User talk:Cabe6403: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:06, 21 August 2013

edit count | edit summary usage

Cabe6403

Please click here to leave me a message

My YouTube Channel

This is Cabe6403's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15: 30 days

Archives

1, 2, 3
4, 5, 6
7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12
13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment

Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, Gilderien Chat|What I've done23:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dhyanu Bhardwaj

sorry , I was not known that removing speedy voilates wikipedia's policy.Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightning Dhyanu (talk • contribs) 13:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightning Dhyanu:: That's ok, please see my comment on the talk page of the article where I ask which criteria the individual meets and if it can be backed up by a reliable source. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced notices

Hello, Cabe6403. You have new messages at User:Anne Delong.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

sign up. [redacted email]

First signing. Trying to figure this out. [redacted email] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yumfy (talk • contribs) 22:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Yumfy: When you wish to sign just put 4 tildes (~) like this: ~~~~ and it'll leave your signature. Also, I have redacted your email address, if you want it back feel free but remember, whatever you post on Wikipedia is public Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving content

Hey, thanks! When I realized about the mistake it was already fixed. Thanks a lot! ;)--Kippelboy (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I figured it was a simple mistake. Good luck with your wikiproject Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost in the Shell DRN

Lucia Black's ban does not negate the fact that ChrisGualtieri and I still have a conflict over how the pages should be.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my appologies, I misunderstood the dispute. You were correct to revert me Ryulong Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Plafony

Hello Cabe6403. I am just letting you know that I deleted Plafony, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Ged UK 11:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I believe a different user already changed the tag to a more relevant one. Not speaking Polish I followed the link and thought it was for the company and not the product. Cheers Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Postpartum vertigo

Hi Cabe6430, and thanks for patrolling new pages. :) I just wanted to say that normally we leave at least 10-15 minutes before tagging new pages with A1 or A3, as the initial poster may be intending to expand their submission. I worry that tagging things as soon as they are created, like you did at Postpartum vertigo, might drive away potential contributors. By the way, have you checked out the essays listed at Template:Speedy deletion navbox? They cover this kind of thing in quite a bit of detail. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Stradivarius: Thanks for the message, I'll admit I was probably a bit quick off the mark with that tag. Cheers, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving userboxes

Hi there, moving is not necessary but it's nice for centralization since I have quite a few others. I do apologize for any inconvenience that was caused by moving around the userboxes in the hierarchy. Do you know if a bot will fix the double- or triple-redirects, or does it need to be fixed by hand? CaseyPenk (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and fixed any double redirects I found -- please let me know if any more are outstanding. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DRN

No, it is content as well. He believes his version is correct, we believe our version is correct. That is where the dispute arises. The conduct related to that is, I agree, a matter for ANI, however I want to avoid going there if I can do so. Giant Snowman 08:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the DRN listing
How do you think we can help? Explain to the user: The importance of using talk pages The importance of WP:CONSENSUS Reasons he should not/does not WP:OWN the article. He believes me to be a "vandal" so will not listen to my advice, however an independent party may get through to him and help resolve the situation.

What part of this is content related? The entire listing was about the conduct of another user. The conduct was related to content but the main issue remains conduct. Additionally, we require extensive discussion on the talk pages before a case is brought to DRN, something I did not see Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Appologies if this appears snappy. Reading it back it does seem a bit harsh. Personally I stand by my close in this case but I'd have no problem if you requested on the DRN talk page for another volunteer to review the case and consider a reopen Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, he believes that his version of the article is correct, whereas myself and another user disagree. His poor conduct is a result of that, not the other way around. Extensive talk page discussion? He pretty much refuses to engage, and when he does it is hard to see what he is saying due to poor language skills - but look at User talk:Footwiks#List of FC Seoul players for more attempted resolution. I'll take this to ANI if I have to but I am trying to minimise the drama, not maximise it! Giant Snowman 08:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the user is refusing the engage in discussion then is there much chance he'll get involved with the DRN? DRN is a voluntary process and the volunteers have no power to impose sanctions, results or anything on the editors involved or the article. If someone refuses to engage with a DRN then their isn't really anything we can do. From the editors conduct I hightly doubt he'll engage. What I'd recommend is taking it to a relevant wikiproject first, get some more editors on your side and show you have a consensus. If he keeps reverting then he'll probably hit the 3RR. I've posted on the DRN talk page to have another voluteer take a look at the close Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Becasue DRN is a more formal environemnt than 3 editors at an article/talk page, and he is more likely to take the advice/guidance of an independent editor rather than me (who he views as "vandalising" 'his' article). If he refuses to engage with the DRN, then all the more evidence for an eventual ANI. If he does engage, then we can move forward. I've already taken it to a WikiProject (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 79#List of FC Seoul players) and received little-to-no assistance. Giant Snowman 09:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns, it can be frustrating when that happens. As I said, I stand by my close but I have no problem if one of the other DRN volunteers reviews it, feels otherwise and decides to re-open it. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Giant Snowman 09:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tristar

