User talk:Meatsgains: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:25, 17 March 2014

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Since they don't have a Giordano's spinach pie I can give you under food and drink, here's an original barnstar. Great additions to Polaner-- from a former Chicago resident (Hyde Park, then Lakeview)! Jokestress (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Appreciate the barnstar. Have a great night. Meatsgains (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for improving the article Mike Burke (journalist)!! Edcolins (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Have a great weekend! Meatsgains (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McGraw-Edison

I see you removed line breaks in this article. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Line breaks at end of sentences. This makes it harder for someone with my handicaps to edit. There is no saving in the amount of space taken since both the old and new versions are stored. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I didn't know there was a reason for creating the line breaks. I just thought it was an error on the user's behalf. I probably should have asked or done some research before getting rid of them. Well at least now I know. Sorry about that! Meatsgains (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Wilson self-published tag

Hi there, I am a frequent editor of Russell Wilson and noticed you added a self-published source tag. Just wondering which references are questionable. Thanks! aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 20:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, according to WP:SPS self-publsihing media is not an acceptable reference. I added the tag to this page specifically because the page frequently used Twitter along with Instagram as sources. Below are the references I found that fall under self-published.

77. "Twitter / DangeRussWilson: Just finished a shoot with". Twitter.com. Retrieved 2013-01-19.
80. "Instagram". Instagram. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
82. "Twitter / ESPNMag: Are you ready for some football?". Twitter.com. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
83. "Twitter / SIKids: @DangeRussWilson We're pumped". Twitter.com. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
86. "Twitter / DangeRussWilson: For dog lovers... We have a". Twitter.com. Retrieved 2013-01-19.
92. "Twitter / RWPassAcademy: The @RWPassAcademy Tours 5". Twitter.com. Retrieved 2013-01-19.

Let me know if you have any other questions. Meatsgains (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

Text in Abortion

Hi there. There are ongoing issues with keeping the article on abortion as a summary article on the subject with a global perspective. You added some well-researched, but I think overly detailed and US-specific, text to the article which I have for now removed. You might want to consider placing it in Abortion in the United States, and I have also opened a thread on the talk page if you want to chip in there. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamiltonstone, thank you for taking the time to post on my talk page about the issue at hand. I understand fully your reasoning for removing my text. I should have known to add the information to a more specific page. That was my mistake for including that information on the summary article of abortion, which should only include a global perspective not just research from the US. I will go ahead and try to add the content where it belongs, on the Abortion in the United States page. Thanks again and happy editing! Meatsgains (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Hello...May I know why are you so interested in editing the Kamasutra 3D page with all wrong informations? Would be good if you don't edit it further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpplsritama (talk • contribs) 07:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpplsritama: First off, when posting to someone's talk page you need to go to the bottom of the page and start a new section on the topic you would like to discuss, see wp:talk. I am interested in not only improving Kamasutra 3D but rather all articles on Wikipedia. I work towards adding content, removing promotional tone, removing POV claims, fixing typos, etc. on all articles and do not have any specific areas of focus. I would like to know what information you believe I have edited on the page of Kamasutra 3D that you see as "wrong." I will continue to edit the page, along with any others I see fit, to improve so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and standards.

After reviewing your edit history it is clear that the article Kamasutra 3D is the only page you edit. Is advertising the film your motive behind editing the page? It comes as no surprise you may be in violation of wp:spam. Meatsgains (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Meatsgains,

I am the Creative Head of RPPL and the Associate Director of Kamasutra 3D. I exactly know how and what details to be added on our page. And unlike few others, I prefer editing my page only as my interest lies in promoting our movie than edit other pages.

