User talk:VsevolodKrolikov

AfD nomination of Mass killings under Communist regimes

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mass killings under Communist regimes. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please edit my Russian translation

Hello VsevolodKrolikov, Happy to contact you. Could you go through my Russian translation Тъируналлур карунакаран of the original English article Thirunalloor Karunakaran , and correct it ? Brihaspathi (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Call to Arms I

An article that you have been involved in editing, Call to Arms I, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call to Arms I. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. jmcw (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Karl rove religion thing

You were previously involved in a discussion involving the removal of a few paragraphs on the Karl Rove page regarding his religious affiliation. I'm just notifying you that the same user removed the content again and I thought you would want to be involved in the discussion since you were previously.Chhe (talk)

Creativity archived talk page is inaccessible.

{{help me}} The talk page for Creativity has been archived (by a bot), but does not appear to to be accessible from the talk page - except tortuously (through an index search or edit history). Can someone fix this, or point me to where I can find out how to fix it? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You can just link them from the main talk page using {{archives|archive page name}}. The bot's edit summaries tell you where it's archived the content to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Actually, I have a feeling that cluebot is doing something odd to the indices page (effectively blanking it after each update). I'll take it up with cluebot. Thanks again.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Multiple reverts

Hi, you have twice in two days exceeded the 1RR restriction on the WUWT article. I don't disagree with your last change, but you may want to be more careful, or even self revert. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the heads up. To be honest, I don't think I have broken 1RR even once - in my understanding, 1RR is about reacting to other editors' recent (i.e. just done) changes more than once in 24 hours - i.e. edit-warring. I haven't done that. I've changed two edits in the past 48 hours - yours and Lawrencekhoo's.　No other edits relate to recent changes by others as far as I can see. Indeed, the only other major change I've made was done after no opposition was expressed on the talkpage for over 24 hours after I proposed it (others were typos, clearly irrelevant links etc.). If I'm mistaken, could you point me in the direction of diffs, or a policy page that explains how what I've done has broken 1RR twice, or even once? Cheers. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

See [1] "A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word.

A "major change" or changing "material recently changed" is not required to qualify as a revert. I myself once thought otherwise, but several admins have explained the policy clearly. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've had it clarified that correcting typos (and presumably source formatting too) is not part of any revert count. Could you provide diffs of the reverts that you are counting? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Come on now, you can count as easily as I can. Correcting a typo or cleaning up vandalism isn't counted; they're specific exceptions in the revert count policy. Neither of which were what you were doing in the article. Fell Gleaming^talk 10:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked for diffs in good faith. It's a common courtesy that people levelling accusations of disruptive editing provide diffs when asked, otherwise the complaint is ignored as a matter of course. You are now specifically claiming that none of my edits can be considered exempt from "reverts". Here are three diffs correcting typos or improving source formatting. Here is a fourth removing a source that was not even about the subject or point in hand (presumably left over from a previously removed edit) - but not altering the content one jot. It's really important when you make accusations against other editors that you check the facts and be prepared to back up what you say. Three of the other edits over a 48 hour period are changing a source (improving sourcing) without changing content and re-wording two edits (not reverting). Not one of any of these edits has been met with any objection by any editor. And then one edit, as it was potentially contentious, I had discussed on the talkpage. I waited for objections, of which there were none. So I put in the edit. This seems to be in line with policy. Interestingly, it's this one edit you object to, and it's the edit that you want me to revert on the basis of what honestly looks like a mistaken accusation of breaking 1RR. If you want to carry on with this, then please do so formally, but I should point out that an admin has already advised me that I don't appear to have done anything wrong. Instead you might perhaps respond on the talk page about that specific edit. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I specifically didn't make a formal accusation in order to stay friendly and avoid a battleground mentality. You seem to want to kick things up a notch. If you want actual diffs of the latest violation, here you go:

• [2] Sept. 16.
• [3] Sept 16.

