User talk:Gwickwire/Archive October 2012
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is the archive of messages on User_talk:gwickwire on October 20, 2012.
You have a new message
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sleep Rape
None of these criteria:
- Duplicated an existing topic (AGF, so didn't mark it solely for that)
- Used very biased points of view (again, AGF)
- Had absolutely no sources
- Was a very short article
- Seems a lot like original research (sign from "Slut Walk", consent cannot be provided by someone who is asleep)
Is anything remotely like vandalism. It shows, more or less, a new user who's contributing as best they know how, but needs a little familiarisation with the policy on sourcing. A {{welcome}} template makes sense for them, rather than an "EVIL VANDAL, WE WILL DRIVE YOU AWAY" template, and if there's an article that already covers the topic in more depth, redirect the existing article. Don't just bite the new users willy-nilly. --WilyD 06:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- However, in my opinion, the topic (sleep rape), combined with all of those things, made it something that should have been deleted. If not under WP:Vandalism then under duplication of an already created article. If you wouldn't mind just going back and looking at it, I'm sure you'll see that it duplicates information already on rape, and is in less detail then the rape page. Thanks, gwickwire | Leave a message 21:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Merely being an article that should be deleted doesn't make it vandalism, and merely being a well meaning editors whose inexperience means you don't know how to write great articles doesn't make you a vandal. Basic civility means you don't accuse such people of being vandals, for the reasons explained here. If rape covers the topic well, apply a redirect so readers find what they're looking for, and editors find where they can be most productive. Deleting the article doesn't help anybody, and being uncivil doesn't either. WilyD 05:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
re:Criticism of Iran
I noticed you deleted this page, and for good reason. Perhaps you could also get the Criticism of Israel page deleted for the same reasons? Telaviv1 (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I see your point, however that article would be much harder to merge into Israel. I think that article is a little more valid because of the fact that it is organized and has information that we can't really edit into the page over Israel. Thanks for your idea though! gwickwire | Leave a message 21:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Criticism of the Iranian government
Could you please send me the deleted text and explain me why you removed it, having a similar article for Israel? Thanks.--JellWaffle (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello JellWaffle, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I personally didn't remove your article. Articles can only be deleted by an administrator. If you go back and look at the article now, it should tell you what administrator deleted it. They can place the text of the page in your userspace for you if you wanted to keep it.
All I did was request that it be speedily deleted because of the nature of the page as a criticism page, with no sources. In my opinion, if you are going to criticize someone, anywhere, anyone, you must provide back up in order for you to be believed. Please feel free to work on it more and add sources to bring it up to speed. Now on the topic of the other article. The article concerning Israeli criticism is better organized, with more than just a sentence of text under the heading. It is also backed up very well with sources from non-biased third parties (I.e. Not the Israeli government or someone close to the conflict). If you want help on how to make your article meet these guidelines, I'd be happy to provide help. Please understand that it was nothing personal against you.
Thanks again, gwickwire | Leave a message 13:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- But my article was full of well-referenced sources. And it was only the beginning. Greetings and thanks for your explanation.--JellWaffle (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't see any sources in the article, nor in the edit box window (as sometimes you can put them in the edit box and not code it correctly, and they don't show up). Again, if you want to get it userfied I'd be happy to help you get it ready, but it would take a lot of work on your part. I do, however, believe that it's definitally possible. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- As soon as RHaworth sends me the deleted article, I'll show you.--JellWaffle (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 23:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SarahStierch (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Posting pictures with captions
How do I post pictures on talk pages with captions? What do I click? What do I type? I'm very confused. DEIDRA C. (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Message which was put at the top of my talk page
I am the National Chairman of Cheke Cha Mbunda Cultural and Writers Associan, the owners of the website referred to. Even my picture is there, above the 23rd Mbunda Monarch, King Mbandu III. We have discussed this issue before as seen below. @ kwami (talk) eventualy had no problem with this. Please check may talk page. Libingi (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