So, it's a request to you to not create any further edits on our page and let it go the way we want it.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpplsritama (talk • contribs) 09:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpplsritama:, I have no doubts that you know the details behind Kamasutra 3D considering you are the associate director. However, Wikipedia is not the place to "promote" your film. Any promotional edits you make to the page will be reverted. All pages (including yours) need to be unbiased and from a neutral point of view, see WP:POV. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page rambler

Hi there, I saw your comments here. To address your confusion, there is a user operating from IPs in Olive Hill, Kentucky and Morehead, Kentucky who goes around to various articles and adds weird lists, has conversations with his/herself, and makes up completely incoherent scenarios between various cartoon characters, etc. It's possible he/she is using Wikipedia for therapy. Here is the sock investigation. Other examples of what to look for here and here. Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Wow that is bizarre haha... I've never seen editing of such sort nor have I seen a user behave that way before. It's quite strange to say the least. Anyways, thanks for filling me in. I'll try and keep my eye out for future edits performed by that user; I'm sure they will be easy to spot out haha. Thanks again and happy editing! Meatsgains (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete Nature

Yes, is is an ongoing project. I also added a stub for the term ententional in the book which is now scheduled for deletion due to neologism rules I was unaware of. Im adding an additional definition from a secondary source, a blog, but I'm not sure if this is sufficient. Could you check on it? Thanks Maximusthaler (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Maximusthaler: I would definitely suggest adding more sources. The only source you have right now is the book itself, which unfortunately is not enough. If you cannot find other reliable sources on Incomplete Nature, then the subject's notability may be questionable. I would stay away from using blogs as a source because they do not always reflect accurate information and typically include opinions of others without having any support or legitimacy. Feel free to check in with me before adding in your new sources or if you have any questions about anything. I'll gladly try and help out as much as I can. Happy Editing! Meatsgains (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Management

Hi Meatsgains,

Just wanted to follow up on here. Below are links to two more recent articles in the Wall Street Journal and CNBC that cite Elliott's AUM at or above $23 billion. I made the appropriate changes on the page with a complete citation as well. Also, Elliott was listed as an investment bank in its summary box when it is actually a hedge fund and provides no investment banking services. However, I forgot to update the AUM's date from 2013-2014 since the $23 billion is as of this year but feel free to do so if you please. Hope this helps clarify my edits.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303874504579372923716382850

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101399803

Thanks! PeleV10 (talk)

Okay great, that was a good find. I went ahead and changed the AUM's date in the infobox from (2013) to (2013-2014). Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kamasutra 3D

I completely agree with you that Ruby murray is a well known and good editor. But she completely deleted the crew list which is not justified. I 'm open for a discussion on that.. No one can remove any information which is adding to the page .. removing some part of it make sense but removing complete list doesn't. See i am new here but have lots of experience with Indian movies. So don't take some pages personaly and in future i need to report the same. I am going ahead and putting up the crew list .. if you feel like u can edit the same but please don't remove it completely Vaibhav.times (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaibhav.times: I'd be happy to discuss this issue with you. The 'Crew' list on Kamasutra 3D does not belong. First off, it doesn't include sources from which the information was pulled from. Second, because there are no sources to support it, it lacks legitimacy.

User Ruby Murray was completely justified in removing the 'Crew' list and she, along with anyone else, is allowed to remove information from a page if it does not meet Wikipedia's policies and standards.

Below is a list of the top 10 Bollywood films of 2014. Not one of the pages from that list below includes a 'Crew' section. So tell me, why does Kamasutra 3D need one? Feel free to find me an Indian Film page on Wikipedia that includes a 'Crew' section.

Let me know what you think. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need justification for reverting my edit

Dear Meangains,

I noticed that you have altered my edit in the movie Gunday. I want to know why you referred the officialy verified facebook page as unreliable source.

Thanks, Godhulii 1985 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Godhulii 1985: the reason I reverted your last edit on Gunday's page is because you used facebook (a self-publishing source) as a reference to cite your claim. I'm not doubting the truth behind what you added but its lacks reliable support, see WP:SPS. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Meatsgains, first my apology for addressing your name wrongly in previous entry. My justification for considering the facebook entry as reliable can be represent in this trail:

The producer of this film is Yash Raj Films
- > This is their official website: http://www.yashrajfilms.com/
  - >> At the bottom, find their official facebook page url
    - >>> Check out this entry from that official facebook page
      - >>>> Since this page do not belong to any individual, rather represent the official page of Yash Raj Films (you can check the verified icon also), so I consider this as reliable source.

Thanks, Godhulii 1985 (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries in regards to the username–its a simple mistake.