Whether or not a specific edit has "met with objection from any editor" in no way prevents it from being classified as a revert, and in fact the first of those two edits was still under talk page discussion (not that this is even relevant). I meant my original post only as a friendly suggestion; you are of course free to take it however you wish. Fell Gleaming^talk 13:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not aware of this, but accusing someone of making false statements without evidence raises things "a notch" (not apologising when given counter-evidence doesn't help matters either), as well as refusing to follow normal courtesy when asked for diffs to explain disruptive editing. As for those two diffs you have just provided, one is not a revert, it's a re-word, something specifically mentioned in WP:REVERT. Given that you explicitly do not object to that edit, you're hardly in a position now to argue that it was "undoing" your work. The other edit, as I keep explaining, was made after no opposition was raised when it was proposed on the talkboard, and as such is contestable as a revert. Then again, it would be the only revert (btw your claim of two 1RR violations in two days seems to have disappeared), so in any case there's no 1RR violation. It really would be much better for you and for the encyclopedia to put forward your substantive reasons for opposing that edit on the talk page rather than try to have it taken out through dubious procedural means. Isn't that what you're WP:HERE for? Let it lie and go back to the talk page, or raise the matter formally.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Shrug, you can think what you like, but when you change phrasing that's being discussed on the talk page, it's a revert, not a reword. If you disagree, you are of course free to continue reverting the article to your heart's desire. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

So you agree it's one revert only and therefore no violation at all. Good. By the way, I am not free to revert the article to my heart's content, and have not done so.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the discussions of Russia as a superpower

I will review the thought but also I may add I have found over 110 articles from 2004 to now on Russia being a superpower in some fashion (many are media articles), I have one affirmed acedemic report here[4][5]. Let me know what you think. --Globalstatus (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I genuinely think you misunderstand how wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not about what is "true". It is about what reliable sources as a whole say. Finding one academic source that says something is not enough. Where there is debate, we present the debate, not choose one side as "correct". It's the case that you personally believe Russia to be a superpower, and that you have arguments and evidence for this. But none of that matters on Wikipedia because as an editor, your own research and conclusions have no weight at all. You also shouldn't be here to promote your personal point of view. As for the Rosefielde book, it was written in 2004 about what might happen thereafter. It was a prediction. It will not do as evidence for Russia's status in 2010, just as a horse-racing tip that came true would still not be evidence of the result. I don't like your version of "superpower or not" because it does not reflect the debate - which is about regional power/greatpower/superpower and in general/militarily/commodity-wise, and has significance not only in terms of Russia's status, but in Russian nationalist discourse. The English sources have this range, and so do the Russian sources. My position on what the article should say is nothing to do with my own views on Russia's status, which are simply not relevant.

And finally, please calm down and try and work with people. Do NOT ever, ever, delete someone else's comments from an article talkpage. It is vandalism. If you carry on with your approach so far, it's highly likely you'll be blocked or topic banned at some time in the near future. Put your passion for the subject into improving the encyclopaedia, rather than using the encyclopaedia to promote you personal views.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember removing any talk discussions but if I did it was an accident on the editorial copy & paste function but trying to reply to the subject at hand. If one asks a question of me I sometimes will ask the same vice versa question back. For example if one says Russia is a great power and they ask me to find sources on superpower status, I will ask what sources they have to say it is a great power but no response is provided; I am left clueless on my part versing theirs - many times editors will only comment each and everytime without sources. I have provided tons of articles and editorials on these media sources just may refer Russia as a superpower but maybe no evidence in the article but then you connect the media dots you see a pattern of these Russian superpower quotes on journals and media sources. Not all articles are perfect but I am providing the facts at least on a media stand point; these articles are perfectly acceptable for college research material for example. Not all articles on Wikipedia are all supported by only acedemic sources it is impossible as you need some media articles if acedemic articles are not available or not current. I refuse to use blogs though even media blogs are ok on Wikipedia but I scout for media or any acedemic sources I can find and I post the information for editors to read my findings. It is time consuming reading and reading these sources if they are good enough but with this subject matter with Russia as a superpower I take very seriously. I have articles I can provide but if not all the evidence is acedemic sometimes you have to accept the media regardless in my opinion.--Globalstatus (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Read policy on original research. That's what your "connecting the dots" is. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for sources on Russia as a great power

Because the article has changed from superpower to great power under the Russia article I am now going to question the article as a great power as it stands as you have been actively involved in this discussion. I want to read sources from you that says Russia is a great power and not from great power article (not the table in the end) (that is not an effective source) because contributing editors who have denounced edits in the great powers is not the accurate source of information when there has been conflicting contributing editors that denounced the sources on there. There should be a weight of sources to have this article state it is great power so I am seeking that information as you have said Russia is a great power so I want to ask you for your sources please. Provide these great power acedemic sources please.--Globalstatus (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are you posting this on my talkpage? You've put the same thing on the Russia talkpage. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Russia article edit removal

Can you explain to me why you removed these important sources on Russia's article[6]?