@kwami (talk) Thanks for your information. However we have discussed these issues extensively with Aflis (talk). There is nothing like plagiarism here, who stops me from cuttting and pasting my own works and the works of the Association I lead? Logon to Bantu-Languages.com you prove the fact which agrees with our research. Research contained in the "History and Cultural Life of The Mbunda Speaking People", published by Cheke Cultural Writers Association 1994, now called Cheke Cha Mbunda Cultural and Writers Association of which I am the National Chairman, and widely referred to by researchers gives evidence that thise languages are branches or dialects of Mbunda Language. This is an indigenous Mbunda Writers Association who have interviewed, the Mbunda forefathers, some of whom were there in Mbundaland which is now part of Angola. This book was Published under the auspices of The Zambia Journal of History, University of Zambia, ISBN: 998203006X and Edited by Robert Papstein, Central African Oral History Project. The unfortunate part of our (Mbunda) history is that it has been decimated by the Wars in Angola and a deliberate Colonialist policy of divide and rule. Despite the wars our History is still there for those who genuinely seek it from those who genuinely possess it. The onus is on ourselves to research and tell the world about ourselves. We should unshackle the syndrome of accepting and legitimizing anything given and seen through the eyes of foreigners as "our history". We are the only ones better placed to write about ourselves. Foreigners will distort our history to serve their own endeavors as has been the case with the Portuguese. Imagine a Chokwe writing Mbunda history; it will be a complete distortion and misrepresentation of facts as passed on to us from our ancestors. Of course subjectivity is an issue. But it is subjectivity that makes history dynamic that one source is not regarded as a complete and absolute authority. Therefore history is there to be researched. Rich narratives still exists in many forms among our people despite the traumatic turmoil and displacements. The research, publication and cultural preservation efforts done by the Cheke cha Mbunda is highly commendable and significant to our cultural identity. The challenge on us whether we see ourselves as Mbunda or Nyemba or Ngangela is to emancipate ourselves from the colonial mindset of seeing ourselves as different to each other and rise up and complement the efforts of Cheke cha Mbunda by adding new narratives to the rich repository of our history it has given us". Yes Chokwe is a Bantu group like a Mbunda Group, but Mbunda has never been under Chokwe or Luchazi. In fact when you reflect on the same Mbunda History Book research, Luchazi is a Mbunda descendant group. I don't know what goes on at Wikipedia, it is amazing that anybody can delete anyone's contribution at will or threaten to block. If this is a closed group, please do not allow free editing. Look at your understanding of Ngangela, it is different from our research. Let us be open and let the owners help you. User:Libingi (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- There seems to be inconsistances in the Wikipedia policy. How can others allow and request me to create the page, and then somebody else stops me from copy pasting my own works? I have worked with Aflis (talk), to improve the Mbunda language page, and kwami (talk) commended that. Are you trying to make me believe that I am dealing with people that wants Mbunda to obliterated? Come on let us be fare. If you insist, this will be my last contribution. We will use another avenue to fight these misconceptions. I thought I was dealing with a respected source! Libingi (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Heart Tab
O.K. Thanks for responding. I'll try your suggestion. Krueg (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
_by_Ron.jpg)
Thanks for the tip.
Krueg (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
messages
How do you leave Talkback messages on people's talk pages? DEIDRA C. (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Use {{subst:talkback|User_talk:RAIDENRULES123}} gwickwire | Leave a message 00:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time.
New section for a message without one
If it is all about copyright permission, I am prepared to go through the process of giving it to wikipedia. Is there anything else? Please I would like it to come out this way because this is a genuine Mbunda research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libingi (talk • contribs) 21:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- It isn't that. Even if you give the text to Wikipedia, there will still be problems with sourcing, style, and citations. The style of the things you continue to post are not encyclopedic. I believe someone has suggested you restart from scratch, and that would be an excellent idea. That should fix most of the style and sourcing problems. You cannot however copy-paste more than a few words into your new draft. Create the draft here. I will check on that after you draft it and help you with it. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try to work with Aflis (talk) first, with his experience, I am convinced we will get somewhere. Please do not get me wrong, I have not refused your suggestion and please give me chance, I will not re-post that work again, I don't want to be blocked. Libingi (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Artificial intelligence
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Artificial intelligence. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 07:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Yunshui 雲水 07:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
New section for message
I do not know how to type with this thing, but I am wondering why JizzaBella is being flagged, the page is still under construction. Do you research on Google, you will find she is quite notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.160.133.159 (talk)
- The reason that it keeps being tagged is that it does not have enough reliable sources to determine it's notability, and therefore it isn't ready for article space. Also, don't remove tags from articles that you created or substantially edited. Check WP:CSD for more information. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Best Selling Albums List
hi i placed a new reference for argentina sales for history past present future,its in the same section you answered originally,,,,,,,,,,i think now it meets the list requirements,,,thanks --65.8.191.79 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I will go take a look, and probably reply on the list's talk page. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Cool story Bro! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.71.55 (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for the previous edit
My friend was on my laptop, and they edited the page, sorry again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperial W (talk • contribs) 04:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Section: Upset
You can remove this notice at any time.
