User talk:a.Minkowiski

PLEASE NOTE BEFORE LEAVING MESSAGE

Hello and welcome to my talk page. If I have nominated your article for Speedy deletion, Article for deletion, Proposed deletion and you would like to know why, please first have a look at some of the following important Wikipedia policies and guidelines:

WP:BIO (Person Notability), WP:GNG (General Notability), WP:WEB (Web Content Notability), WP:ORG (Company or Group Notability), WP:V (Verifiability), WP:MUSIC (Musician or Band Notability), WP:COPY (Copyright), WP:RS (Reliable Sources).

If none of these instructions addresses your concerns you can leave me a message

Chumburung

Please check the reference given in the newly created article about the kingdom of Chumburung, and also check the much older article on Chumburung language before you propose to delete it. And at least explain why you think that the present text is "promotional" in any sense. DrMennoWolters (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

hi minkowisky, why did you delete my wikipage of Cabo Love? im tryin to make a music page, pls help. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheal28 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not deleted your page. The page you created were promotional having non notable content. The work submitted to Wikipedia should have independent third party reliable sources see WP:Notability. If your article has been deleted by some one else, do not recreate it. It would make you even more difficult for future editing. If you are new and wants to create an article, go through the WP:Article wizard. Thank you A.Minkowiski (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello A.Minkowiski. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Chumburung, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: how is this promotional?! Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Not a problem. A.Minkowiski (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

A.Minkowiski, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi A.Minkowiski! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, A.Minkowiski. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Mz7 (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Reward

We will double your pay! I'll have a look tomorrow when I have a bit more time, and see what I can find Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Open content

Thank you for your notification about undoing at Open content. I was a bit puzzled at first, because you put it at User talk:LPfi#NMEA 0183 needs a review. In the future it might be better to create a new section.

Perhaps you noticed that you left my previous edit as is. My deleting the sentence in question was because the wording of {tl|contested-inline}} is less than ideal (I am not very familiar with practices at the English version of Wikipedia). The reason= parameter is not shown, and I did not care to start a section at the discussion page about a misleading statement without source. Is it OK like this?

--LPfi (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What given in the refrences suggest that source are clear enough. But Sure, you can undo the revison if it doesn't have particular source pointing towards it. A.Minkowiski (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There is always a risk when you undo part of the changes. I intended to use {{disputed-inline}}, but forgot it is not called {{disputed}}, which I did not intend to use. Thus I removed it in the edit you reverted. When reverting, you should check that you revert to a good version. (Also with vandalism there is a risk that other vandalism fighters think you already undid everything that should be undone.)

I do not understand your statement about clear enough sources. Did you read the reason= parameter I provided? The sentence I removed seemed to be a personal conclusion, added after the reference. I now see the reference is not used as a source for anything in that paragraph (it just points at the current version of the open source definition, which is not discussed), which may be true anyway. I revert my earlier edit also, as more work is needed.

--LPfi (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You first added {{disputed-inline}} here, then you completely removed content with {{disputed-inline}} here, then I reverted edits here, then you simply removed {{disputed-inline}} here. Its fine now :-).A.Minkowiski (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that I used {{disputed}}. I tried disputed-inline before saving, but removed the text instead. Then you reverted to {{disputed}}. And the original problems, the lack of sources and perhaps a misleading description, remain for some one else to take care of. --LPfi (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Salinas, California

You made a mistake. I had reverted vandalism. Please be more careful. Brycehughes (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

On a related note...

Just a note that you shouldn't template the regulars like you did to User talk:Brycehughes. It's not perceived in good faith to most experienced editors. Anyway, happy editing! Epicgenius (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Epicgenius I am still new editor, not too much experienced. Fighting against vandalism manually with hard work, but didn't received any Barnstar for my efforts :( . But thanks for guidance. A.Minkowiski (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Here's a barnstar for your first efforts. It will be good to install scripts like Twinkle to fight vandalism. Not-so-important note: A barnstar is worth more if it's naturally given than if it's asked for. Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Chris Johnson (running back)

