Jump to content

User talk:Alyo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is an Articles for Creation reviewer on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least ten years.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nimom0 (talk | contribs) at 15:48, 8 March 2012 (→Take a look.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Here are my DYKs This editor helped bring Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri to Good Article status on March 20, 2011 This editor is a Tutnum of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this service ribbon
Hello, I am Alyo
Home My talk page Sandbox My contributions Be Tasteful New page Patrol Articles for Creation
Home Talk Sandbox Contribs Essays New page Patrol Articles for Creation
The Signpost
6 November 2024


I can also be reached by email.


What is suitable ?

  • Hi mentor,I reverted edit which was corrected by you here, and you again changed this. I am confused a bit,though article must and should alwaye be improved.There is no problem,however please explain to teach me more.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I did do the first copyedit, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be better. Honestly, I'm not a very good copyeditor and that IP had a slightly better wording than I did; in this case he was right (or better at expressing himself, either way). Also Justice, remember that just because an edit is unexplained doesn't mean it's bad. I've seen you revert a couple of ok edits with that summary, and I think I may have given you the wrong idea before. As a general rule, try not to just undo an edit unless it actually hurts the article. If part of their edit is good, just go in and fix the other parts up. We were all newbies once, and of course no one likes to have their work reverted, especially if they're acting in good faith. In fact, if you have any questions about an edit or aren't sure, just ask on the talk page. Hope that helped :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Yes,your opinion is valid,but it is also reality,where ten editors contribute,they think their edits are accurated. It is the serious confusion in the wikipedia.The changing of the wording or any passage in own words should be in the exact concept of the meaning,otherwise,based on inappropriate content can mislead the readers. My editing was as,

"Iqbal's first recognition is a poet but his admirers also have regarded him as "Muslim philosophical thinker of modern times."

Your copyedit was,

"Although most well-known as a poet,he has also been acclaimed as a modern Muslim philosopher."

And then IP contributed as,

"Though best known for his poetry, he is also an acclaimed modern philosopher."

In my mind your copyedit and IP contribution does not satisfy.There should be more done in the exact concept of the meaning,that "Muslim philosophical thinker of modern times" and simply "modern Muslim philosopher" does not match each other. Because "Muslim philosophical thinker of modern times" has deep meaning than "Muslim philosopher".

I suggest that,

"Though Iqbal is best known as an eminent poet, he is also acclaimed as a "Muslim philosophical thinker of modern times."

Rest you know better than I.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with using that quote is that the place we took it from, here, doesn't have a source and since it is allamaiqbal.com, a reviewer might think it's promotional. Now, if we had another source for that quote, we could probably use it, but since it comes from the official website, and they don't have a source, it's probably not the best. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hi mentor,I find and feel it nice discussing with a mentor to learn more things.It is good for me or for both of us.

As you said that quote might be problem or promotional, I do not think so. Allama Iqbal Academy is established by the government of Pakistan,and it is very reliable source and most of the article's content is cited with its references. The preface is written by two different editors,of course reading many articles written on Iqbal by various writers of the world. These two sources here and here,when you read it, and figure them out then we are right to use or mention that quote,or without inverted comma, in own words, is possible.It is not necessary to find exact quote,may be it is in Urdu,which is translated into English.We will be right to read some sources and figure them out and put into our own words.As you have already done in the article some passages in your own words. I do not think that any reviewer will think it as a promotional quote.While source or sources are there and reliable,but I do not know about wiki editors opinion,may be they think it is promotional. Anyhow,there is no problems relating that quote,should be used or not.Thanks for your time and conversation.Justice007 (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, I enjoy these too...although if I ever get too heated warn me so I can stop :) Now, you say that allamaiqbal.com is published by the government? If so, then that would make a difference...hmm. I don't know...I'm sure somebody will always think something is too promotional. It doesn't really make a difference in the end though...if you do want to add it back in, that's fine with me. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 00:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yo

Yo i am an a american teen to want to catch up and talk. Nickerss (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you have any questions about Wikipedia I would be happy to help you out, but I have to agree with what Charlie said on your talk page; we are here to build an encyclopedia...socializing comes way after that. Hope you're enjoying this place :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 13:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nolelover Im nickerss i am An american teen to. want to chat on your talk page. Nickerss (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above...I'm not much for 'just chatting'. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contravening WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK can lead to the loss of being able to edit Wikipedia. --Bmusician 05:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Hi Nolelover i will be away from saturday to monday so i won't be able to do anything at WP:WWF during that period. However i'll be back into action monday onwards and so will be able to do whatever's needed for the march mini, also if nobody has given the awards/invitations by then i'm happy to oblige :-) Best— benzband (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright...I'm a little busy too, so I can't get the awards out..might be able to over the weekend, but I don't know. Enjoy your break :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doon School

