User talk:CanadianLinuxUser/Archives6

Speedy deletion

My post was marked for this, as "advertising" but it is merely a small info page about the host. If you have any suggestions to make it better, be my guest. Tristan439 (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consult Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/How to answer as well as WP:Not, these two pages contain lots of information for Wikipedia and it's articles. Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view and verifiability of information CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your notification. I just started creating the article minutes ago, and still compiling my info, and you already have pounced on it to submit it for speedy deletion. Jeez! Thanks a bunch for NOTHING!Kennethtamara (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I recommend creating an article for Rev. Jackson Tugbeh as a subpage of your own... for example create an article like this Jackson Tugbeh until you have it complete then create it as normal. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

This is a technicality, but I thought I would point out that the Dylan reynolds page was not an attack page, but rather speedy-able per criterion A7 (no indication of importance). "dylan reynolds goes to higham lane school and is going out with sarahdoughty" was not disparaging. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 17:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, you are correct... unless this Sarah Doughty girl... did not know about it.... then it "could" have been... but I got it. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shagrebecca

He's been reported at AIV. I doubt he's over the age of 15. Let him put whatever he wants on his Talk page...it's called "selling him enough rope to hang himself." --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... no... certain things I will not leave on a page. That is one of them. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be moot now anyway, he's been indef'd. Depending on how the blocking admin set things up, he might not even have access to his Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Abell

I noticed that you just undid my edit at Sam Abell. I'm guessing you were trying to revert the guy who also vandalized Omar Bradley as well (since I just checked his other contributions as well)? Just making sure before I restore it. Kansan (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it... as well as a link in there. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PCACBI Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel‎

hi....i saw you had intervened earlier. would you mind reviewing what is going on there and letting me know what the next step/s should be? it basically (this time) is a question of whether information regarding one of the founders of the organization is relevant to the organizational page or not (the org calls for an academic boycott of israel, yet the founder is enrolled in an israeli university!). thanks, i would appreciate your advice and help. (fyi - if you follow the history of this page and partricular others like Palestinian Christians, you will see that several IPs have been active in various types of inappropriate editing, have been warned, have had the page blocked for a week, etc.) Soosim (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with the removal of this information. It is not relevant to the discussion. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenic

NO citation is given for publication of "A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus" in the print version of Science. What Source could you want for something that didn't happen? This is NOT controversial. It is a simple fact. 128.210.44.60 (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote a publication or reliable source WP:Reliable that states that such an event happened. Just your opinion is not sufficient.That it was not published is fact. That "it was published in the print version of Science, because of the questions about the validity of the data" is your opinion. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What source do you expect for the fact that something was NOT published in the print version of Science? If you look at the online version of "A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus" already cited in the articles, you can see that there are NO journal issue or page numbers indicated, unlike papers that were published in the print version. It is NOT my opinion that articles that appear in ScienceExpress as previews are generally published later in the print version. This article was NOT published in the print version.

You keep on changing your argument. First, it's opinion you find objectionable (although it is not an opinion--it is a scientific community standard), then you claim that the fact is unsourced despite the fact that the cited source for the information on the article indicates that it did not emerge in the print version. There IS obvious significance to the fact that the article was not published in the print version of Science. Otherwise, why are you so defensive about including this fact? What do you have personally at stake in preventing people from finding out the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.44.60 (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, as I mentioned on your talk page. Take this up in the talk page of each article. I personally could not care less about Arsenic and the paper involved. The paper was published. It is cited as a reference in the article. Please discuss its addition, removal or its publication or lack of in the talk page of the article in question. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not criticizing a reliable source. I am providing the relevant information that the article was not published in the print version. Just because you don't understand the significance of this fact doesn't mean it is not significant. Technically it was NOT published in Science; it was only in ScienceXpress. 128.210.44.60 (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated these issues are what the talk pages are for. Bring them up there and not in the article itself. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

When a new BLP says "hobbies include...potato thieving, fingering lephrechauns" is an attack page (G10), not a page that has no indication of importance (A7). Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seank100

I'm fed up of 'trying to communicate' with Sean. If you wish comment at this ANI report. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fed up with him too. In fact, I'm actually just like you and everyone else because I'm trying to stop all the problems he's causing too. Is there anything we can do to stop him? I'd be more than glad to help if I just knew what to do -- I'm still a fairly new user on Wikipedia. (well, on actually using my account anyway)

That comment was just to Lil-unique1, not you CanadianLinuxUser. I'm glad you also agree with us that Seank100 is a troublesome user though. 1Dbad (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Izvoarele; Griviţa

First off, no need to "welcome" me to Wikipedia, as I've been here just shy of 5 years, but thanks anyway. Second, will you please take a closer look at what you're doing here? Izvoarele, Tulcea has featured that unsourced dreck (which it is) since November 2007; if the "anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed" provision means anything, than it means we can excise it all at this point. The dreck recently added to Griviţa, Vaslui is not just unsourced, it's also not in English, or at least nothing resembling standard English. Really, how can we justify keeping any of it? - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family Weekend

Just letting you know that I declined your speedy request for 'nonsense' because it appears to be a real thing (and was too coherent anyway - nonsense at CSD means total gibberish). I then deleted it anyway as a copyvio of http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1821426/synopsis If you can't get 'em going, get 'em coming back... Peridon (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

trop rapide

Merci ; en fait, je me suis aperçu, après avoir rollbacké, que ce mauvais plaisantin avait utilisé 2 ips différentes (j'avais cru que c'était les 2 mêmes) ; le temps que je repasse à la version de X2fs... tu avais déja fait le ménage ! ++ Alvar☮ 17:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pas de problème :-D CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ocalan

Hi.