Hi A.Minkowiski -

Just a quick notice about your edit in the above article. Before you got to the article, another editor changed Johnson's status from free agent to a player on the Carolina Panthers. There are no reliable sources to support such a change. That's probably why User:Jakewhyland undid the edit. Jakewhyland's edit wasn't vandalism; it was actually a correct edit. Vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia, but this does not fall within that definition. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 10:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi A.Minkowiski, you may also want to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Not all edits may be vandalism; some may be test edits and some may be good-faith but unconstructive edits. Epicgenius (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I do check those edits which are near to vandalism, I am spending my whole time in Wikipedia for fighting against vandalism and tagging articles. Yes, I will surely follow your instructions too. Thanks A.Minkowiski (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your revert edits and your advice

Don't you realise how needlessly negative you are coming over as? I am not just referring to our recent contact, but about a lot of your recent actions. Here is a typical example, this is what you did: [1] and [2]. Would just doing something like this not have been more productive? [3]. The article is about a general - so obviously he became a general sometime! So the content that said when this happened is likely to be true even if unreferenced, If content is unreferenced but probably correct, don't delete the content, just add a fact tag to it. It also appears that you are targeting only new users with these sort of reverts and your comments posted on their user talk pages. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If you are adding something important in the article, then it should have reliable sources. I am not attacking you, follow always good faith. The reference you mentioned in your message(1st reference) didn't provide source and I reverted the edit.If I made any mistake, you can discuss without making personal attack to any editor! Be positive and careful please before posting any message on talk page. Thank you. A.Minkowiski (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, A.Minkowiski. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 13:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui ^雲_水 13:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I am moving the Polish Standard Bidding System Stuff to a page with that name. Unfortunately I'm having trouble with Wikipedia and it won't let it save.

Nigel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinglenose (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no any page with the name Polish Standard Bidding System except Bidding system. A.Minkowiski (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If your account is too new, wait till your account gets auto confirmed(usually 4-days for auto confirmation). Before moving a page, you should have authentic reason to do so. You might get more help from WP:MOVE. A.Minkowiski (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Keep the good works up! I wont write "not-so-important-note". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello, I wish to let you know that, it would be helpful if your mark new pages as "patrolled" while tagging them with speedy-deletion criterion. It'd save other editors time to review the same page, has already been reviewed. You may find WP:Twinkle helpful in this case. It automatically marks pages as patrolled while tagging it with csd templates. Twinkle comes handly with fighting vandalism, as well. Let me know if you need help with enabling Twinkle. Happy editing! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've enabled Twinkle and patrolling new pages with it. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 19:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, A.Minkowiski. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 11:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Passengerpigeon (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Kirk Reid

CSD declined. db-attack is where there is only negative data and no good references. The BBC news will certainly do as a good reference.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 14:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi A.Minkowiski: Thanks for leaving a message on my talk page. Per your request there to do so, I checked out come of your recent contributions. I noticed that you have omitted using Edit summaries. Please be sure to add edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages. Thanks for your contributions, and happy editing. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, Thank you. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 15:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A "Wikiball"

Welcome to Wikipedia, and have a ball! Cheers, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Dan Vs.

Not sure where to reply to you. Basically, someone keeps putting up that Dan VS is cancelled because of something from Curtis Armstong's Facebook page. Meanwhile, when contacted, the producers of the show as well as the studio and the network counter that, saying that the show is not cancelled, just on hiatus. I have tried to reflect that by tweaking the section from "Cancellation" to "Cancellation Rumors" and even that keeps getting changed. So either make the section reflect the truth or erase all of the unfounded supposition. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Churchofdan (talk • contribs) 02:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome, I have added section to your question about Dan Vs.. You can not remove content from page without giving WP:INDEPENDENT sources to support your claim. Next, if you want do discuss anything regarding article, an editor assume good faith starts discussion on corresponding articles talk page. I have seen article's talk page where many editors have declined your claim and reverted your edits because the statement (the producers of the show as well as the studio and the network counter that, saying that the show is not cancelled, just on hiatus) about which you are claiming is not well sourced and seems to be unappreciative and self-published see WP:SELFPUB. If you have reliable sources that verify that statement then you can surely edit the content of the page, but I would suggest you to go check WP:IS. Facebook or twitter or blogs are not considered to be reliable sources. I have left something on your talk page, where everything is explained how to post question to others talk page. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 10:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

