment before making changes. What is wrong with that approach? It is how the Holtz-Eakin content originated. Jesanj (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to do so. If someone sees a change that should be made they should make it. If others see a problem with it they can revert and discuss or make revisions. That is how editing works throughout Wikipedia and it works just fine.Intermittentgardener (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a reason. Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. It's italicized at Wikipedia:Editing policy. Jesanj (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not regard any of these changes as controversial or novel in any way. The material I just added is NPOV, properly sourced, and topical. I have to insist that you deal with each issue specifically. If there are problems we can discuss them in detail. However, I am not going to accept any arrangement where material is deleted solely because you were not consulted. You do not own the article.Intermittentgardener (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The material you added has been removed previously. How can you honestly say you don't regard the expansion as controversial? Jesanj (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It was removed by Hauskalainen with no justification. Properly sourced, NPOV material that is on topic should be improved if there is a problem, not removed wholesale. Also, I was very careful to pick out material that was relevant and innocuous. I also made changes according to feedback from other users on the talk page. And if you look at WP:PRESERVE you will see that "controversial changes" pretty clearly refers to deletions and major re-writes of existing material. Anyhow, if you have specific problems with with specific content we can address those concerns. In the mean time, failure to consult you does not mean that something can be deleted. Intermittentgardener (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed my concerns before with the primary sources at Talk:Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board#text_regarding_constitutionality & Talk:Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board#notability.3F. Jesanj (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:Primary. It states pretty clearly that primary sources are acceptable as long as we are careful not to analyze or interpret them. What is written faithfully reproduces the sources.Intermittentgardener (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at primary again. We are not supposed to "base articles entirely on primary sources." While not an article, you were heavily basing that section off of primary sources. However, Wikipedia aims to be a tertiary source which usually relies on secondary sources. Highlighting that suit with primary sources elevates the suit's importance (WP:UNDUE), IMO. Meanwhile, The Hill, the only independent reliable secondary source I've seen (and it's a blog no less!) was dismissive if its potential impact... Jesanj (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Hill is a nationally famous and well respected publication. It posts its print articles in blog format. Google it. :-)Intermittentgardener (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

At Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, the first sentence under the section "Overview" reads, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Please re-consider your use of WP:PRIMARY sources that have not been independently published. They can all too easily create WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE problems. Please adjust your editing here in accordance with our content guideline. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you read the material that you have referenced you will see that primary sources are acceptable when used with care. Specifically, in the case of PhRMA, I am using the organization's website only as evidence of their own opinions and I have been very careful in my writing to say as much and not do any interpretation. Generally sources are pretty reliable about their own opinions. Hence, PhRMA says... PhRMA claims... PhRMA argues....