I think we're having a recurring problem here! If you read the source given, page 18 nor any other page contains nothing like Ocalan "admitting" to the "terrorist nature" of the PKK. The very notion that Ocalan would admit any such thing, even under great duress, simply isn't believable. EVEN IF one could find him saying such a thing in court, it's hardly "reliable testimony", let alone a reliable secondary source - since he also claimed he was beaten and tortured (which would explain many of the strange statements he made in the first 2 years after being caught - such as claim to be a Kemalist and that his "mother" was Turkish... it was actually their Grandmother who was Turkish). I have a lot of sources on this topic, and I hope to be able to improve this article significantly. Thanks. MilitantLiberal (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements are always welcome. Always remember to cite reliable sources as per WP:CITE. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of repeated articles

Hey I have noticed your involved in the state terrorism articles recently a user has created several articles regurgitating the same information over and over they are as follow (note one has been deleted due to POV/Bias violations)

The above pages have been mentioned in the main Pakistan terorism page I dont feel seperate pages are required for them I aldo sense that this user has a certain POV about Pakistan since they target mainly pakistan please have a look and discuss which route is best to take I have redirected most of the pages to the main article thanks Ichigo0987765 (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted, it's blantant POV edits on his part. The redirect is fine, it could probably be deleted as well... the issues need to be addressed in the article without the blantant POV of course. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting my contributions

Hi.

May I ask why you are deleting my contributions of the Harrow borough? (where I live!) You're saying "cite source", but i did, it's in the source i provided from the Harrow Times? I'm confused... 46.38.161.41 (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention about Save the Children in the article cited. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my mistake, I copy+pasted the wrong article. You know, it wouldn't kill you to be a little more civil/polite! 46.38.161.41 (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

I've declined your speedies on My District Ccpur and Manipur Kan Umna Ram because they aren't nonsense within the CSD meaning. That is for 'rtrtrfkjvld' and stuff that even a Surrealist wouldn't regard as usable. It's quite a restricted sense. This stuff is not encyclopaedic, fairly certainly essay - but it's coherent. As I can't think of anything better, I'll prod them. If you can think of a CSD that fits, go ahead... Peridon (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why did you revert my improvements and accused me of vandalism , i had many reference on the talk page of russia

please explain why you are doing that ?

Just read the explanation on your talk page. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USCF litigation stuff

Hi - I definitely do not mean to be a vandal. I guess I've stepped in it, trying to clean up the legal portions of the Paul Truong/Susan Polgar/Randall Hough/Sam Sloan pages. I am confused by why the accusations in the legal cases remain posted with cites to blogs, but the actual facts of the case do not? Sorry, I am new, and can put more sources in citations for the information updates I am trying to contribute.

This subject area is not my only interest in wikipedia, but it is where I started as a newbie, so I guess I am learning the hard way. I will try to use the sandbox to post my recommended edits. Would you review what I am trying to do for accuracy & form? I'm trying to get it right, but see I am annoying editors by doing it on the page. Thanks! Ellie Dahl (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, do not simply remove information on the article. If the accusations have new facts, then new references should be added stating said facts. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information I edited was put on the bio page of Susan Polgar by Sam Sloan - an interested party. In fact, the complain about me being a page vandal and the reversion of my editing came from Sam Sloan's wife Kayo Kimura. As a party to the lawsuits referenced, is Sloan and/or his wife (who is the notary who signs all his wacky lawsuits) supposed to be barred from editing the information? Ellie Dahl (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strange writings in my talkpage

Hello!

Why did you delete those strange writings in my talkpage? greetings Quiiiz (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look here, you'll see he was making a mess on many users talk pages. I was just helping clean up the mess. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dictators

Sorry, but why you reverted the edits of 194.219.11.88 in the above list? The only thing he had done was to delete Modibo Keita who was present two times --178.128.75.48 (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it ... sorry for the mixup.