You have presented a reasonable argument. Feel free to "revert" my "revert" to add your content back in. The source does seem reliable in this case. Happy editing! Meatsgains (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ogasawara Shōsai

I'm not really sure if he is notable or not. I'm thinking that ja:小笠原秀清 is the Japanese Wikipedia article for him based on using Google Translate, but Google Translate doesn't do a very good job of translating Japanese. My guess is that he is probably notable since people know about him 400 years after his death, but I'm not really sure. Probably someone who can read Japanese could determine better whether the article should be kept (I can't read Japanese at all). Calathan (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Calathan: I suppose you are right in saying he is notable considering he is still being talked about 400 years after his death. I can't read Japanese either so I will go ahead and just let the article be. Hopefully someone who knows more about the subject can work to expand it and add more references. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Optic Nerve: Bullshit sources

On your edit here: [1], you added sources like USA Today, and Fox News for facts which are only available in the secret leaked documents. However, as far as I am aware, at least USA Today and Fox News do not have access to the secret documents, so any claims in those article are based on The Guardian's reporting. It is therefore bullshit sourcing to add those as extra sources - they do not add any more authority to the claims than just citing the guardian alone, and adding them as sources for extra authority is actively misleading the reader. As far as I am concerned, the main claims in that story should only cite The Guardian. Thue (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thue: What damage is being done having more sources to back up these claims? The sources I provided support The Guardian's reporting. How is it misleading the reader when the reader can easily access the references and read the article themselves? I will go through and remove the USA Today and Fox News references as per WP:CITEKILL. However, I will keep the reference to Reuters. I do not think having an additional citation for these claims is "bullshit" sourcing or in anyway harming the article. Let me know if you are opposed. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The extra sources you added does not back up the claim - they merely copied the information from the Guardian. Copied information without the ability to factcheck it does not back up any claims, and damages the article by actively misleading the reader to think there are more diverse sources than there really is. Misleading readers is clearly harmful. IMO only organizations which have access to the documents should be used as backup sources for statements from the documents, since they can actually verify it independently. See Snowden_leaks#Publication for an incomplete list of organizations with access to the sources - I don't think Reuters have access to the documents, and they are not on the list, so they should be removed IMO. Adding fx the New York Times version of the story as a source instead would actually make sense. Thue (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I originally added the sources in to provide a more diverse selection of sources to back up the claims. I will remove the Reuters reference and replace it with The New York Times article you have posted. This seems like a much more accurate and reliable source to use. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Colombari

Hello, Meatsgains. You have new messages at Talk:Martina Colombari.
Message added 00:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Read your userpage. Hoping this will give you some more gains ;)

OlEnglish has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or gobble up this chicken on the giver's talk page with {{subst:MunchChicken}}!!

-- œ ^™ 06:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Hello. I removed this material that you added to Sharyl Attkisson, because it's a clear copyright violation. Your text appears to have been copied nearly verbatim from the cited source. The topic of Attkisson's resignation is clearly a notable part of her biography, but it needs to be covered in a way that avoids copyright violations. Please take a look at the site policy on the subject. Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: Okay I understand. Most of the sources addressing her resignation made very similar statements so I went ahead and added in the shared content. I'll make sure to not let that happen again though. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It happens. I left the references you cited in the article, so if you'd like to take a shot at re-wording, go for it (or I may try later on when I have more time). MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco J. Ricardo

Hi!I have been provided with references to his publications, but have had no time to make the edits. I just needed to know where his scholarly publications were to add them, and they will be added later this week. Nothing I have written or put in an external link is incorrect, so there really is no need to delete without giving me more time - thank you! Adrie23 (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 158: / Line 158: @@
 ::No worries. It happens. I left the references you cited in the article, so if you'd like to take a shot at re-wording, go for it (or I may try later on when I have more time). '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 18:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 :::Okay, sounds good. Thanks! [[User:Meatsgains|Meatsgains]] ([[User talk:Meatsgains#top|talk]]) 19:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
+==  Francisco J. Ricardo ==
+Hi!I have been provided with references to his publications, but have had no time to make the edits. I just needed to know where his scholarly publications were to add them, and they will be added later this week. Nothing I have written or put in an external link is incorrect, so there really is no need to delete without giving me more time - thank you! [[User:Adrie23|Adrie23]] ([[User talk:Adrie23|talk]]) 20:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)