User talk:Piguy101: Difference between revisions
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
:: I was not trying to discuss the article's subject. I was explaining the reason for demanding the citation of that POV claim. The video mentioned in the article is not really available online for me to link to it, so I described it from memory in order to present a much likelier reason for its banning from TV. A fact that could prove valuable to the future editors of that completely unsourced and very POV section ripe with factual errors and omissions of facts.--[[Special:Contributions/85.92.230.183|85.92.230.183]] ([[User talk:85.92.230.183|talk]]) 21:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC) |
:: I was not trying to discuss the article's subject. I was explaining the reason for demanding the citation of that POV claim. The video mentioned in the article is not really available online for me to link to it, so I described it from memory in order to present a much likelier reason for its banning from TV. A fact that could prove valuable to the future editors of that completely unsourced and very POV section ripe with factual errors and omissions of facts.--[[Special:Contributions/85.92.230.183|85.92.230.183]] ([[User talk:85.92.230.183|talk]]) 21:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::On a second look, I shouldn't have undone your edit. I apologize. Maybe the unsourced sentence needs removal altogether. Thanks [[User:Piguy101|Piguy101]] ([[User talk:Piguy101#top|talk]]) 21:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC) |
:::On a second look, I shouldn't have undone your edit. I apologize. Maybe the unsourced sentence needs removal altogether. Thanks [[User:Piguy101|Piguy101]] ([[User talk:Piguy101#top|talk]]) 21:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::Quite possibly, but then, the entire section is unsourced. And there is a possibility that there is SOME truth to the claim that the video was banned because of a reference to that scandal (Scandal was a big deal at the time and it had historical consequences for decades later.) though it is doubtful. I'm saying this on account that there are sources out there (I could probably dig up the link but it is most certainly not in English.) claiming that, quite surprisingly to most anyone, there was no censorship or filtering of the procedure regarding the Agrokomerc scandal in the media. IMHO, it is better to leave the sentence in, but with a "citation needed" tag marking it as questionable and providing an alternative explanation for the banning of the video. After all, I have no source either, and BOTH the rapey song and the contents of the video AND the possible (though unlikely) reference to a political scandal could be the cause for the banning. Maybe someone out there has a source for one, other or both.--[[Special:Contributions/85.92.230.183|85.92.230.183]] ([[User talk:85.92.230.183|talk]]) 23:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:23, 14 August 2014
![]() | Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:
|
Your request at WP:PERM/RV
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Wikipedia_Reviewer.svg/130px-Wikipedia_Reviewer.svg.png)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 10:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Inform
Hi, This is just to inform you that Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. has been nominated by another editor for deletion. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 17:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Amir Segal
Hello Piguy101, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Amir Segal, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of notability, although the assertion(s) made may not be sufficient to pass the relevant notability guidelines (such a thing needs to be decided at WP:AFD). You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry this was not meant for you - you had just reverted the deletion of the template, but my script automatically detected this as if you were the one that added the tag in the first place. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Shirik: Thanks for letting me know. Piguy101 (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Healthy for Life
Hello Piguy101. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Healthy for Life to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Passengerpigeon (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Passengerpigeon: Thanks. I feel as though there should be an adequate CSD criteria for the article, which definitely needs deleting, but PROD works as well. Looking at the log for the page shows that it was deleted yesterday for A1. Piguy101 (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Deletion
Hello,
Please help me delete "Israel occupation forces," because the page is a slanderous and derogatory parody of the "Israel Defense forces" (the former page redirects to the latter). The Israel Occupation forces is a nonexistent entity and thus the page is inaccurate and does not belong on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.134.133 (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have requested deletion of Israel Occupation Forces for you. You are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_11#Israel_Occupation_Forces to state you opinions. The result of the discussion will appear in about a week when an administrator decides whether or not to keep the redirect. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
asking abt deleting the caracter I have added
I have added some articles that u have removed..... plz will u tell the story of birth of lord shiva......
Was the story I have added was wrong.....
I request u to plz correct my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.185.225.20 (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry; I do a lot of editing, and I am not sure what article and action I took that you are talking about. Could you please elaborate and specify the exact article in concern? Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I believe that you are talking about my reversion on Shiva of Akshay B Deokar's edits. You can see what I edited here: [1]. The reason I did so was because the edits added lots of information without any references, which is against Wikipedia policy. Please ask if you have any questions. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for guide
As I m the new user I was not knowing much about editing.Thanks for sharing link about tutorial... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshay B Deokar (talk • contribs) 16:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Akshay B Deokar: I 'mglad it helped. Feel free to message me here if you have any questions. Happy editing! Piguy101 (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Follow up on your reply
@Amrgalal: Nobody owns any Wikipedia pages. See WP:OWN. Having an account that seems to solely promote a company is criteria for blocking. See WP:BLOCK, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. Please do not bring content disputes to the help desk. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am aware nobody owns a Wikipedia page - at what point in my question did I insinuate this? The Medcan account is not solely promoting anything, its simply stating facts. And the Danish meta study is not a fact.
- Can you please let me know who I can speak to about content disputes? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrgalal (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Amrgalal: You insinuated that you owned the page in your comment, "...we would like to edit our page..." It would have been better had it been worded "...we would like to edit the Medcan Clinic page..." Piguy101 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Amrgalal: Certainly. First, you may want to read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for some background. Then, you may want to request a third opinion; read Wikipedia:Third opinion to see how to put in a request. Ask if you have any questions. Piguy101 (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Removing a citation needed request? Really? For "not appearing constructive"?
Seriously? That's what you go around doing?
Not to mention that the entire section does not have a SINGLE citation. Not a one.
Please, do get a life. It is a very useful endeavor, causing much enjoyment to many people.--85.92.230.183 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- I removed the citation needed template because it looked like you were trying to discuss the article's subject in the article itself. Piguy101 (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- I was not trying to discuss the article's subject. I was explaining the reason for demanding the citation of that POV claim. The video mentioned in the article is not really available online for me to link to it, so I described it from memory in order to present a much likelier reason for its banning from TV. A fact that could prove valuable to the future editors of that completely unsourced and very POV section ripe with factual errors and omissions of facts.--85.92.230.183 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- On a second look, I shouldn't have undone your edit. I apologize. Maybe the unsourced sentence needs removal altogether. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Quite possibly, but then, the entire section is unsourced. And there is a possibility that there is SOME truth to the claim that the video was banned because of a reference to that scandal (Scandal was a big deal at the time and it had historical consequences for decades later.) though it is doubtful. I'm saying this on account that there are sources out there (I could probably dig up the link but it is most certainly not in English.) claiming that, quite surprisingly to most anyone, there was no censorship or filtering of the procedure regarding the Agrokomerc scandal in the media. IMHO, it is better to leave the sentence in, but with a "citation needed" tag marking it as questionable and providing an alternative explanation for the banning of the video. After all, I have no source either, and BOTH the rapey song and the contents of the video AND the possible (though unlikely) reference to a political scandal could be the cause for the banning. Maybe someone out there has a source for one, other or both.--85.92.230.183 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- On a second look, I shouldn't have undone your edit. I apologize. Maybe the unsourced sentence needs removal altogether. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- I was not trying to discuss the article's subject. I was explaining the reason for demanding the citation of that POV claim. The video mentioned in the article is not really available online for me to link to it, so I described it from memory in order to present a much likelier reason for its banning from TV. A fact that could prove valuable to the future editors of that completely unsourced and very POV section ripe with factual errors and omissions of facts.--85.92.230.183 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)