I really thank you for calling attention to the problems with the Tristar articles. When I checked them before deletion, I found that the content was entirely copied from their web site, and I have deleted them accordingly, including the similar contributions to other articles, including the principal one. That one should be rewritten, but for such extensive copyvio, it's better to remove it before starting. Even had they not been copyvio, I would have listed them for deletion as promotionalism--the two tend to go together. You might want to see what I said at User talk:Carisab

I suspect that similar problems are present in at least half the pages about similar organizations. For any extensive page about an organization written in formal style, I find it's worth checking.

I'm glad we got this batch. I checked the other HCA articles too--some contain some promotionalism which I'm removing, but none are as bad as these. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: No problem. When I come across this kind of stuff I tend to check the contribs of the user to see if they have multiple like this. It never occurred to me to check if they were a copyvio also, good catch! Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 19:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra_Pradesh_PCPIR

hai sir, you requested to delete this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andhra_Pradesh_PCPIR but it doesn't like advertising or it doesn't stick to any private industry , but it explains about a region similar to Silicon valley, as I'm new to wikipedia articles I can create as efficiently so need help to improve pages like this,so I request you to withdraw from speedy deletion, thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravitejakarri (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, Cabe6403. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— TransporterMan (TALK) 14:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typos

Ha! Thanks for the beer. One has to laugh when these things happen - especially when it's something that could happen to anyone simply by hitting one key fractionally before the other. Not sure Ms Karnagy would appreciate it as much though. Mabalu (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's rare that a typo produces something amusing but when it does you have to at least chuckle. I always make sure to check my speller and gramming Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the age change on someone's Wiki page automatically on their birthday?

Hi Cabe,

I created a Wiki page for Mavis Amankwah. Her birthday is coming up in a few weeks. I was wondering if Wikipedia automatically changes the age on every birthday or if it waits for it to be officially changed by a Wiki editor or user.

Can you let me know please?

Thanks, Kamran Assadi 12:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamranassadi (talk • contribs)

Hi there Kamranassadi, I see on the page you are using the {{birth date and age}} template so, yes, Wikipedia will automatically change the age on the birthday of the individual. If you click through to the template you'll be able to see the syntax to change how it works if you're interested but it appears to have been set up correctly in this case. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encrustation

Okay, done. Deb (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deb: great, thanks for your help Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! More questions... sigh

Thanks Cabe for your swift response. I'm glad that's sorted. Yay to me!

Also, I keep having copyright problems with photos I keep putting up onto that same page. The same page is an orphan. How can I rectify that?

Thanks, Kamran Assadi 13:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamranassadi (talk • contribs)

Hi again Kamranassadi, you're welcome. Lets tackle the easier issue first. To stop the page being an orphan you just need to include a link in another page to Mavis Amankwah. For example, I see she judged for the Ghana UK-Based Achievement Awards so you may be able to insert a link there. Doing so is easy, just put square brackets round her name (e.g. [[Mavis Amankwah]] becomes Mavis Amankwah).

Next would be the image, it's been deleted so I can't see what caused it. Unfortunately copyright isn't my strong aspect on Wikipedia so I'm not able to help too much. I would suggest you read over the image use policy and the image uploading guide. It's likely that the copyright declaration wasn't correct or was invalid.

Finally, a little tip for you, if you add four tildes (~) after your post you sign you name. So if I write ~~~~ it comes out like this: Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:)

Thanks. I've taken that page out of orphanhood thanks to you! :)

I'll look at the other photo thing and try and sort it out.

