User talk:Falcon Kirtaran

Archival

The previous contents of this page have been archived.

Dallas Taylor (vocalist)

You sent me a message, and said to leave you a message on this page, but i do not see a section for it, i had made a change to Dallas Taylors (vocalist) page concerning his marriage, the statement on there now, saying his marriage ended because, he was sleeping with other women, is absolutely false, im his best friend, he is recovery from a horrible atv accident(which is written on his page) and he saw this written on his page, it is very harmful, and very untrue, please change it, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.103.204 (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to remove unsourced disparaging concent from biographies of living persons - see WP:BLP. I only reverted your edit because it added unsourced content and looked suspicious due to the lack of an edit summary. Please also be familiar with our conflict of interest policy when editing pages concerning people you are closely connected to. For now, I've removed the offending paragraph. FalconK (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, someone else removed it while I was typing this. Stet, I suppose. FalconK (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the Auth0 page should be deleted?

I gave my rationale on its AfD discussion page. FalconK (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFD vs. CSD

See this. Thanks. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. It might be a little hasty, but I did look for sources for a moment. FalconK (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to improve the article as best I could, but when AFD snowballs to deletion then the AFD was a good idea. It will be less likely the article will be recreated without the proper sources in the future. I've CSD'd the redirect citing the AFD's closure. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert Ban Ki-moon?

I showed references! 211.36.139.46 (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you have cited are opinion pieces, and the statement that he is the worst secretary-general of the UN is not a factual one. I'm not going to toll WP:3RR over this, but please undo your edit. FalconK (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am just proveing a point to a friend. -Buzz

Removal of Mauritius Case

Hi

This is a close family friend of Mr. Eduardo Gil talking. I need to remove the article the case about Mr. Gil's involving fraud case in Mauritius as this was completely irrelevant information. He won the fraud case and I have a proof to show you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanAbrenica (talk • contribs) 11:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, why don't you change it to say that he was charged and then won the case, and cite a source? FalconK (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo Offensive 2016

I have clearly explained, pretty adequately, why I removed the subject. in case you missed it: "(Only western point of view included, I am keeping this section away from the article until Russian and/or Syrian rebuttals are included as well. Only can that be considered neutral, as per Wiki's policy, by having all points of view being included.)"

Your restoration of this portion is a disgrace to neutrality, not only did you restore it without understanding the intentions behind the removal, you probably do not even know the history behind this removal. Ekograf have been submitting biased, baseless accusations towards Russia and Syria from western sources without submitting the relevant rebuttals from Russian and/or Syrian sources. I have already warned him that it wasn't neutral if only one point of view was included, he not only restored the post, but added more biased and baseless accusations despite the warning. he also have the cheek to mention, I quote: (ALL points of view need to be presented by all parties per WP's policy on neutrality.), despite only submitting ONE point of view. He is clearly not interested in neutrality at all and you should be ashamed of yourself for not investigating further before trying to lecture me.

I WILL remove that section until he adds ALL points of view.

42.61.144.223 (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it looked like the removal of sourced content. Those doing the accusing may be biased, but information that accusing was done isn't. Why don't you add the opposing points of view yourself, with appropriate citations? FalconK (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I be the one adding it when the rebuttals by Russia are in those very articles? It's obvious that EkoGraf have no intention of being neutral and by removing his content is the only way to force him to carry out the very neutrality he has the cheek to stuff into my face. 42.61.144.223 (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Because it would be the most productive way to resolve the conflict. All you need to do is write a couple lines taken from facts in reliable sources about what others have said. This would be a billion times faster than trying to force User:EkoGraf to do it by removing content, and wouldn't draw ire from RC patrollers. FalconK (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - First, I am not biased against Russia and Syria as you accuse me off. If anything, I am for Russia and Syria since they are fighting the jihadists that my own father died fighting in Bosnia. So I find your accusation a bit offensive. However, I know how to keep a neutral stance in editing Wikipedia, without letting my emotions dictate what I write here. Second, per WP policy, all of the cited sources are reliable media outlets. And per WP policy we are obligated to write what they report on. The section is called reactions, and we wrote the reactions of the US, France and UK. As Falcon Kirtaran says, you can feel free to insert Syria's and Russia's denials of the accusations. I myself don't have time to do everything because I'm following and updating a dozen articles on Wikipedia. However, I should warn you that removing properly sourced information along with its sources in the way that you did is non-neutral point of view pushing which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, you should stick to Wikipedia's policy on Civility and Assuming good faith from your fellow editors. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of Mauritius Case