A.Minkowiski - If I understand it correctly, I think this is User:Churchofdan's question: Churchofdan is deleting contentious edits that are not based on WP:RS. You are reinserting contentious edits that are not based on WP:RS. If WP:RS is an important guideline, why is that happening? Usually WP:RS is applied to users who are inserting material, not to those who are deleting poorly sourced material. For example, if someone posts that Abraham Lincoln was an astronaut, I do not need a reliable source saying that he was not an astronaut. I can simply remove the poorly sourced material. By the way, if you read WP:SELFPUB in its entirety, you'll see that this type of edit would probably meet the five criteria of an acceptable self-published source. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 11:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@EricEnfermero: Yes I think you are right some how, the content about which User:Churchofdan is talking is absolutely based on unreliable sources, but if you go through page history, User:Churchofdan and other IP editors will keep on removing same content. I think it would go 3RR case if User:Churchofdan and other IP users resume content removal. I just reverted it once but other editors are still involved in this dispute/edit war. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 11:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is there no talk page contact with the editors who inserted the unreliable material? You may be technically correct about a WP:3RR violation, but it seems more appropriate to address the editors who are causing the actual problem (insertion of poorly sourced material). EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@EricEnfermero: I have requested for page protection of Dan Vs. to avoid edit war of new IP user's and others. After analyzing blog and Facebook posts that are given as a sources, still No reliable source found which identify/verify that either show has been cancelled or not. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 12:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the Hub public relations a viable source? Are Film Roman spokespeople a viable source? If Curtis Armstrong's Facebook page is a "viable source", then why isn't the official Facebook page for the show, which specifically contradicted Mr. Armstrong's comments a viable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Churchofdan (talk • contribs) 16:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You should read WP:SELFPUB , the discussion about which you are disputing is just self-published and opposite to the present content which is based on the Facebook page post itself of that person. These sources are not counted as a reliable, while Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. But problem here is related to the contradiction between two poorly sourced statements.(Both your statement and presented statement in the page). A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 17:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your contributions to welcome new users to Wikipedia on their talk pages. This is an important task that encourages editor retention. Thanks!

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Here's a barnstar for your efforts. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Tips on AIV work

Hello. I have noticed your work on WP:AIV. Thank you for your help fighting vandalism! Would you like some tips and suggestions for increasing the effectiveness of your AIV reports? — Kralizec! (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kralizec! Yes off-course, why not. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 17:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Your tips would be appreciable to me. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 17:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are some friendly suggestions:

• Given the often massively shared nature of many IPs, unless the exact same article is being vandalized, warnings issued to IPs should generally reset back to level-1 at the beginning of each calendar month.
• Escalated warnings are typically only issued when the editor has received a warning (like {{uw-vandalism2}} ), ignored it, and vandalized again, resulting in an escalated warning (such as {{uw-vandalism3}} ).
• Keeping WP:AGF in mind, most admins are unwilling to block an editor unless he or she has received four properly escalated levels of warnings, and ignored them to vandalize again.

If you were to adopt these tips, the block rate on your vandal submissions to AIV would probably rise to 99% or more. Regardless, thanks again for your help in containing vandalism! — Kralizec! (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kralizec! Thank you very much, surely will follow your suggestion. I have one request to you, I need ROLLBACK to perform my job even better. I am well aware of its usage and guidelines. I also requested @ Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback but haven't received any approval. I would be thankful if you grand me WP:ROLLBACK rights to fight against vandalism. Thank you once again. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 17:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi A.Minkowiski. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — Kralizec! (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kralizec! Thank you so much for accepting my request. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 18:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

safier

deleted, user blocked, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: My pleasure. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 17:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Tajh Boyd

Just a quick message that when you performed the recent revert on Tajh Boyd, it removed important information (a title) from the citation. I added that information back and filled in more details. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 03:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh! I didn't noticed, thanks for re-adding that information. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 11:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Overzealous editing

You should actually read the edits you're reverting in the name of "anti-vandalism". You reverted a perfectly good edit that deleted non-notable spoof characters in a list of notable people. Don't assume that every IP is a vandal. And apologize for your mistakes. 71.139.142.249 (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

See you removed the content here without explaining why ? Always leave some edit summary to the edits you make. Your edit was just "unexplained removal". A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 13:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