Apologies for bringing the subject to your talk page. But it is, indeed, The Doon School instead of merely Doon School. That 'The' is the part of school's proper/official name though it suggests otherwise. It is not used for emphasising that this is THE real Doon School but, in fact, all the documents/memorandums are signed off as The Doon School. You are free to check on the Internet. In the coffee-table book I have on Doon School, there are sacns of 75 year-old documents (the first official paperwork for the establishment of the school) and it all says The Doon School. So just to elucidate my point, check this:- http://www.doonschool.com/images/document/admission_form.pdf It says The Doon School. If you're making it Doon School from The Doon School, you might as well turn the new Oscar-winning movie The Artist (film) into Artist(film). Once again, with all humility, it should be The Doon School, my friend and -to some extent- my Wiki teacher :) Don't let this happen! [[User:Merlaysamuel|Merlaysamuel]] (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, observe all the posts http://www.doonschool.com/the-school-and-campus/school-codes-a-policies and the Doon School's website. Merlay

No, I don't mind at all...in fact, is it ok if I just copy this to the article's talk page? I'd prefer to respond there. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I won't copy it. If you do want to voice your thoughts though, you can copy or just respond again on the talk page...I'll continue there. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

have copied to the talk page. [[User:Merlaysamuel|Merlaysamuel]] (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

Nashtam (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nolelover, I just got another "last warning" that I am to be banned without further notice. Keep in mind I have been waiting to have a fair discussion on the talk page for more than 4 days now.Nashtam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for your kind words and assurance. I have already made two pages Arthur Foot and Gulab Ramchandani. My first reaction was disappointment when I found out that Mr. Foot does not have a page but, anyway, it's all set now. Now, I'll be making pages of rest of the headmasters. Thank you for accepting me Mr. Nole!

DoscoinDoon (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh drop the "Mister". If grades are anything to go on, I'm only a couple years older than you. :) Glad you're enjoying yourself and doing well...you seem to have a pretty good grasp on what you are doing. Am going to be pretty busy for a few days, but I'll try to help you if you need anything. Cheers, Nolelover Talk·Contribs 17:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012


ICHTHUS

January 2012
Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Goha.ru

Hey Nolelover,

You mentioned that there is not enough emphasis on the importance of the article. However, I feel like the importance is self-stated. As a forumn that caters to thousands of users, it holds a high place in MMORPG community, especially for the Russian players. These facts are referenced. What more could I add to make the article approved?

Thanks, Tataxfn (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I read the submission again, and I don't quite see the notability you say is self-stated. Honestly, what makes Goha different from other websites? I don't see anything in the submission right now that makes it unique. Maybe I'm missing something? Also look at WP:WEB#Criteria - I don't see multiple reviews of the site, or any awards won. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOTDs (This space for rent)

You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?.

  • Hi Nole,can you make me a bit wiser,but first look at this and then here 1, 2.Now can you figure out what does he mean?.And second in the start lead's content is not sourced according to reference 1.I think references citation is not accurate in the whole article?,and I have no time for this to check it thoroughly.Justice007 (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are referring to his undoing of your copyedits, yes? If so, I'd be willing to bet that he had the edit page open for so long that he edit conflicted with you, and since he didn't know how to fix it just went ahead and saved he page without adding in your edits. Probably accidental. I'm not quite sure what you mean with the second comment. Can you elaborate? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shay Stone

What are you playing at?? The article is a clearcut DB-A7. Stop wasting time by opening unnecessary AFDs. Get some sense!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know it's an A7. I'm not playing at anything. The faster you !vote delete at AfD, the faster we can invoke SNOW. Or just IAR right now. Seriously, go ahead. I hate week-long AfD's like this as much as you do, but unless you have a better idea...? Maybe call an admin to block yonder editor for disruption, since I'm sure someone could rationalize that. Or change WP:CSD so that we can re-add CSDs after they've been removed by IPs, 'cause that would be easy. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All it would take is for a reasonable admin to come across the speedy tag and delete it, a AFD will likely take a few days. I will restore the speedy tag but you'll have to promise to not to keep removing it! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...keep removing it"? Geez...you make me sound like an SPA, hehe. If you wanna take that route, fine by me. (Heh...watch some GFNoob come along and scream at you for CSDing an article that has already been declined by the logged-out author.) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012 wikification drive!