When they are pointed to the term as its specific definition does not make much sense to erase valid information to the article. Each source tells a specific editoral of Russia being a superpower. I disagree you erasing it so I think maybe this should go on the discussions page to debate this further.--Globalstatus (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Each "source" describes the same event - a head of government (Netanyahu) visiting Russia and saying nice things about Russia to Putin's face. You do not need to source the same information three times, and in any case this event does not add anything to the point being made. One can only surmise that you didn't read the material, which just reflects poorly on you. There are enough sources already, and we are trying to cut down the size of the article. This may have passed you by as you continue with your WP:POINTy edit warring. No one agrees with you, you're breaking all sorts of guidelines and policies, so move on. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, VsevolodKrolikov. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page.
Message added 02:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GA reassessment of Russia

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Russia/GA2. I have de-listed the article but it can be re-nominated at WP:GAN when these concerns are addressed.. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

A telling off

Shut up you atheist!!! Depart from me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timz paul (talk • contribs) 07:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Citations

Please be careful when removing viable citations as they may be used multiple times within an article due to the <ref name= (whatever)> formatting. Thanks.--MONGO 04:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't. You should have checked my edit more thoroughly. I put the full ref elsewhere in the article where the security council statement is also cited. I replaced the security council citation in that part of the lede because it is not a good source for the fact of the attacks by al Qaeda. It was put out only a day after the attacks. That is not good sourcing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss any major citation changes before making them. Thanks....I'll recheck your edit.--MONGO 04:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have checked before responding here. You are showing signs of WP:OWNERSHIP. I raised these citations earlier, but you archived my comments as "conspiracy theory gibberish". I pointed out that I had raised valid sourcing issues - and you archived them again. I understand that there are a lot of truthers out there, but that's no excuse for poor sourcing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Chill out. The talk page had an example of you offering assistance to a CT time waster...and that sort of thing if repeated often enough can lead to discretionary sanctions being implemented. Feel free to post anything that isn't CT nonsense and refrain from offering an audience to CTers...providing "assistance" (aiding and abetting) to CTers can be viewed by many as contrary to writing a fact based account of the events. I have written 10 featured articles and started over 600 others, all referenced, so I think I have an idea of what good referencing is.--MONGO 04:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh. All I did was tell someone that the material's already on wikipedia, and the main 9/11 page isn't the place for it, as it's conspiracy theory. I haven't been the one placing NOTICES on the talkpage, or deliberately archiving fresh discussions of sourcing. If my response to another editor is the reason for reverting my sourcing changes without due attention, it's not the best reason one could think of. Out of interest, could you point to the decision that would allow someone to be put under discretionary sanctions for doing what I did? It sounds like an extraordinary policy decision, if it's actually been made. btw, it's great that you've done all that article work. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons the UN cite for calling the 9/11 event an act of terrorism was put there was because for a long time, that term was a bone of contention...so by adding a UN reference that detailed what the vast majority of other countries called 9/11, it didn't have the air of being US centric...it's ridiculous to expect you to examine ancient and not so ancient talkpage articles where pages and pages of text were committed to this argument that 9/11 wasn't an act of terrorism..so when I saw you remove that cite and place it elsewhere, it sent up a red flag for me...so what I am trying to say here is that I would prrefer to place the UN cite back where it was only so we don't run into the same old tired argument down the road. Otherwise, I want to apologize for upsetting you about this..,I was wrong to jump the gun and be a little hyperactive about this...I hope you accept my apology. Best wishes!--MONGO 18:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem :-) I can only imagine the lunacy of a few years that would have turned up on that page. (I've edited a fair bit on Zeitgeist, the Movie, which has its own CT devotees.) To be honest, I think we're safe now from such arguments about terrorism, but if you want to insure against the argument returning, why not add the cite to the word, rather than to the whole sentence? My objection was it was not a good source for the whole sentence, and being a source from Sept 12, it allows CT people fun with confused reporting in the days after the event. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Signatures