And your edit was vandalism.71.139.142.249 (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

such as ? Did you you notice the name you removed from the section are part of that page(subject), then why you removed such names ?. Be careful when you are inserting are deleting something from page. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 13:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If you can't read or write English, you shouldn't be editing the English Wikipedia.71.139.142.249 (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@71.139.142.249: Hey, calm down. You should really assume good faith and no personal attacks. It's possible that A.Minkowiski made a mistake in reverting. It's also equally possible that since you did not leave an edit summary, "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was." And finally, Not every IP is a vandal only applies to about 80% of IP edits. Epicgenius (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A fair appraisal would say that A.Minkowiski was the one who did not assume good faith with his original revert. And yes, he did make a mistake. Lack of an edit summary has never been a justification for reverting an edit. He needs to apologize. This is quite a big todo about an edit summary that was there, but was obviously misunderstood by A.Minkowiski.71.139.142.249 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@71.139.142.249 See [4], you just put(ha ha) in edit summary, it seems to be joke!. What you have written above suggest that you are not familiar with WP:Talk page guidelines too, But again I assume good faith. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 15:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

In light of the obvious spoof edits I was removing, the meaning of that edit summary is obvious to anyone who understands English.71.139.142.249 (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I assume good faith again and its not a worth dispute to keep on. Have a good day! A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 15:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

European Centre for Information Policy and Security (ECIPS)

I could have let the AFD run, but it's pretty spammy, and I noticed that the deletion was contested by the creator (fair enough) but also by an ISP for whom it was there only edit, which looks a bit fishy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Supergeo and Jhangail

Supergeo is a company, blocked spamusername creator, deleted. The other one is a clan rather than an individual. Although it may be non-notable, the creator can't be blocked for that page because it appears to be part of his name. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thats fine, but did you noticed that user Imranjhangailkhosa who is continuously creating pages as he recently created two more pages like Jhangail and Jhangai on his biography which has gone deleted many times before with different names?. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 18:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

He was also warrned for edit war with different editors in khosa. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 18:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

His recently deleted article with little bit different names are Manzoor khan jhangail khoso(that was nominated by three editors total 4-times) and Wikipedia:Jhangail. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 19:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Another editor has given a final warning, so I think next time he can safely be blocked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Daiszt

I have declined the speedy deletion of articles created by this users, and removed your vandal report. It seems obvious that this user is acting in good faith; he is creating stubs about people who already have articles on Polish Wikipedia. Instead, I have marked the pages for expansion using Polish Wikipedia, asked the user to create one full translation instead of submitting multiple stubs, and suggested moving the articles he had already created into user space as drafts. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That's good and you are right, I was momentarily thinking the same that user should make one full translation instead of creating multiple stubs on different subjects that are being nominated for speedy deletion. Thank you. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 19:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:71.139.142.249

For an IP user, 71.139.142.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems pretty experienced at editing Wikipedia. There is no way that they are new here (they started editing today); they must be a sockpuppet of an established user.

This user is also continuing to display disruptive behavior on their talk page by trying to ban me from their talk page. Maybe a report to an admin noticeboard like WP:ANI should get them warned or blocked.

Thank you for looking into this. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are right. All the IP user editing in Wikipedia are not new. His/her behavior clearly shows everything. I am little bit busy but I have my eye on this user and added to wachlist. I assume good faith again and again but what he/she wrote on his/her talk page about you suggest that this user is making personal attacks nothing else. I am giving him last chance, if this user resume personal attacks and disruptive editing I would directly report at WP:ANI. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 20:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment here, as it seems that the user is apparently reporting me for vandalism. Any comments would be appreciated; I will help keep an eye out for the user as well. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Free super saver delivery alternatives - how to add content

Hi. You deleted the "Free super saver delivery alternatives" page I created yesterday. I thought it had enough context (it talked about Amazon's free super saver delivery system, when it ended and listed the current alternatives in the European market), but apparently more context was needed. I am willing to edit the page and add more information (the whole idea was that other people could contribute as well), but it has been deleted and I cannot pick up where it was left off.

How can one retrieve the previous version and complete it?