Kamran Assadi 16:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamranassadi (talk • contribs)

DRN Talk:Fascism

The new editor who proposed this has jumped the gun. This is a discussion only recently began at the article talk page. There are no great unresolvable issues presented. I reverted this editor's lead change (which appeared stable since 2010) and asked it be discussed at talk. The editor has jumped to walls of words on a variety of individual talk pages, a request at 3rdO (even though multiple editors are engaing at talk), and at the same time this DRN. Several editors have asked this editor to familiarize himself with the process. I'd like to suggest tabling this DRN for now. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitalismojo: I've only looked at the case purely from a procedural point and added the missing editors from the listing. I'm on my mobile now but if I get a chance I'll have a more detailed look later today and possibly close it. Feel free to ask on the DRN talk page for another volunteer to do that in the meantime if you'd like. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's not that big a deal, just a bit off. :) Capitalismojo (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the one who requested an outside opinion. I'm not a "new editor." The entry caught my attention a few years back. I asked my students to read it but I realized it was highly tendentious, even propagandistic. I made some changes back then that made it a bit more historically accurate and then forgot about it. I came back a few months ago and found that some of the same old problems persisted. Briefly, the entry is skewed in such a way that it makes rightwing fascism and leftiwing socialism seem similar. That would make sense to a libertarian conservative (for whom all uses of the state are the same), but it is not historically accurate. Fascism is characterized as statist several times but no mention is made of its ultra-conservative social policies or its violence agains the Left. I think the intent is to suggest that fascism was not in fact a radical rightwing movement and may in fact have been a species of socialism. I have tried to change the entry a few times over the past few months and those efforts were all frustrated. I tried again recently with a suggestion for a small change that would make the entry more in keeping with other dictionaries and encyclopedias online by inserting the word "rightwing." Again, refused. This entry needs outside mediation. This is the first step. The entire first section should be replaced. I recently proposed a new version that retained much of the old but added material that was being left out or suppressed such as the ultra-conservative social policies of the fascists. Again, refused. The only alternative at such a point is to ask for an outside opinion. Then mediation. I suggest you look at the definitions of fascism online. The first that pops up on google is the OED and that defines it as a "rightwing political movement and mode of social organization." Most encyclopedias foreground the placement of fascism on the political Right. Wikipedia should do the same by defining fascism up front as rightwing. Mryan1451 (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451[reply]

Hi, again. Forgot one thing. This issue has been discussed extensively already (since 2009). It is not "new" and it is not "unresolved" and in need of further discussion and a tabling of DRN. We have reached a dead end with the entry. Capitalismojo refuses to budge. The only alternative now is mediation. Mryan1451 (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451[reply]

Darn, forgot one thing again. When I speak of what is in the entry, I am speaking only of the opening section. That is the one that needs serious revision to make it historically accurate. Inserting the word "rightwing" is just a start. thanks. Mryan1451 (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451[reply]

Cabe, Can you and the other editor assigned to DNR with Fascism please take a look at the method of resolution I've proposed on the Fascism Talk page? I proposed voting on a new version of section one of the entry. Please let us know what you think. Mryan1451 (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451[reply]

Mryan1451, your proposed method of resolution on the talk page looks fine. Might I suggest you try reduce the length of your comments and focus on one bit at a time. In the talk page some of your posts are monolithic and hard to read. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CABE, we seem to have hit a dead-end with Fascism. What is the next step? Mryan1451(talk) 13:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451[reply]

Mryan1451, discussion seems to be ongoing to me. Give it some time to develop. There's no race to get it done. If discussion fizzles out and no one is engaging see WP:BRD before considering refiling at WP:DRN Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi Cabe6403 - I've given some feedback on my talk. Pedro : Chat 12:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul

Hello. I read your argument, thanks for the input. But it is actually incorrect. Thracian village, Lygos, is actually contiguous with Istanbul. Do you still think it should not be mentioned in the lead or Toponomy? And do you also think I should not proceed to official mediation? Thanks! Cavann (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 179: / Line 179: @@
 Hi Cabe6403 - I've given some feedback on my talk. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]]&nbsp;:&nbsp;[[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 12:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
+== Istanbul ==
+Hello. I read your argument, thanks for the input. But it is actually incorrect. Thracian village, Lygos, is actually contiguous with Istanbul. Do you still think it should not be mentioned in the lead or Toponomy? And do you also think I should not proceed to official mediation? Thanks! [[User:Cavann|Cavann]] ([[User talk:Cavann|talk]]) 18:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)