I'm working out about the issues regarding with Mr. Gil. I personally knew Mr. Eddie Gil but I want to know where your information came from that Mr. Gil did the wrong doings and against the law. We will file a case against you if you're going to put the article again. So please don't put an information regarding him if you don't know him personally — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanAbrenica (talk • contribs) 12:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me your quarrel is with! However, Wikipedia does have a policy about editing while making legal threats at WP:NLT. FalconK (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in Malaysia

Hi, just wanted to let you know that you reverted this edit in Religion in Malaysia, but the editor was onto something -- they were noting that the previous edits were vandalism. I've undone the vandalism and let the editor know that they were on the right track, but they were just tackling the problem in the wrong way. Just thought I'd let you know in case something like it comes up in the future. :) Thanks, Somno (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CMU SV

CMU SV does not have the post of director any more. Please refer here. You won't find Martin Griss since he has resigned. Also, the Provost is same as that for CMU (refer here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.152.214 (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I've restored it for you, and added a citation. FalconK (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

?

Can you give me the space and time to work on this article ! its my first article on Wikipedia and i'm aiming to make a positive addition. so appreciate your comments and recommendations. Alfarhat (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must not remove Articles for Deletion templates from articles until the discussion on them is closed. I recommend you go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mazen_Khaddaj to discuss the article there instead. FalconK (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Energy policy of China (section)

Hi there, I hope you are well! The information that I removed is 9 years old and the quote that China is building 562 coal power plants and at a rate of 2 per week is very very out of date. This was precipitated thought a conversation on reddit. It is a fact that China and the US lead the world with investment in renewable energy http://www.techinsider.io/top-renewable-energy-investments-by-country-2016-3/#2-united-states-441-billion-9.

It is hard to demonstrate how many they may still be building per week, but the rate is not out pacing the coal power plants that they are closing. I have provided some links that demonstrate that emissions have peaked in China and that coal power has begun to decrease. http://www.energypost.eu/chinas-electricity-mix-changing-fast-co2-emissions-may-peaked/ And under the problems section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.56.40 (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK! As long as you cite something, feel free to write it like it is! FalconK (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Hey! thank so much. I think removing the section works well and the accurate info is started below on the topic of coal production. I just noticed that the parts I deleted were in the context of building power plants and not coal production/mining which is what the section is discussing, so that kind of puts another tick why it should be removed. Anywho! Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.56.40 (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @24.108.56.40: Yeah, looking at it more, I definitely agree with you. I've gone ahead and restored your version (with the outdated ephemeral information removed). Just FYI, if you leave an edit summary explaining what you're doing, it's a lot less likely that anyone will think it's just indiscriminate removal of content. FalconK (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

on the moses in islam page

I did explain why i removed the content it is from literature anfd folklore which may or may not be correct therefore i removed that information.Information from reliable sources should be included if i am wrong prove me wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.159.185.7 (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of tools for Denial-of-service attacks (October 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by NewYorkActuary was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of tools for Denial-of-service attacks and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Falcon Kirtaran, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Buffer overflow

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Buffer overflow you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maury Markowitz -- Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rendering places of birth or death where the political geography has changed.

It has been my understanding that a person's birthplace is rendered in their Bio Box according to political geography of the time. For instance, George Washington's birthplace is listed as "Bridges Creek, Westmoreland County, Virginia, British America," noting British America and not the modern U. S. The edit in question regards the page of Comanche chief Quanah Parker, who was born in the present-day state of Oklahoma, albeit when the region was known as Indian Territory. A fellow editor has alleged that these birthplace notations are "for modern readers to locate," though most examples I have seen do not reflect this. A closer example would be Chief Sitting Bull, whose page denotes his birthplace as Dakota Territory rather than any modern state in the American union. In the interest of avoiding needless editing conflict, what is the correct policy on this? Sethzel (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I was involved in that article at all, it was only to revert vandalism. However, I refer you to Template:Infobox person for the documentation if not necessarily the consensus: for both places of birth and of death, the name of the place at the time of the vital event is the one that should be used. FalconK (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- No, this did not involve you; you were my introductory greeter to Wikipedia, so I defaulted to you for the proper guidelines. The other user in question has continued to alter the birthplace with emphatic insistence they are in the right. I do not think it is intentional newcomer biting, however. Sethzel (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aah, welcome again! Hopefully this helped. FalconK (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great work! Shilpacs (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]