--Migueldealmeida (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't delete your page. There were not enough context to in your page identify the subject. You can ask admin to restore that version of paper who deleted your page. But before this, I would suggest you to use sanbox or follow the steps here to create any article and when it gets completed then you should submit draft for review without creating any new article directly. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 14:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Dilip Raju Studios etc

Thanks for that. I've indeffed Users Dilip Raju Studios and TrendyBeatRecords for spamusernames, deleted Ambrose method (contextless OR) and Bhangu Aman (spam, non-notable. If there are sock issues, the indef on TrendyBeatRecords should stop that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 09:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Dimo Nadeem has had references added, but I agree not notable, AFD now. The other three were GF edits as you say, and I often see tags where prod/afd/speedy may have been more appropriate, but I'm reluctant to deter the good guys. I'll have a quiet word Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Essential R. Kelly article I don't think there is much to do except tag, it's clearly notable. I've blocked it's creator and also blocked Enactussrcc and deleted his article and user page. Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 20:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Adminship

The only way you can become an admin is through Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. You need to read the links at the end of the "Nomination standards" sections in particular. Although you are doing good work, I don't think that you will succeed at this time. Your account is too new, and you haven't made enough edits. You will need at least a few months of active editing, including content creation, to have a chance of success. Just keep plugging away and you'll get there Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Mahesh Panjanathan I think prod was correct. ALthough there is a coi, the article isn't spammy, and he may be notable. Another admin has messaged him re autobiographies. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You may find something useful here, worth a look Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks alot, I've read whatever you suggested. There is also written that if other editors, admins are fine with your work and you have an account then you can request for adminship. Jim you are my inspiration, I'll do whatever you suggest me. So what you think, should I request for adminship there ? If it isn't too much trouble, would you please say something about me or about my work to other admins so that they can judge me ? Thanks. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 17:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If you read the detail in those linked articles, you will be expected to have at least three thousand edits, be around for some months, and have created content (writing a WP:GA is a big plus, but not essential. If you go to RFA now, you will fail simply because of your limited experience, however useful your edits so far have been, so I strongly advise you not to go to RFA at the present time. I'll support you when the time is ripe, but you need build up those edits and some content first (and be careful not to WP:Canvass). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, thank you Jim. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 17:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Anon-blocked for another 6 months Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry

Hi A.Minkowiski, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

166.216.165.75

Thanks for barnstar. The ISP has been blocked by another admin, hopefully he/she will realise that there are sanctions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And someone got the others too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: And what do you think about User talk:Diesscamomot who tried to upload image files in the past that were copy-righted and were declined many times. ? Now, user has started creating pages with un-used images redirects, the page has gone deleted. But I am sure user will come in new face again, so about that ? A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 17:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's wait and see Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I deleted them all except one someone got to first Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I deleted one, someone else got the other Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Thanks, but user Surya Datta Sudhakar removed the content from his BIO page Surya Datta Sudhakar , Now it was suitable for deletion CSD#G7 , right ? A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 06:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I spotted that when I got to it, G7-ed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak:, here is one article about band, having no sources. I go through but unable to find reliable sources except official cite and some twitter and self-promotional sources. Worth a look at Good Morning Everyone with creators Rizky ghardoe.A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 06:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC

A7-ed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak:, User Dontmindspending has created the page on performer and artist Susanna Defraia and article is not written in encyclopedic way and contains only spam links(youtube videos) and user didn't provide any independent reliable source. I have tagged it for PROD until and unless user provides reliable independent sources, is it correct for a moment ? A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 07:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Unsocial Amigos

Agreed, deleted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Trot music

My general advice is that if something is a clear copyright violation, tag it as such and someone will get to it. More complicated problems can be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Asking a specific person to look at it is not likely to be efficient. That said, in the specific case of Trot music, the source of claimed copyright infringement claims to have copied the material from Wikipedia, so it doesn't appear to be any kind of copyright infringement anyhow. WilyD 09:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No doubt, but according to Wikipedia policy about copyrights, if word by word content is being copied from any external site then it may create problem, Am I right? A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 10:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia article is copied from another site (or a book, or whereever), that would be a problem. But if the Wikipedia article is being copied to another site, that's fine (as long as they comply with the licence(s). WilyD 11:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And there are no sources mentioned there to back up the importance of topic. Would it be better to tag it for independent sources ? A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 10:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A quick search reveals the best thing to do is redirect it to Trot (music). WilyD 11:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah ! That's also fine. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 12:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Rosamund Lupton