I should just give up, shoudn't I :-) In attempting to correct my original error of not signing my post, I made a much larger error (edited the version of the page at the time of my post rather than the current one). Thanks for spotting it and sorting it out.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I guessed. No problem - we all do stuff like that. (well, I do, anyway).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Games Village 2010

Hi there, regarding your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Games Village 2010. I have no intention of WP:CANVASS, but would you think merging is a better idea? After all, the Venues article has already covered the Commonwealth Games Village and the concerns and controversies across two sections already. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 12:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi AngChenrui. Don't worry - I don't consider this canvassing, as I'm aware of the discussion already. As I suggested, my vote for keeping a separate article is based on an intuition that there should be (or at least it's valid to have) separate games village articles. I can see your argument as I understand it, that "venues" can include the village and so obviate the need for a separate article. It is, in one sense, tidier. However, I'm of the view that games sporting venues and athlete villages are qualitatively different aspects of the games. My feeling is that from a user's point of view, someone doing research into venues would probably separate the issue. It's also true that athlete accommodation gets RS coverage as a matter of course these days. For me, this is a good example of the advantages of WP:NOTPAPER. Consolidation on Wikipedia is necessary when there's a mess of repeated and disorganised information. I don't see that issue here. In this case, having a separate article will probably attract more information, rather than simply more flab.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Noted, I understand. Thank you, ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Climate change denial page.

If you've been around for some time, my apologies for not noticing, but I've seen several very thoughtful posts, and excellent sources added by you recently. --SPhilbrickT 13:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Aw, thanks! You're not wrong - I've not been on the climate pages until recently. I had a wikibreak between last year and this, during which I found myself arguing a lot about climate change with some (ahem) "interesting" people on another internet site, during which I learnt quite a lot about both the science and the politics of the whole thing. It's a relief to be on wikipedia actually sifting through sources properly; the pointless slanging matches and Gish Gallops were getting tiring. It looks like I've joined in at a good time, when the arbitration committee has enforced a calmdown. Let's make progress in creating good stable articles! VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the redirect help!

Of course I wouldn't expect you to keep this on your page, but I have another question. While I've created the redirect and have it working to where someone who searches "Skye Champion" will be redirected to the I'82 page (and thanks to your correction, down to the Characters section), I'm still having a problem on Melissa Disney's page. I added an entry there to note her voicework in the game, but putting in "Skye Champion" still only works as a red page-does-not-exist link. What do I need to do to correct it?Givemeausernameplease (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The problem was that the original redirect you created was Skye champion (note the small c) not Skye Champion. I created Skye Champion and added the redirect. Apart from the enforced first capital, titles for wikipedia articles are case sensitive (See Thinking machines and Thinking Machines as an example). So your redlink appeared because it was actually pointing to a page that hadn't been created yet. But it's all solved now.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated!Givemeausernameplease (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Linen" article on wikipedia

Hello,

Recently you have deleted my addition to the article "linen" which was the link to the excerpts from the book "Flax and linen". First of all I am not the owner of this website. I only a web designer and I placed this link as I found this material is interesting for anyone who wants to learn more about linen and flax. Second why is this link more promotional than others under this articles that lead to the e-commerce web-sites? I would greatly appreciate your answer.

Thank you Juliady —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliady (talk • contribs) 05:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

As the designer of the page, you have a conflict of interest in adding it - see also here. I reverted it on sight, seeing that you were the web designer, and there was a bunch of credit card symbols at the bottom. However, I've looked at the other links (removed a couple that were clearly bad), and I think you have a good point. I've asked a question at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Linen_-_commercial_links about this, as I'd like clarification on what should and shouldn't be included.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello VsevolodKrolikov,

