WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE
- I really don't mind how people choose to Talk to me, though I do think that to make a discussion easier to follow, it's best to keep it in one place.
- So If I leave you a message on your Talk page, I think it's best if you answer there. I'll be watching, so there's no need to alert me here.
- Likewise, if you leave me a message here, I will answer here - and if I think it's likely you may not be watching this page, I'll leave you a {{Talkback}} message on your own Talk page.
- But if you don't agree with these suggestions - well, just feel free to Talk to me any way you please.
- Finally, Talk page stalkers are welcome on this page, and I'm happy for anyone to join in any discussion if you have anything you'd like to offer.
- Please click here to leave me a new message.
|
February 2011
Dear Sir,
I have prepared my article and completed it.
But I tried to upload company logo but coudnt do it.
Please Can you help me to upload the company logo and before that move the article from user space to main article.
I can provide you the links:
My Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roman9930/Taj_Agro_International
The companys Logo Link: Website "tajagroproducts.com/images/tajag.jpg"
Logo Name on the article: Taj_Agro_International.jpg
If you have time and you can do it I will be grateful.
regards,
--Roman9930 (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've uploaded the logo with a fair-use rationale at File:Taj Agro International.jpg, and I've moved the article to main space at Taj Agro International. I noticed that the company's web site, www.tajagroproducts.com, appears to be blacklisted by Wikipedia - it may have been abused in the past. I suggest you give the article a little time to be accepted as sufficiently notable, and then we can look at perhaps getting it off the blacklist. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your help.
Your advice is right and welcomed.
regards,
--Roman9930 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just been going through that article - the latest attempt by Taj to get in here. I'd appreciate you having a look and saying what you think about the references and claims. In their last ones at AfD, the referencing was haywire. Here, it appears to be mainly unreliable sources, including prwire and the company itself. (The one about the founder contained links to two other people of the same name and other interesting things...) Thanks if you can look. Peridon (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to mention - there has been rampant sockpuppetry in the course of these articles coming and going. Peridon (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, thanks for letting me know - I guess that explains the blacklisting of the URL. My first look over the article made me think it's a company on the margin of notability, and that it could go either way - hence my comment above about giving it some time to see if it's accepted as notable. I'll certainly have a closer look (tomorrow if I have the time) and will get back to you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranvir Kumar Singh (and the SPI quoted) - good background. Peridon (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I didn't have time to take a detailed look at the article - I was just about to but I see it has been deleted. If I'd initially realised it had been previously deleted after a discussion, I would not have helped in its creation. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know this particular one had been AfD'd - unless you've got a good memory or are an admin it can be hard to tell. I'd have csd tagged it if I'd known. You acted in good faith, as I would have done if I'd not been involved with some of their stuff at AfD. I think we can assume that anything with Taj in it (except Taj Mahal - that's not a part of their group, well, to be exact, they haven't claimed it is yet) has been AfD'd or speedied - or at least ought to be if it's new.. They'll be back. At least, they will if not salted. Peridon (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks, my eyes are better peeled now. Oh, and I think Taj Air is part of Tata group - I removed it from the Taj Group template (which is also now deleted) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear,
If you are interested in corporate articles.
Please help me expanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Its019/Welspun_Mexico_SA_DE_CV
Thanks
--Its019 (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'm afraid I don't really have any specific interest in corporate articles, so I'm not going to be able to help with this one, sorry. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mate, Gud to get response from wikipedians. I appreciate your reply and will talk to you in future if i need help.