DEIDRA C. (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SarahStierch (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello
Why is my edit on the Bahai faith vandalism? Please explain immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srhzaidi (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I saw your comment on my talk page, but I will reply here to keep the conversation on one page. Your edits, whether or not they were technically vandalism, were a clear violation of our neutrality guidelines, and that is why you are being warned. AutomaticStrikeout 03:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I have improved your suggestions, if you have other suggestions I will listen, if you’d like a hack at improving the article you have my permission. Pool and Spa News is a national publication under Hanley Wood publications, it has a larger reader base in the tens of thousands. The Beatles note was well taken, thank you. As far notability and different cases I did this at someone suggestion, same for the size. WinsnerB1942 (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- i left a message your talk page because i thought this is the place i should talk to you about it, did you not comment on the article, correct? i'm looking for suggestion to improve the article based on your comment on the AFD of it not canvass a keep, hopeful for reconsideration. isn't it reasonable to discuss your opinion? i'm trying to comply, please forgive me- WinsnerB1942 (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
i just found the problem, i commented on the wrong page.i was trying to find, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ginsengbomb .. for some reason i got your page as by clicking on his page, the name is similar, i truly thought it his talk page. not sure why this happened, my oversight. if you read the comment trail and my response, it makes sense. honest mistake WinsnerB1942 (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Revert on Pacific Division (NHL)
[1]. The IP actually did provide a reason for their removal of content, so a different edit summary might have been better. Cheers, Legoktm (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ahhh! I do apologize! I'm still trying to get the hang of Huggle and I guess for some reason I didn't tell it to put my custom summary there. My custom explanation said "IP removed standings without valid explanation/reason, saying "who cares"". If you know what I did wrong in Huggle, I'd love to know how to not make it again. Sorry, and thanks for letting me know! gwickwire | Leave a message 22:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well I left a null edit summary after your edit, so at least the IP has a valid reason. Tbh, I haven't used huggle in a few years so I'm not sure how to do that. Maybe try asking at WP:HG? Legoktm (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think I see what had happened. I had put the summary in and then tried to mess with the warning it was going to give him.. Apparently somewhere in there the "custom summary" box cleared. Won't make that mistake again lol. Thanks for the advice! gwickwire | Leave a message 22:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well I left a null edit summary after your edit, so at least the IP has a valid reason. Tbh, I haven't used huggle in a few years so I'm not sure how to do that. Maybe try asking at WP:HG? Legoktm (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Why do we need the final standings up?
Why do we need the final standings up? The season is over. When the season is over it should be removed. Not to stay up until the 2013 Stanley cup playoffs (If there is one). You can't just leave the standings for it's readers. Why is it necessary to leave the standings until the next playoffs? It's pointless to leave it up from offseason until the playoffs. It should only be published between the Playoffs and the final game of the Stanley Cup. After that it should be removed until the next playoffs. That's why i keep removing it. I hope this answers this Question.
Why do we need the final standings up?
Why do we need the final standings up? The season is over. When the season is over it should be removed. Not to stay up until the 2013 Stanley cup playoffs (If there is one). You can't just leave the standings for it's readers. Why is it necessary to leave the standings until the next playoffs? It's pointless to leave it up from offseason until the playoffs. It should only be published between the Playoffs and the final game of the Stanley Cup. After that it should be removed until the next playoffs. That's why i keep removing it. I hope this answers this Question.--24.13.169.19 (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- They should not be removed without prior consensus. Also, you're removing it from a page that benefits from having the standings, as readers come to an encyclopedia for information. If you really want to remove them then post on the talk pages and wait for consensus. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I second what gwickwire said. The main division page is informative to readers by providing information on how the last season went. If you want to remove them,
it should be standardized across all divisions (like Atlantic Division (NHL), etc), however at the current moment they serve a purpose to the reader. Please don't remove it again without discussing it first. Legoktm (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)