Hi,

Would you let me write something, instead of slapping a deletion tag a minute after I started the page? This is very bad. Yann (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You must be well aware about using creating an article or use Sandbox before creating any new article, when it become final, let it go to review then. Once tag has been placed, please do not remove it yourself. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 18:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Request

OK, what is it? (Or was it, if another admin has fulfilled it). Daniel Case (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No, actually I'm looking for an experienced admin (as you) to help me out for nomination of adminship. As I'm fighting against vandalism and monitoring recent changes, and other stuff. My main focus in WP is fighting against vandalism and I though if some one nominate me for admin ship, I will perform my same job as I'm doing right now. If I could have admin rights, It would be better for me to fight against vandals. No doubt my account is new, but I was an IP editor first. You can look at my work A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 14:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that the message you posted on my talk page was for the same reason, I'd say that the first thing you need to do is thoroughly read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Hope this helps,  —SMALLJIM  14:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes dear Smalljim I've read it. But I'm searching for an admin who can nominate me. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 14:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, I now see that you have asked about this before. Well, as it says in that guide there is a wide variety of opinions on nominations for adminship, and my view, for what it's worth, is that it's better to wait until you are asked, actually. Remember that the work you're doing here is greatly appreciated anyway. Good luck!  —SMALLJIM  14:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a million :) A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 14:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Daniel Case:@Smalljim: A.Minkowiski seems to have have posted on the talk page of just about every admin there is, begging for a nomination. There's also a discussion about it on JamesBWatsons's talk page, where he has been given some advice... Thomas.W ^talk 21:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

You proposed deletion of HTTPA, with the rationale that "It may leads to original research of some one" to which I have to say "Huh???" What does that rationale mean? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: I have reverted the prod, because the rationale didn't seem to make sense. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Its about new protocol which haven't still implemented. I did search before PROD, and I found the same result as I mentioned in the PROD tag. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 14:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

and its purely original research ( may of creator or some one else as it itself says HTTPA (HTTP with Accountability) is a new protocol being developed by researches to thwart misuse of the personal data of users ). A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 14:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A quick search shows that the best thing is to redirect it to HTTP Secure. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 14:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm having trouble understanding some of your statements; your English is somewhat broken. You claim that the article is "purely original research" but it is based on three separate reliable sources. Original research refers to users at Wikipedia creating articles based on their own knowledge that has not been previously published elsewhere; that is not the case with this article. True, the protocol itself is new, and based on original research, but that research is being published and vetted by external sources and is thus valid to use as a source here at Wikipedia. Any internet protocol endorsed by Tim Berners-Lee (the inventor of the World Wide Web) should be given serious consideration. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I being an engineer know about HTTPA protocol and yes it is adopted worlp wide in first version(HTTP), but day by day protocols are being changed. In this article, creator actually tried to add the new research about HTTPA protocol which is still uncompleted. It was good to redirect it to HTTPS(related version), but if you have reverted again and not getting my point, I won't to argue any more. But your opinions are always appreciable...Happy editing :)A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 12:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Just because the protocol has not yet been implemented does not mean it does not merit coverage. The fact that three independent reliable sources have written about this development effort is sufficient evidence that the protocol merits inclusion. See WP:GNG. And if you believe that the proposed HTTPA is related to the existing HTTPS, you have not read the material on the new protocol carefully enough. Whereas HTTPS is all about cloaking information in layers of encryption, HTTPA is all about exposing information with the goal of giving the end user knowledge of what information is being made available. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

How will you judge coverage if something is not implemented yet ? (in imagination?). There are certain situations about new creation or development. If something has not been utilized and implemented world wide, we can't judge whether this will work properly or not. Publishing something is not a big deal, anything can be published. I think it would be better if this article comes after once it is implemented. This is the best that I can say about it. Thank you A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 13:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The point is not whether it will work or not. The point is that it is a development effort that is being covered by significant sources. Not every technical covered at Wikipedia has to be a successful implementation. Significant developments and significant failures are also of interest. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The inclusion criteria for ANY topic, even if complete fictions, is coverage in reliable sources. IE: Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Big Foot, anti-gravity, lead into gold, fountain of youth, immortality, Angels, et al. We do not care if something is truth or fact, only that it be discussed in sources outside these pages. It is unsourced speculation and extrapolation by Wikipedia editors that is not allowed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dusari Goshta

