User talk:WikiEditCrunch

WikiEditCrunch is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, WikiEditCrunch, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to Steve Wozniak seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{Help me}} on your talk page here, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! bojo1498 talk 15:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.I must have messed something up with the Wozniak edit. Anyway.Thanks for the welcome Bojo14998!

WikiEditCrunch (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC[reply]

TNO list article FYI

I just created List of Trans-Neptunian Objects and charged the Astronomy people to add refs and more content. Astronomy is not my area. Thanks for patrolling it. - Denimadept (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC[reply]

Uh oh. Looks like there's already a List of trans-Neptunian objects article. gah. - Denimadept (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.I just checked and it was put up for deletion. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC[reply]

Yeah, I did that. Someone suggested making it a redirect to the existing article, so I did that. - Denimadept (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2011-12 National League 2 North

Thanks for the positive review. All the best. (Jgjsmith006) 19:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.WikiEditCrunch (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC[reply]

Serneholt

If you want to, please help by improving this weeks TAFI article Marie Serneholt. Any help is appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ill see what I can doWikiEditCrunch (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC[reply]

Samsung Galaxy J7

naveencm: what is the problems of the article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveencm (talk • contribs) 22:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing your article.It doesnt curently have a problem.WikiEditCrunch (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC[reply]

Declined speedy deletion nominations

I have had cause to decline your nominations of Main Rooh-he and The Spit (South Shetland Islands) because both fell outside the A7 criteria. Speedy deletion criteria are strictly applied. Before making further nominations please familiarise yourself with WP:A7. Thanks. Just Chilling (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok WikiEditCrunch (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC[reply]

Garry Ringrose

Hi. I have removed the RefImprove template that you added to this article because I do not think it conforms with the template's usage guidance. I accept that this is a stub article, but the references are all reliable and support all the information in the article. Let me know if you think I have missed something, and I will happily try to fix it. Best wishes, Lions of Inquiry (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OkWikiEditCrunch (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC[reply]

Advice

You seem to have marked Udmurt cuisine for proposed deletion as an uncited BLP. Obviously this is not a BLP, so I suppose you accidentally selected the wrong template. Butyou;re supposed to give a reason for prods.

In general, too many of you deletion nominations are being rejected. It's very important not to mark fixable articles for deleion,a nd especially not to mark them via the wrong reasons--it discourages and confuses the beginners. Please pause in making further deletion nominations until you have carefully read (or re-read) all of WP:Deletion policy and WP:CSD. Even when not marking for deletion, it's also important to tag correctly: you tagged [[]] as "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification.". But it is an article about a musical group, and that tag is not the appropriate one, especially as you had already added a tag saying it needed additional references. I have additionally tagged for either speedy deletion or afd a number of article you have reviewed without noticing the problems.

Perhaps you should get some more experience actually writing articles before you review the work of others. DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rawtekk CSD declined

Hello,

Just to let you know, I removed the CSD tag from Rawtekk because I feel that it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion under A7. The article contains two arguable claims of significance. I'm not at all sure it would survive an AfD in its present state, but I think it might have a chance if it can be further sourced, as seems likely.

Thparkth (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC[reply]

November 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from John Hughes (filmmaker). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.WikiEditCrunch (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Kind Regards WEC[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Diary of a Kid (series), WikiEditCrunch.

Unfortunately MrX has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

The article should not have been marked as reviewed. It has no sources, no evidence of notability, and violates WP:CRYSTAL.

To reply, leave a comment on MrX's talk page.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, WikiEditCrunch. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy

Hello, and thanks for your interest in speedy deletion. I declined your nomination of Ketaki Dutta because the article did not meet any of the very narrow criteria for speedy deletion, including A7. There are other options available, but in this case, it seems obvious to me that the subject is in fact notable.

Regards, decltype (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content (Joywave album)

The AFD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Content (Joywave album) was not "withdrawn". --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD nomination has been withdrawn.Look again. Cheers WikiEditCrunch (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Maybe closed as keep, but I think only I can withdraw that nomination. Others can close as keep, or even snow keep, which is not needed after one week. If so, which comment says that it was withdrawn? Also, "If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping}}), so I will be notified." --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677:The result was clearly keep and it has been more than 7 days so the discussion has been closed. Cheers WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you amend your close, and WP:STRIKE the "nomination withdrawn" part? For accurate record-keeping's sake? Obviously closing it as "Keep" is the only logical close possible given that discussion, but the nomination fundamentally was not "withdrawn". A separate editor requested it be withdrawn, sure, but that request wasn't honored. Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73:Alright. Cheers WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I hadn't looked at the entire discussion until just now, but looking at it, you're not supposed to close AFDs that you participated in. You need to do either one or the other, not both. You may want to think about undoing the close altogether, or you'll likely catch some heat for this. (And even if you don't, for future's reference, you'd be in a world of trouble if you had done this on an AFD that was a closer call with split opinions. Definitely don't do that.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC )

@Sergecross73:I actually just summed up the discussion, not take part in it.But to be sure I removed my comment in the discussion. Cheers WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Festivals

The actual cleanup after a blocked user's festivalisation of wikipedia - is a long drawn out sporadic irregular activity - hence my reverting - the actual talk page may not be actually very active - but the slow cleanup is a sign there is something happening. - cheers JarrahTree 10:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: Alright thanks for correcting that. Cheers WikiEditCrunch (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Ocean (Mike Perry song)

The German airplay charts that were on Wikipedia were mainly added by one editor, and most were reverted by other music editors for being of questionable relevance (hence my edit summary on that particular page) because of its status as a component chart. However, my main concern was that the airplay chart is not the official one of Germany and appears to be a random company Hung Medien (who runs the -charts.com series of sites) has chosen to republish data from (MusicTrace, which has a series of sites that look like blogs from the early 2000s). It's not the official chart of Germany, as it's not published by GfK Entertainment Charts, who publishes the current official series of charts. The chart seems to have had a huge turnover of number-one songs and I think most editors find this addition of random airplay data is meaningless. Ss112 12:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright sure.Thanks for explaning that.