Now, you have a really bad problem with section blanking that needs to stop. If you keep this up I am going to take immediate administrative action against you. If you have a problem with text (that is not a copyright violation or a BLP violation) deleting huge chunks of it is not the solution. Re-write, tag it, bring it up for discussion, or bring in third-parties. Do not delete it. Intermittentgardener (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You are using PhRMA's website to create sections but "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Yes, primary sources can be used with care. So how should one proceed? I recommend thinking of primary sources as supplements that play a minor role when real sources are lacking. Jesanj (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am using primary sources only for the Issues section and the issues section is all about PhRMA's opinions. I was careful not to interpret. And you have to stop section blanking. What you are doing is really inappropriate.Intermittentgardener (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Pharmaceutical_Research_and_Manufacturers_of_America. And section blanking would be bad if I was removing things that were in line with consensus, policies, or content guidelines. But in my opinion, the content I removed hasn't been in line with the encyclopedia's interest. As I had to tell our old friend Haus, please stop pretending an essay (Wikipedia:Blanking sections violates many policies) is a policy. Jesanj (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said you violated a policy. I just said it is way, way inappropriate and not consistent with how things are done here. Do not follow me around Wikipedia edit warring. Thank you.Intermittentgardener (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to accuse others of being "way, way inappropriate" and inconsistent with community norms if they aren't breaching a policy or guideline. Speaking of edit warring, what are we going to do with the IPAB article seeing that it has been protected for a long time due to us? Should we seek outside input somewhere? That request for comment didn't do anything. Third opinion? WP:NPOVN? Seems like we need to do something, otherwise we might go back to reverting each other there. Jesanj (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How does this sound? It sounds like you want positive info in. I will go out of my way to find the sort of opinions you mentioned for two weeks after the lock is lifted. In return, you have to stop section blanking. It really is inappropriate except under limited circumstances. I have lots of experience on Wikipedia on accounts I used before but have left dormant. If you keep doing that you will end up in big trouble. The other thing I would like is for you to be more proactive about making changes that you feel need to be made. We can change-revert-discuss-change-revert. So, I give you some good faith, you stop section blanking, and we work to improve by making the changes that we think need to be made instead of edit-warring and section blanking. We can solve this on our own.Intermittentgardener (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You're making a kind and considerate offer on your part. Thank you. What I've tried to demonstrate, though, is that your sections aren't quality contributions. Writing whole sections off of an organization's website? I've never even considered doing that on Wikipedia. And then that whole Goldwater Institute lawsuit section at IPAB. You wrote up a section with both sides 50%/50% from primary sources when The Hill thought the suit wasn't much to look at. Can't you see where I'm coming from? I can't help but conclude that some of your contributions aren't in the interest of Wikipedia. So, sorry, but I don't think it is wise to verbally commit to something that may make an article worse. I was hoping at IPAB that you would add the positive material, since you, in my opinion, over-did the negative side. I've hesitated and stalled on saying this, but, since we're discussing things, might it make things more clear for me and other editors if you declared a possible WP:COI? From what I've seen, you feel that a government agency deserves to have information including a political attack (that wasn't even directed at it initally) and negative material added, but then on another article (which is the lobbying group that wants to abolish the agency) you expand using their own published material. It would be nice if we can fix it ourselves but I'm doubtful that would work. Jesanj (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, hey. Let's pull back and calm down. A lot of what you are saying is unfair to me. I do not have a COI. I am a person with a strong interest in healthcare and pretty much every other area of public policy. In fact I do not even live in the United States. Let's put aside the personal feelings and then work out a process for working with each other. One part of this process will have to be separating things out issue by issue and handling them on a one-off basis. You can't keep bringing up things related to one issue in the context of another issue. We have to compartmentalize. And no matter what you do, I am going to keep the first part of my promise and do more research on IPAB to represent the positive side of the debate. And the reason I am doing that is that you seem to have the idea that I am some kind of bad actor and that is most definitely not the case. So, let's build some trust and then we can define the issues and then we can talk process. Okay? Intermittentgardener (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And I do not want or expect any commitments on content issues. I am looking for you to stop section blanking. I am sorry to be so blunt but you are just way, way out of line here. We can work out a much better alternative. You should work with me to do that. You will be happy with the results.Intermittentgardener (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the good-faith intent. But still, I have to ask: don't you think I might have somewhat of a point that you could find better sources? Let's take on the issue that got the IPAB article locked for a month. As for the inclusion or exclusion of death panel related material at IPAB, I'm still not against a sentence, or maybe two, in the political debate section. But the idea it deserves an entire section is overkill, in my opinion. And I'm not doing a little negotiation dance here either. =) That's really about all I can see that is worthy in the article. If you are convinced more (such as a section) is necessary then it seems we need to find others. Jesanj (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are going overkill on some of the sources but better sources have never hurt anyone. The Death Panel thing is just another reason why we have to compartmentalize. And I have not been too good about making a detailed case. Let's talk about that one more and see if we can make some progress then try to bring in some third parties. So I am going to do some research on positive comments/reports on IPAB and add them. We can put language here and get the admins to approve. Then let's break down all the issues and talk about them in a structured and compartmentalized way. Then we can talk editing process. I am of the make it a little better first, let others fix it some more, and then I fix it some more school but maybe you have different ideas. The point is that all this can be worked out. Just no section blanking. And an PhRMA you really jumped the gun. I already have secondary sources ready to flesh out each issue section and make it more nuanced. These things take time and you can't just tear down content and start an edit war because it is not perfect.Intermittentgardener (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious. Are you getting the idea for each section from PhRMA's website and then looking for secondary sources? Jesanj (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes.Intermittentgardener (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a bad idea. It is an example of selection bias. Jesanj (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Cite news

As I see it, it doesn't make sense to add an access date to cite news templates if there is no url given because the accessdate represents the "Date when the news item was accessed, if it was found online. Should be in the same format as the rest of the article..." Jesanj (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (sign up here or say hello here).

A WikiProject is a group of editors who like to work together on articles. There's also a WP:WikiProject Pharmacology, if you're specifically interested in that area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox

I have moved Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga 11 to User:Intermittentgardener/sandbox. As an experienced editor, you really ought to know better than to launch unreferenced stubs straight into mainspace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

To User talk:Intermittentgardener's defense, think that there was some urgency involved in this article because there are incorrect incoming links to Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga 13. Andries (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Since we are all talking, do you think we should have separate articles for the Yoga 11 and Yoga 13? They seem a lot like variants of the same product and not every source is even using the Yoga 11 and Yoga 13 terms. Most just refer to the Yoga and when I see Lenovo advertising on TV they also refer to just the Yoga. What are your thoughts? Intermittentgardener (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest to have two articles for the time being. I dunno the differences except from the software and the screen size. Andries (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know either. Do you think the Lenovo is analogous to the MacBook Air? There is only one article for that despite the various models. Intermittentgardener (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Lenovo Yoga 13 retail display.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lenovo Yoga 13 retail display.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lenovo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EMC (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) 11:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga 11 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Peacekeeper

ThinkPad Twist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kindle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga 11S

I am in the process of creating an article on the Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga 11S.

Lenovo Erazer x700

I am in the process of creating an article on the Lenovo Erazer x700.

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Lenovo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to ARM and Jerry Yang

Liu Chuanzhi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rio Tinto

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Masdar's corporate logo.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading File:Masdar's corporate logo.jpeg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LenovoEMC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EMC (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) 12:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Lenovo Miix

I am creating an article on the Lenovo Miix.

Al Ardhi

Mohammed Mahfoodh Al Ardhi

Hello, Intermittentgardener. You have new messages at Lordvolton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.