Since you nominated the new article, it has been expanded and well sourced. I do not know how you were unable to find sources, as it was easy to do, but I ask that you might now reconsider your deletion nomination. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I know there were news about this film in Times of India news paper. Every film and every actor gets interview after film, that doesn't mean that every new film is notable I guess. This film didn't get success in "Box office" that actually shows whether the film has gone successfull are not after release. But if you think, the present sources are enough to show notability, I'll surely go and ask admin to close AfD. Thank you A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 04:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Please refer to WP:NTEMP. We do not require that any film remain in the news after release, just solong as cumulative coverage mets WP:GNG. Note: as a new film it received coverage before production, during production, and after release.... and may well have continued coverage, but addition coverage is not the issue, as WP:NF is met. And please keeping mind that film notability is not dependent upon commercial success or lack, but rather upon coverage. If you return to the AFD, do a <s>strikethrough<s/> OF your nom statement and add a simple "nomination withdrawn per improvements made, no one will question it. There is never dishonor in granting that concerns have been addressed. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination Withdrawn. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 06:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks... and a friendly hint from an administrator and coordinator of project film: it is rare that a biopic narrative, specially one recently released, will make any sort of showing in sites determining box-office receipts. Study WP:NF#General principles. Box office success may lead to coverage, but the determinant for film notability IS coverage, no matter the box office. The essay at WP:INDAFD offers some great search tools for Indian films that perform better than Google of Bing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

VSF

Heya,

VSF - Viscose staple fibre/ fiber is a generic term used and not a term used specifically by Aditya Birla Group. It is using of viscose in the manufacturing of staple fibre/ fiber. See below wiki link for the individual components. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staple_fiber

There are a lot of other properties which I am still working on to include in the VSF post but i was surprised to find it deleted.

I have posted below some of the references (from different sources) to substantiate my claim above.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Viscose+Fibers http://www.sateri.com/module/12/4/en/viscose-staple-fiber http://www.viscoserayonindia.com/T_mfg.asp

Please let me know of your thoughts and if you can agree with me that this should not be marked as advertisement and deleted. Thanks

Cheers Vee Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vee Singh (talk • contribs) 09:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Stars

Hi: per your message on my talk page, I generally don't award upon request, but I may surprise you with one someday! Cheers, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That's even better, I like surprise too :) A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 13:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Probably a bit less meaninful if you ask for it... but since you seem to have acquired Rollback and done some helpful work since I saw you last, have a congratulatory barnstar anyway! Yunshui 雲水 13:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York City derbies

Thank you for the input. The articles I was referring to are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_River_derby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_derbies

The requested pages are not notable as there are no sources listed that refer to these matches by these names, and in most cases, matches between the teams listed have yet to be played. I nominated these articles because I felt they fell under the "not suitable for an encyclopedia" requirement. Adiamas (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Broadband

Thanks to BT, all seems to be good at present... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

re Basha jamel, I'm reluctant to indef for sock puppetry, since the original account hasn't been blocked, so he's not evading a block. The socking is so obvious that it can hardly be seen as trying to subvert the process. I've blocked both accounts for a couple of weeks. If he creates a sock to evade the block, I'll indef, if he keeps spamming after the block expires, the next one will be longer, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Thanks Jim, I'll keep my eye on this user. Because it is my dream to build up Wikipedia and fight against vandals as long as I'm alive. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 14:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

hi there, we've received your talk about my article on Fabio Mariani. we've taken the article from our website www.ledame.co.uk that we have written. Writing the same article taken from our website should this be considered a copyright violation? if so, What could i do?

Thanks in advance,

Le Dame Ledame (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Please do not delete this page. I did a lot of research and I put a lot of effort into this page. I have gotten permission from Vianca herself to create this page.