Thank you very much for your answer. I do appreciate your response and I do not wish to violate any Wikipedia rules whatsoever. I have read very carefully the articles about COI and I did not find anything saying that if you are the web designer of the web site in question you cannot place a link to this web site as it will be the violation of the rules. As far as I understand the external link should lead to the material which adds to the article in question. I also understand that the link should be provided with a clear neutral explanation why this link is here. I think you would agree that absolutely every web site was created by someone and heretofore any link to any site can be classified as “promotion” or “advertising”. I do appreciate that you have decided to clear out this matter by addressing Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Linen_-_commercial_links. Please let me know if you will get the clarification. Thank you once again Best regards Juliady —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliady (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Juliady. The conflict of interest issue in this situation is most clearly explained in the external links policy here. But basically, if you were involved in the production of material, or in some way might benefit personally from wider exposure of that material, then there's a conflict of interest when you yourself add it to the article. This doesn't mean that it shouldn't go in, it's just putting it in yourself is not encouraged. Instead you should normally ask someone else to assess it. I took it out because at first glance it looked like someone merely trying to promote their own business (this happens a lot on wikipedia), but after you asked me to reconsider, I looked again, and I think I was too hasty in doing so. I'll wait to get more input from others at the External links noticeboard (they don't agree either). I apologise for appearing bureaucratic; this is simply a chance for me (just another volunteer like yourself) to get a better grasp of policy, so that I don't have to hum and hah in the future.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Vsevolod,

I am grateful for the opportunity to learn more about rules on Wikipedia. As per the article in question let’s wait till there are more opinions from others. I know that this company plans to publish lots of materials about Russian Linen which can add more details to the article. History of growing flax and producing linen in Russia is not in any way less interesting than, for example, history of Irish linen. I understand now the point of adding links to the articles and will follow those rules in future. Thank you again Best regards Julia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliady (talk • contribs) 13:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Kazuo Hatoyama Christmas Church (Tiraspol) Democratic Party (Japan) leadership election, 2009 Strait of Tartary Dolinsk-Sokol Cougar Gold cheese Anatoly Kornukov Phil Jones (climatologist) Masamoto Yashiro Haruko Hatoyama Sergei Melgunov National Planning Commission of South Africa Kaoru Hatoyama Mizuho Fukushima Azuma Koshiishi Nikolai Ogarkov Level of Invention Kenji Eda Moneron Island

Cleanup Conservatism Green cheese Capitalism Merge Assassination Cheese on toast Great Russian language Add Sources Language exchange List of American cheeses Daily Mail Wikify Utagaki Syrian cheese Kodomo Teate Law Expand Yasuko Hatoyama Kunio Hatoyama Latinisation (USSR)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Lewis fashion brand

Hello VsevolodKrolikov,

I have just added some content about my fashion brand Stanley Lewis. But unfortunately it was got deleted may be due to looking like promotional. We have only added information about our brand and not promoting the brand at wiki pedia.

Thanks

Satyendra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.180.146.162 (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sayendra. There are a few issues you need to overcome before inclusion of material on your company can get onto wikipedia. The first, as you noticed, is that we don't do advertising, and no PR push to make the company sound special - your text still did that, for example: "Stanley Lewis believes men need to focus more on finding an equilibrium in all aspects of life. This is demonstrated not only in the collection of accessories the brand produces, but also in the website." The second is the use of reliable sources. Most of what you used as sourcing were blogs, press releases and the company's own website, which I'm afraid are not at the level of independence and quality we like to have. A third issue is that you have a clear conflict of interest. This means you should avoid directly editing material on matters with which you have a personal or professional connection - instead you should ask other editors to include material. The last problem is the biggest: notability. I did a quick news archive search for your brand, and it looks like you haven't really made enough of an impact yet to pass our requirements on notability (one article in The Australian appeared to be it). Wikipedia only covers things already receiving decent coverage in independent sources; it shouldn't - inadvertently or deliberately - be a means of increasing visibility for a product. All the best, VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Great Comment on the Causalities of 9/11 attacks Page

Greetings, VsevolodKrolikov! I wanted to thank you for your very useful comment regard total causality count for the 9/11 attacks (this page - Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks. I added a possible link to your query and wanted your feedback on using this page. I put a brief quote from it under the NYC 9/11 causalities section but we can remove it if we decide there's a better source elsewhere. Thanks for your interest - are you involved in the September 11 attacks wikiproject? There's not a lot of people active in it lately so it would be helpful. Give me some of your feedback if you get a chance! Thanks... WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)