Dealing with Dromaz

Hey, I have been watching your interactions with Dromaz lately and he seems to be getting on your nerves. You are ofcourse correct to follow wp:RBI when dealing with him, but you are also highly involved and edits like this or this seem to have been mostly due to frustration. Would you mind to leave reverting him to me? It could divert his attention away from you and might decrease the amount of abuse and socking. Yoenit (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all counts. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Whinge wars"

"Whinge wars" is not an A7 candidate. Indeed it does not meet any of the CSD criteria. Although it may well be an AFD candidate. I am struggling to find a reliable source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mary calderon"

"Mary calderon" is another inappropriate A7 tag. The opening sentence "Mary Antonette REYES Calderon (born April 7, 1994 in Bicol) is a Filipina Athletes." makes a clear, credible claim of significance. On the other hand, I couldn't find a reliable source about her, so the article may be appropriate for AFD. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not a claim of significance at all. "record holding athlete", "medal winning athlete" or even "famous athlete" would be claims of significance, but this is not. I note however that the page was nominated for AFD prior to the speedy nom. Yoenit (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion criteria for Creer une page

I just wanted to give you a heads up that I have changed the speedy deletion criteria you tagged Creer une page with. Generally speaking, G1 should not be used if the only reason it is 'nonsense' is because the article is not in English (and a quick machine translation indicates that it is not nonsense once translated). That being said, the same machine translation also indicated that this article was about a non-notable band, so I changed the criteria to A7. Singularity42 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Milner Schools for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Milner Schools is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Milner Schools until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JRPG (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Murder of Laci Peterson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Murder of Laci Peterson, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. pablo 13:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strike 1

I've declined your speedy on Gundlach's Law as it is coherent. Coherent what is another matter. The nonsense tag is for 'tycyuvbo;uvuirreewa hjy' or 'ginger aardvark frizzle duometic simplification ousts fortynine ecstatic'. Over to you.... Peridon (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your blatant-hoax speedy nomination was entirely reasonable but, rather doubtfully, I have decided to send this to AfD instead. It certainly fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:NEO, WP:NFT but I'm not sure that it is actually intended to deceive. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galacthic

Hi. I'm just letting you knowI've declined your CSD on Galacthic. The Polish language article is simply a description of a multi-player Internet game, without any advertising tone or content. As there is no CSD criterion for such articles, I have PRODed it. Please remember also to warn users about submitting non-English articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parsi ra pas bedarim

Hi. I'm just letting you knowI've declined your CSD on Parsi ra pas bedarim. The article is simply a description of a software programme, without any advertising tone or content. As there is no CSD criterion for such articles, I have PRODed it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Hello CanadianLinuxUser. Thanks for patrolling new pages - it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know however, regarding Michael Word, that tagging articles for speedy deletion moments after creation as lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3), and articles being created through Article Wizard, is too fast. It's best to wait at least 10 - 15 minutes for more content to be added, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), and copyright violations (G12) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the author has created that article before and had it deleted. Therefore, the author should be familiar with the process. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G4 on Among the fallen

Just wanted to let you know I removed your WP:CSD G4 from Among the fallen. I searched around, but was not able to find a past deletion discussion related to the deletion of the article. It appears the past deletions were all based on CSD criteria, which does not qualify for a G4 deletion. If there is a deletion discussion I missed, please feel free to re-add the G4 tag. Either way, I have no objection if you want to pursue an alternative deletion process or CSD criteria. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you corrected some of my edits and I have since discovered the person who was reverting my edits on a living person's bio page is actually an interested party who is not supposed to be editing the page in question at all. The person reverting my edits and who also reported me as a page vandal is married to a party to the lawsuit the page section discusses. The lawsuit isn't really of public interest, except to the Interested Party who keeps putting it on the bio page in question. Any attempt to remove or edit it is reverted by the people who filed the crazy lawsuit. I need help getting a fair and neutral edit completed and protected. Can you help me? Ellie Dahl (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eica

You are probably following this anyway, but I've reinstated Eica's previous indefinite block because of the racist and homophobic nature of the attack page, rather than the attack itself (I've been called worse). The phrase was repeated on his talk page, so I've warned that he could lose access to that page and email if he persists. Let me know if you have any concerns Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's a kid and will continue to vandalize. I'm all for 2nd chances... but... well... he will continue. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, he can't stop, so talk and email now revoked. I might reinstate when things have calmed down, since I'm reluctant to permanently prevent communication Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Little (Manager)

I must be missing something, how is that a db-attack?--v/r - T P 15:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right.... Goofed on that one... more like a hoax CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kebron

You have been previously banned for harassing other users. Please stop posting spam on talk pages to enforce POV. Thanks. 69.171.160.148 (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Jones "son" should not be patrolling her article -- Kebron. 69.171.160.52 (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drastic Fall

Hi. I'm just letting you know that the CSD template you applied to the above article did not register in the edit summary. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight?

Do you think oversight should be e-mailed for that new very nasty attack page against a specific wikipedia editor? Strange that I didn't get an edit-conflict with you when replacing the page's contents. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it continues, Oversight should be notified certainly. As for edit conflict... it's software... anything can happen :-D CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notified Oversight after seeing his next edit where he posted more personal information about the editor he was attacking. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had already mailed OS after I deleted the page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How can you block a user? User:The computer rocks!|The computer rocks!]] (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]