User talk:T Cells
| This is T Cells's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
1. I didn't delete your article, and I can't restore it. Administrators do those things. Complain to them if you must.
2. If you ask me politely why your page was deleted, you might get a personal answer. Otherwise, I'm just going to point you to the same policies you've already been pointed to.
3. If you are the type who move around talk pages to give undue advices to editors, stay far from my talk page until you have a core understanding of the basic Wikipedia's policy.
4. Don't even think of coming here to WP:Canvass me, I might raise a concern against you at WP:ANI
6.Sign and date your post with four tildes, as so: ~~~~
| Index no archives yet (create) |
|
|
Regarding Autopatrolled right
Two days earlier, I had requested the Autopatrolled right and yesterday you had declined my request. I hope you have understood what I'm talking about. You said that my first article was deleted, I know it. The day when I had joined Wikipedia, I had no knowledge about Wikipedia. Before I had continued editing Wikipedia in March 2015, I had gained much knowledge about Wikipedia in February 2015, and continued editing in March 2015. You also said that a bulk of my created articles contain copyvios. OK, I'll take some of my time and remove all the possible copyvios within 3-4 days. My question to you is, what should I do to take the Autopatrolled right and when I would request the Autopatrolled right again? Regards, KunalForYou📝☎️ 04:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wait for a minimum of six months. Thereafter, If your edit history demonstrate a good understanding of the core wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you may consider to reapply. You are just too anxious to have rights on Wikipedia. Why do you think you need the Autopatrolled user right? Any reason for your eagerness?. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 05:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I will feel pleasure in reviewing the articles and if any article would meet Wikipedia's deletion policy, I would flag the deletion tag in that article. Regards, KunalForYou📝☎️ 06:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand the autopatrolled right, Kunalforyou. It is the right to post new articles that you have written without review by new page patrollers. You need to have an established track record of creating new articles with zero copyright violations, in compliance with policies and guidelines. This is essential. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Cullen, I feel they still don't even know what the tool is all about. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand the autopatrolled right, Kunalforyou. It is the right to post new articles that you have written without review by new page patrollers. You need to have an established track record of creating new articles with zero copyright violations, in compliance with policies and guidelines. This is essential. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I will feel pleasure in reviewing the articles and if any article would meet Wikipedia's deletion policy, I would flag the deletion tag in that article. Regards, KunalForYou📝☎️ 06:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Page Speedy Deletion
Hi, I had created an article on Goel TMT which is one of the famous and leading brand in our State Chhattisgarh. But page has been marked for speedy deletion due to copyright issue. can you help me regarding that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goel_TMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadeep (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Until you make 50 constructive edits to different articles. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot!
I really appreciate, I'm very happy to contribute significantly to a better Wikipedia. BangVng (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- You are welcome! I just reviewed some of your recent edits and they seemed very good. Always use the four tides to sign your comments on talk pages. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 17:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thanks BangVng (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC) |
Why doesn't G12 apply - and, if it doesn't, then shouldn't you fix the obvious copyvio problem? JohnInDC (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- @JohnInDC: The article is not eligible for G12. The criterion only applies to articles with blatant copyvio. In lieu of this, I declined your request. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 12:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- The text supplied by the editor was an extremely close paraphrase of the church's own website, and plainly violated Wikipedia's standards about the use of copyrighted material. You may disagree with me about the precision required of G12 deletion requests, but to remove the template and then do nothing about the plainly problematic text completely fails to address the problem - and isn't even consistent with the guidelines for G12 cases that aren't speedy delete candidates. WP:G12. Finally, don't template me. I've been around a good long while - indeed quite a bit longer than you - and it's insulting. JohnInDC (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry about the template, I'm probably not familiar with you and your understanding of the basic policies and guidelines and I don't consider the template rude. More importantly, I only tried to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template. Having said that, I have no idea of why you claimed that I never address the issue despite my approach to the problem. I actually flagged the problem with {{Close paraphrasing}} and that's one of the ways of addressing copyright problem. Do you think deletion is the only way of addressing copyright violations? See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Addressing copyright problems. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 14:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the apology. (I am calmer now!) As for the proper fix: The paraphrasing was very close. Several phrases were lifted directly, and the balance of the text was only tweaked. It was problematic and should not have been left to stand as it was. My solution, with which you disagreed, had the virtue of offering an immediate fix. When you ended that process, in my view you assigned the problem to yourself, and a "close paraphrase" tag isn't enough. It's not like the author is going to fix it, or fix it well (having created five or six articles, one right after the other, all pretty much with the same problems). Copyright isn't like a missing source or a poorly-formed reference, which can be fixed later by someone who is in a better position to do it. Copyright issues - in my view - need to be fixed or at least improved immediately. It is not, was not, hard to go in and, without referring to the original text, push things around so that the paraphrasing was eliminated. So, no, deletion isn't the only fix. But a tag isn't really any fix at all. JohnInDC (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please focus on other things that will benefit Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Addressing copyright issues is one of the most important ways in which responsible Wikipedia editors can spend time. You should re-read WP:Copyright violations, where boxes featured at very the top of the page state, one, "This page documents a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations" (!) and two, "This page in a nutshell: Do not add content to Wikipedia if you think that doing so may be a copyright violation. Contributors should take steps to remove any copyright violations that they find." Failing that then you should stay out of the way when other editors try to accomplish the things you are unwilling to do yourself. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please focus on other things that will benefit Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the apology. (I am calmer now!) As for the proper fix: The paraphrasing was very close. Several phrases were lifted directly, and the balance of the text was only tweaked. It was problematic and should not have been left to stand as it was. My solution, with which you disagreed, had the virtue of offering an immediate fix. When you ended that process, in my view you assigned the problem to yourself, and a "close paraphrase" tag isn't enough. It's not like the author is going to fix it, or fix it well (having created five or six articles, one right after the other, all pretty much with the same problems). Copyright isn't like a missing source or a poorly-formed reference, which can be fixed later by someone who is in a better position to do it. Copyright issues - in my view - need to be fixed or at least improved immediately. It is not, was not, hard to go in and, without referring to the original text, push things around so that the paraphrasing was eliminated. So, no, deletion isn't the only fix. But a tag isn't really any fix at all. JohnInDC (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry about the template, I'm probably not familiar with you and your understanding of the basic policies and guidelines and I don't consider the template rude. More importantly, I only tried to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template. Having said that, I have no idea of why you claimed that I never address the issue despite my approach to the problem. I actually flagged the problem with {{Close paraphrasing}} and that's one of the ways of addressing copyright problem. Do you think deletion is the only way of addressing copyright violations? See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Addressing copyright problems. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 14:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- The text supplied by the editor was an extremely close paraphrase of the church's own website, and plainly violated Wikipedia's standards about the use of copyrighted material. You may disagree with me about the precision required of G12 deletion requests, but to remove the template and then do nothing about the plainly problematic text completely fails to address the problem - and isn't even consistent with the guidelines for G12 cases that aren't speedy delete candidates. WP:G12. Finally, don't template me. I've been around a good long while - indeed quite a bit longer than you - and it's insulting. JohnInDC (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)