Replies

The merlin edit is fine. I've moved the ref to after the punctuation, per MoS, and also removed the copyright symbol. Audubon is out of copyright, and even if it wasn't, it's not for us to repeat any site's copyright claim. I've gently warned the football editor, and another admin has advised her to do one at a time properly, so let's see Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		keep up the good work Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Jenita Janet

added my opinion to the AfD. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. :) A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 08:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: The user Megakewl03082002 keeps on creating copyvio page like Emerito "Emer" Legaspi and adding talk page messages to article page like here, reverting others edit etc. Please do have a look. Thank you A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 08:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Plus reported user at AIV. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 09:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

His contributions lead to a bunch of largely unsourced promotional articles about similar sportsmen. I've tagged a couple for SD Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty good. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 09:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Teamwork barnstar

		Teamwork barnstar
		I am honored to present you with this Teamwork barnstar for your willingness to assist others in improving articles and for your showing a willingness to learn and better understand the sometimes confusing set of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Collaborative editing and patience are the surest ways to keep editors and to make Wikipedia a better place... and you have done both. Thank you, Schmidt, Michael Q. 16:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks a lot for Barnstar. :-) A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 16:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No personal attack has been made, admin is out of line and has continuously promoted malware

The promotion of malware on Wikipedia is not allowed. It puts millions of users at risk. There have been no such attacks made to any admin. I have only let them know of their dangerous faults that can be catastrophic. Furthermore you have harassed me on my account (BloodyCrip). Wikipedia is an open community, you should not "side" with someone who promotes malware simply because they have been a member of the site longer.

If this admin does not understand their dangerous acts, they should not be allowed near any cyber-security based content on Wikipedia.

"Stop making personal attaks[edit] Please stop making personal attacks to an admin's talk page as you did here which is against talk page guidelines. Please avoid using such irrelevant wordings otherwise you will be blocked. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 08:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)"

- This seems like an attack on me. There have been no irrelevant words used whatsoever. I must ask you to please stop harassing me. I am only doing good. I am cleaning up malicious links that admins on this website seem to not understand. If you can not see that I will find means to let the website know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.0.110 (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Patta in India is a Revenue record, hence it will help many people in knowing and getting the result

• Patta in Property, an important Property Document in revenue department for checking the Ownership. Get it oline from www.estatebusinesstoday.com/patta/

Patta in India is a Revenue record, hence it will help many people in knowing and getting the result — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoestatebusinesstoday (talk • contribs) 07:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: User Smoestatebusinesstoday

Re your message: With "SMO" in their user name, it was pretty clear that they were here to spam. I have a pretty low tolerance for any account with SEO, SMO, or other related abbreviations in it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: I was little bit worried about this SMO. You are a genius sir :-) A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 08:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Genius, I don't know about that. Just been around a long time. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

And I always try to be active almost 18-20 Hours a day and fighting against vandalism. :) A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 08:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

18-20 hours a day? Just be careful you don't burn out. It's easy to do here and a bad thing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

RFA

I'm happy to nominate you, but before I do so, I'd like you to make sure that you have read Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list, Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. If you have done so, and you are happy with what they say, I'll nominate you. Incidentally, Gogo Dodo's last comment above is good advice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing

Excuse me, are you available for copy-editing? URDNEXT (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of ISO pages on important standards

Dear A. Minkowiski, I have created Wikipedia pages for the sub committees of ISO TC 37. These are important committees that create standards in the area of terminology and languages. All the standards created by these sub committee are published through ISO. Many individuals, organizations and governments use these standards. The pages are factual and are not promoting any commercial concern. There is no copyright infringements on these pages. I would ask that you remove your suggestion to delete them. Peter Reynolds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterrey (talk • contribs) 18:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC) The articles I have published are on sub committees of an ISO technical committee which creates publically used and available standards. This is not promotional and contains factual information only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterrey (talk • contribs) 18:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments on ISO sub committee pages

Dear A. Minkowiski, Your comments about my articles being copyrighted and then being promotional are wrong. Using this approach you would delete any page on any standard or any standard creation body. There is no copyright infringement because it mentions titles of standards being worked on by the committees or published by the committee. These are not promotional because it states factual information about the sub committees. How do I contest this? Is the real problem because I am a new contributor? Peterrey (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)peterrey (Peter Reynolds)