For outstanding service to WikiProject Wikify and more specifically for wikifying 6 articles during the February Drive, i hereby award you the WikiProject Wikify Ribbon. Keep it up! ;) ~ benzband (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have given out the barnstars and will do the invitations tomorrow evening (as the Mini Drive starts the following morn). Currently am pressed for time (i'm a teenager like you, FWIW ;) but —COM— i will stick with the project as promised. Cheers, benzband (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aw! Look at this (you've probably already noticed):
Backlog

Backlog: All articles that need to be wikified
Goal: 18,500 articles
Current: 0 articles
Initial: 19,838 articles
(Refresh)

benzband (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doon School template talk

Hello Nole, I am looking forward to your comments on the template deletion discussion page. thanks! [[User:Merlaysamuel|Merlaysamuel]] (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's about the most I can say...I really don't know rules about templates and such. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 12:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look.

Not exactly a truthful picture. I have clashed with the above user twice, on the Fatima Bhutto article and just gave up as I am reverted shortly after (no discussion). It was too much of a WP:OWN issue. But, the above user has now stalked my recent edit not even 1 day, after I started working on it. He followed me there and continues disruptive editing, no discussion. Aside from the hounding, many of his edits are problematic on more than one level. The blind reverts appears to be a pattern with him. It's unfortunate as it seriously inhibits the work of serious editors like myself. I have sought to explain him the problem and invite him to discuss, but in vain. I also don't appreciated being hounded. Nimom0 (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say that I've seen this, and am looking into it. However, I don't have as much time on WP as I would like so replies may be a few hours (9 PM my time right now, so at least next morning-ish) coming if this is lengthy. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys, first thing I want to point out. See this page? It's empty. No discussion. Now, both of you tell the other to discuss, but someone actually has to start the discussion! That is the most important thing, and a lot of reverts and emotions could have been saved if either one of you had just stopped, realized that Wikipedia won't die if the article isn't perfect (as you see it) for a couple days, and hashed things out there. Each of you is trying to improve the article, although the styles are clashing. Now Nimom0, very nice expansion. Excellent work...I know how hard it can be to kick start an article. After that, Justice makes five edits. I won't go through everything he did, but again, he's trying to improve the article as well. After this we get to the three edits that caused the minor edit war. Here's where the discussion really would have come in handy. Justice is right that external links generally don't need (access) dates. Maybe it should have been moved to the References section? Then Justice makes this revert, which was just as unexplained as the original edit? Justice, just because someone doesn't leave an edit summary doesn't mean that it should be reverted...that was a sticking point for Nimom0. But where's the discussion? Neither of you attempted to figure out what the other person was up to. Same with the copyvio...neither you volunteered or asked for the actual site that Justice though the content was copied from. These three edits (pretty much) were than reverted back and forth...and there doesn't appear to be any interaction besides the edit summaries and a couple user talk page messages that weren't responded to, partly because of the accusatory tone. I don't know any prior history, and it isn't really my place to judge any hounding, but cmon guys...yall can work together, right? :) I'm available if you come to any more stalemates, but again, both of you are trying to improve the article. That's the key thing...Hope this helped somewhat. Cheers, Nolelover Talk·Contribs 02:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input though though it is regretable you don't consider the hounding as a particular issue (I understand your concern there). I do appreciate you trying to see it from both sides, but the issue is not that. The prior history is pertinent to this case. I disengaged myself from the Fatima Bhutto article because of his behaviour and so to avoid conflict. He then followed at the Sarah Kazemi article hours after I started work there repeating his aggressive revert/editwar there WP:HOUND. He must respond to the talk messages irrespective of the any percieved tone. He doesn't discuss despite repeated requests. He IS hounding me. No accussation, just fact. He is inhibiting my editing work and causing unneeded annoyance and disruption and I obviously can't accept that. So the actual issue stands unaddressed which allows him to continue his disruptive behaviour. The decent thing for him to do is to disengage considering the above. Nimom0 (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reply