Thank You
--Its019 (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think those two would have given up by now; I've just checked over there for the first time in several weeks, and the vitriol doesn't seem to have faded. I'm not terribly interested in wading into that morass unassisted, but I don't think it's so bad that we need to dial 911 just yet; any ideas? The content noticeboard note I left a few weeks ago didn't get much attention. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh-oh, seems Cognitive Dissident has decided to post something at ANI; I suppose some attention from there wouldn't be too horrible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for letting me know - I've got a bit of a backlog of things that need my attention, but I'll see if I can have a look over it later. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guys this truly has gone on for too long and has gotten way beyond personal. I have found out who this person is and the article has nothing to do with his personal "beef" with me. He is seriously not well and I have no choice but to initiate proceedings against him to protect myself and my family from personal harm. I thank you for the points outlined in the ANI section and your constant vigilance in the article itself. I do think it's time to give this a conclusion so any help in that regard would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
Fisted Rainbow
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisted Rainbow (talk • contribs) 03:57, 19 February 2011
Hi Boing
I see you made a formatting change to the page above, thankyou for your input. Does this mean you have reviewed the page? And if so, can you take it out of unreviewed status?
Thanks
apiano (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I've just been over to do exactly that, but I've been beaten to it - it's already done :-) I took out the empty External links section containing example.com while I was there this time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Boing. I'm about to put up another page, shall I let you know so you can have a look? I've also got one on the Broadcast Journalism Training Council which is still unreviewed, if you want to cast your eye over it. See you, apiano (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, sure - by all means let me know and I'll be happy to have a look at them. Probably won't have time today, but should have some free time tomorrow (if I haven't been beaten to it again by then) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, how come some pages get reviewed really quickly and some seem to have been up and unreviewed for ages? I'm a newbie, in case you hadn't noticed. Is it just if it's a boring title? Or is there more system to it than that? apiano (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly don't know really - as far as I know people just pick whatever takes their fancy from the New Pages list at Special:NewPages, and you can see there's quite a lot there if you page back. I suspect a lot of people concentrate on titles that look suspicious, focusing on weeding out problematic ones as quickly as possible - so on that score at least, you're probably doing well :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll have a look myself. apiano (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the worst week of your life! Though I'm sure you'll cruise through! :) GedUK 23:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - it hasn't been too tough so far ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hehe GedUK 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I came here to say that it looks like you will make WP:100, but I also have to disagree with GedUK. It looks like it will instead be the longest week of your life.
;D Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hehe - it almost seems like a week already :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck... with 50 or so supports in just six hours, you're definitely off to a good start. :) And could you please trout me? [1] Dylan620 (t • c) 00:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - it does seem to have started well. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, well, well... there's me just posting the the answers to the 3 questions on my own RfA, and you, you bugger, have pipped me to the post! I wish you most sincerely the very best of luck! --Kudpung (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, sorry about the timing :-) And thanks - I look forward to seeing yours appear. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 04:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Just curious. It seems reasonable that the song should link to the album and the artist. Could I make it so that The Champ redirects to Fishscale (like this: [[Fishscale|The Champ) and then it says "a song by Ghostface Killah? Deuceofdiamonds (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'll change it again now to reflect this rule and to reach the song in question. Deuceofdiamonds (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a bit more to your Talk page - thanks for your contributions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. The page for Champ is now protected. Can you change the Ghostface Killah one to read *The Champ is a song by Ghostface Killah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuceofdiamonds (talk • contribs) 13:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think it's probably better the way it is. I think it's better for disambig entries to be explicit about what they're linking to, and it currently makes it clear that the link is to the album rather than the song. And it also leaves it open in case the song itself should ever be considered sufficiently notable for its own article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now, this is why we need to apply Snow Closes to RFAs. There are over four days left, the outcome is clear, and all you're going to do is annoy those RFA candidates who garnered 40 or 50 opposes in the time that you've only managed to eke out 1. Let me beat the crowds in congratulating you, albeit prematurely, and thanks as well for the explanation. I'm now more at ease with my support of your candidacy, knowing it is not some profanity in a foreign language. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hehe, thanks. Profanity in a foreign language, eh? That could have been a most creative idea, if only I'd thought of it
 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NATO did not win, they did not complete any strategic objectives, they attacked civilians instead of the military, and overall, they have lost. They destroyed all the strategic military sites of Yugoslavia and still did not win the war, they attacked civilians, I hope you have read this because it is the truth and I have posted on the discussion page. Please reply positively if you have read the discussion terms, the section is, NATO definite victory? VJ-Yugo (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