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removing ref improv templates & adding non-RS by User:WikiEditCrunch

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ojorojo (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About AN/I report

I have reverted the warning message you have placed on the editor that raised the objection, because I did not think the warning was appropriate. Looking through your contributions, I am sure you know what a reliable source is. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so if you cannot find a reliable source for a claim (like in here), don't add the information. And I find this addition troubling: Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable (from WP:UGC). And the fact that you justify adding a claim based on such source is possibly an example of original research, which you should know by now is not permitted. Regards, Alex Shih ^Talk 01:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: Alright.

To clarify:The ref templates removed where mostly more than a year or two old if im right.I looked through the articles to see if there were enough sources.I dont think this is necessary.Ojorojo has not contributed to any of the articles except The Ocean (reverting my edits and making small changes).It seems that they have been followning my contributions and it almost seems like stalking in a way.

(I have now made a recent edit to add reliable sources (non user-generated for example). Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. Here's the issue: the {{refimprove}} was added on 4 July 2017, and you removed the template three times afterwards. It almost appears as if you are dismissing an valid objection as non-issue, and the way I understand this was the source of frustration. But I do think there were some misunderstanding, and I will take a look at the new additions and speak with the other editor also. Regards, Alex Shih ^Talk 14:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thank you.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask you to kindly refrain from editing The Ocean (Led Zeppelin song) for a while so that we can find a consensus between you and the other editor. In the meanwhile, please do not remove {{refimprove}} since it has been contested; instead, wait for third opinion. Thanks, Alex Shih ^Talk 15:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And also, why are you adding bare URL citations when you seem to know the proper citation format? Alex Shih ^Talk 15:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I forgot to add it.My bad.But I wont be making any edits to the article as you asked me to.No problem.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will work on the article and try to find consensus with Ojorojo. I don't think the editor means anything personally, and valid points have been raised. Regards, Alex Shih ^Talk 15:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates

This isn't a huge big deal; however, you made a change to the lead at Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates that was correct American grammar to correct British grammar, and changes from American to British or from one form of English to another is covered by our Manual of Style guideline, specifically MOS:RETAIN. Should also note that your change was also to incorrect American English grammar, because in American English, "group" is singular and requires the singular verb phrase "has formed". Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 23:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll join your new project

...but I don't a thing about investments. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Barbara (WVS): Thats alright I guess haha. here is the userbox by the way.Welcome! {{User investment}} WikiEditCrunch (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Nakon 19:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Investment

Thanks for the invite but I'm busy enough with real life / what I do here - good luck with it all though! Giant Snowman 20:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Thanks!

Cheers mate. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War nominations

WikiEditCrunch, you nominated this article to be a GA earlier this month; it was given a speedy fail on August 21, and you opened a reassessment on August 23 but didn't fill in the reassessment form. I thought I'd let you know about the various processes involved, and why things happened the way they did.

First, according to the GA nomination instructions, if you haven't made any significant contributions to the article, before you nominate it for GA status, you are supposed to check with the major contributors to see whether they think it's ready for nomination before nominating. Generally, that involves a post on the article's talk page asking for their thoughts, with at least seven days allowed for responses to be made. You didn't do that, which was alluded to in the GA review.

Second, while the article has a large number of inline sources, there are a significant number of paragraphs, sometimes more than one in a row, that are unsourced; many of these contain information that absolutely requires sourcing, starting in the "Ousting and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm" section and continuing through the rest of the article; this is also true for the ends of paragraphs, where potentially controversial statements of fact are made and need to be backed up. (The "Final North Vietnamese offensive" subsection is completely unsourced, and the following "Fall of Saigon" section has a single source in four paragraphs.)

There are other issues as well: for example, the lead section (MOS:LEAD is part of the first of the GA criteria) is six paragraphs; the maximum is should be four.

Because it is so clear that the article does not, at the present time, meet the GA criteria, a reassessment (which would take at least a month and probably longer) does not make sense. The article still requires significant work to add appropriate source citations before it stands a chance of passage. I'll be nominating the not-yet-filled-out reassessment page for a speedy deletion, and removing the request for a reassessment from the article talk page. The best thing to do if you would like this to become a GA is to improve the article sourcing and only then renominate it. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)#[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Alright.Thank you!

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing edits by conflicted editors

Please don't simply implement edits by conflicted edits with reviewing them. This is, in general, a serious thing - conflicted editors often come here to have promotional content added and negative information removed, and if those edits are implemented as requested, the integrity of Wikipedia is harmed. Sometimes they are fine, of course. Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:Yeah I checked it out mate.Its alright.Also the section is outdated.Logically it should be updated.So either you update the section or the edit request should be "implemented". Cheers WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the article is accurate is a separate issue. Please be aware that if you continue to implement edit suggestions from conflicted editors in a way that harms Wikipedia, I will seek to have you topic banned from doing that. (and as you clearly saw a couple of minutes after you wrote your message above, I have been updating the article.) Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:Oh please elaborate how updating Wikipedia is bad.Also your threats are getting kinda old so just stop mate. Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Doors

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Doors 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Doors

The article The Doors you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Doors for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TD Bank

Hey, you reverted by tags on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto-Dominion_Bank . That page is biased. Here's why: its missing a lot of lawsuits. Even the fact that the "controversies" section is called "controversies" suggests that someone from PR already came by and re-wrote the page. For it to be a neutral page, it needs to be updated on all legal actions against the company as well as all bad press it has received.CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]