  • My contribution to the wikipedia is based on good faith,I follow the wiki rules.I am not an editor to WP:hound or WP:Own.I am a registered user for global account,thus I have the right to contribute everywhere,where I want??.Your behaviour is visible everywhere,you blame same thing to others too,look at here.My answer is same,I am not following you.I am patrolling the articles and I have that right.At Sarah Kazemy,there was obvious WP:Copyvio,which I indicated with changing,later you somewhat change the content.Look that reference 1,and 4,especially this sentence-"The Paris-based Kazemy visited relatives in Tehran to experience it firsthand,".You can check your edits,you will know yourself?.Please do not try to be a "dictator".This is Wikipedia for all who want to contribute,not only for you.Follow the rules,that's the main thing.Justice007 (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There can be little doubt that you ARE stalking my contributions edits which you also also took the liberty to enter unrelated posts here when it serves no purpose. But this proves your hounding without a shred of doubt. You need to stick to yourself. You are hounding me and you can not explain how you arrived at the Sarah Kazemy article shortly after I got there. It is no coincidence. But you have been going through my contributions list and you have been stalking it which explains you above and other referenced hounding behaviour. You have NO right to stalk me. This is a policy breach and seeing as you are adamant on pursuing your disruptive and hounding behaviour, you leave me no choice. I am not the dictator here. So you can save the namecalling. You don't follow the rules. You stalked and followed me to Sarah Kazemy. And you relentless intention and behaviour to continue in this pattern is problematic which must be addressed. You are seeking out conflicts which is not conducive to editing or WP. Nimom0 (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nolelover, I request that you delete the escalation of the conflict in terms of his posting my unrelated edit to an unrelated case to an unrelated talkpage of an unrelated user. Now you can see what I have put up with. Justice007 while claiming innocence and good faith continues hounding and going through my edits posting them here as if that relieves him of his hounding and bad faith disruptive behaviour. I ask that you delete as it serves no purpose than to escalate matters. I think I should disengage from here as this is not a solution rather an escalation and he is conscisouly seeking it out. I hope you can knock some sense into him regarding his behaviour and above on your talkpage. I certainly can't. Nimom0 (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I'm sorry you guys can't work together then. In that case, since I am an unrelated editor and the actual content doesn't seem to be the issue here, I'll just say a couple things briefly. First, Justice was right that that was a copyvio. I didn't see it the first time, but yes, that sentence was to close for comfort. It was fixed by Nimom0 here, but that was definitely problematic language. Now, as to wikihounding. WP:HOUND says that hounding is "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." I don't see that here. You two have interacted on just two articles, and as I stated before, each of you is trying to improve the article. Justice, if he did see your edits to Sarah Kazemy, was not trying to "confront or inhibit [your] work". Hence, I don't think that this is really hounding. Now, I will ask both of you to make a conscious effort not to edit pages that you see the other person active on. If both of you are agreeable, I'll serve as an intermediary to whom you can bring concerns you may have about the other's work. If that is not agreeable, then I can't help, and as much as I hate to say it, you need to take this somewhere else. I really hope it doesn't go there, since neither of you are really doing anything wrong. Nimom0, I don't know if you are as new as your account suggests you are, but you can't accuse everyone you disagree with on a couple articles of hounding you. Things just aren't that clear-cut, and yes, coincidences are very possible. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but you just can automatically assume the worst. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nolelover, there is no doubt that this is a case of hounding. Absolutely. It is very unfortunate you don't see it like that. Naturally I am fully entitled to call somebody out or accuse them of hounding, when they do so and relentlessly. Just ook at 1) the unrelated edit from an unrelated talk on unrelated article between unrelated users, he brought on to your talkpage. Something you decided to not remove despite my request. He had to stalk my edits to find it. That is how 2) he arrived at the Sarah kazemy. There is no coincidence. By defending his hounding as harmless and coincidental is encouraging further hounding. This has nothing to do with being new (?) or disagreeing. It's about hounding and being disruptive - also the result of his interaction with me on both Fatima Bhutto and Sarah Kazemy. Perhaps your neutrality is compromised in this matter. But I agree with you that he should disengage on Kazemy just like I did on Fatima Bhutto to avoid further conflicts. "The singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." is exactly what is going on here. My work is inhibited and this is causing annoyance and disruption - see above. I will no longer be responding here for before said reasons. Nimom0 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Wikify March Mini Drive

Delivered by benzband (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify 18:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have had quite some difficulty enforcing the dates for the MM drive; i think a full-on drive would have been simpler to explain (most users don't even read the big bold title that says "MARCH 8 2012 (00:00 AM UTC)", or for that matter the dates on their invite… oh well, just my thoughts. Best regards, benzband (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite understandable...no one ever reads as much of the instructions as we would wish. :P Anyway, was that drive setup hard enough? Have we scared you away yet? If not, then congratulations on a job well done...and my personal thanks for helping out :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alyo&oldid=480849414"