User talk:AadaamS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi AadaamS,

Can you explain why the History Matters website is not a reliable source?[edit]

Yo deleted my contribution based on the website that I used. Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with the site? Mythdestroyer 09:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

See my edit comment and if you wish to discuss it please do so on the talk page of the article. AadaamS (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI, the source was reinserted. I removed it again. - Location (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

As per the discussion here Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Arrested_v._detained. The lead should either say arrested or detained. Please change your recent addition of 'captured' to one of the terms for which there was consensus.

Zuchinni one (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed over on the Kaga article that you felt the article had a bit of an issue, and someone responded "well, it has a perfect 5 rating." I hadn't noticed that voting option so I rated it based on how I felt, I encourage you to go give it a vote too. Kaga votey link

Disambiguation link notification for October 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bachelor party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Trafficking
Nickel–metal hydride battery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Chevron

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, want to help out with HSBC and money laundering aspects?[edit]

Hi, I'm writing to relatively recent contributors, including on the talk page, and asking if they want to help out. I still think there's a fair amount of work with this whole money laundering aspect, not that we've made mistakes, but rather in terms of making a good article better. For example, I think officials of the U.S. Justice Department have directly said they did not want to punish HSBC harder and risk the bank losing its license---because of risk of major economic disruption.

If you have time, please, jump in and help. We can probably very much use your help. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Using RFC template[edit]

You seemed a little unsure about how to use the RFC template so I thought I'd drop in and give a little advice. First and foremost, your RFC is in the "unsorted" category, which not everyone watches. You typically want to give it some sort of category with templates like this: {{rfc|pol|reli}} . This would include it in the list of politics related RFCs as well as the list of Religion related RFCs.

Second, there are lots of RFCs floating around out there, and user time is very limited. In order to get responses, you should really do all the work for us. This means explaining the dispute as neutrally as possible, and describing both sides to the best of your abilities. Sometimes this might not be possible if you're dealing with bad faith editors, but try to assume good faith until it is extremely obvious that good faith is absent. Additionally, you should include diffs of the dispute, for convenience. In longer and more complicated disputes, dozens of revisions are possible, after edits, partial reverts, and modifications are made. Sorting through this after a dispute has been raging for weeks is a nightmare, so diffs are always a welcome sight.

Finally, your efforts to resolve this dispute were limited to edit summaries. This is bad form, on both your parts. An RFC should not be the first and only comment on the talk page. You should attempt to resolve conflicts on your own before starting an RFC, starting with the article talk page. If that isn't seen, send the editor a message on their talk page, inviting them to discussion. Remember to assume good faith, most of my recent disputes have been the result of editors assuming bad faith in me, or I in them. Believe it or not, most people are here to improve the encyclopedia. Start a discussion and try to keep a cool head explaining why you think your position is correct. Paragraphs on a talk page can be much more persuasive than a sentence or two in a revert, which is seen by many as a slap in the face.

Hope that helps. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that was my mistake. I thought that the first sentence Talk:Honor_killing#Sweden_section_-_relevance was part of the RFC. Usually RFCs get their own section, though it isn't required. Also, I didn't see the messages on that user's talk page. You did mention it, but I forgot as I was writing my response, my bad. It seems to me that you have been more than patient with this user. They still have not responded on their talk page. This behavior strongly suggests to me bad faith POV pushing. User that demonstrate cynical behavior such as this merely count reverts per day and per user to skim under the WP:3RR. If two users are reverting him, as is the case here, he will either have to resort to dialog or silently concede. Let's leave the RFC open for a week and if there are no responses from him, or an overwhelmingly one-sided response to the RFC, as I expect, then we can close it. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to High-speed rail may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Railway Gazette[edit]

Hello Aadaams. Thank you for your support during the edit war. Now, my mail to RG seems to have been usefull (I said they harm to reputation and image of SNCF TGV) as they finally update their article :) world-speed-survey-2013. I hope that, now, other editors will be more prudent even with "reliable" sources. What about your WP:RFC now ? Regards. --FlyAkwa (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Bonjour! No problem. When you started to bring in more sources and your opponents kept going on about one single source instead of finding more, I decided whom to side with. I've seen similar debates before and the one who is in favour of bringing in outside arbitration or the one that seeks more sources to support his claim usually prevails. When the others did not respond to my suggestion of outside arbitration and made excuses for not finding more sources I had a good guess what was going to happen. Unfortunately the updated RG article does not seem to have ended the edit war and that a great disappointment to me. As for the RfC, I'll try to cancel it somehow. I think you should thank Z22 as well as he supported you, I don't want to steal credit from him. Cordialement, AadaamS (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I just thanks also Z22 for his help, as you suggested. The edit war seems (at least) finished, as the remained sentence hasn't been edited for 3 days (despite this sentence is near nonsenses and without relationship with its chapter). There is also another risk of "war edit" about the Spanish disaster.
Unfortunately, the same guy now attempt to attack and remodel the "Land speed record for railed vehicles" page...
Best regards. --FlyAkwa (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello AadaamS. I'm sorry to disturb you again, but could you help me again to maintain the neutrality of the Land_speed_record_for_rail_vehicles page ?
I'm afraid that the same guy "Bobyrayner" with its propaganda and misinformation try to make a new edition war, and he knows the mysteries to convince administrators against me. Unfortunately, I don't know theses tricks. And after its "loose" on the "High Speed Rail" page, he now attacks the "Land Speed Record Page".
If I'm again alone against this guy, administrator will again take sides for him. Could you help to denounce its actions to the administrators ?
Thanks. --FlyAkwa (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Bonjour FlyAkwa, I think the reason that administrators side with your opponent is that while he indeed at times fail to adress valid points by those who oppose him, he doesn't launch into personal remarks. For instance he never agreed to bring in outside arbitration for the last dispute, or even to discuss the quality of Google Maps as a reliable source on geography. You on the other hand, while you do make good points, you also start calling people trolls and "chinese train fans". At one point you even implied that our differences of opinion of the section naming in HSR article was that I was stupid. I can't say for certain that this is why the administrators take side with him since I am myself not administrator, but if I was one, it could be a reason if I was reading quickly through talk pages and didn't go deep into the issue. If you wish to prevail again, instead of coming at others with accusations of bias ("you're a troll") or lacking mental agility, you should stick to criticising their sources and their edits only. There are WP guidelines about this, see WP:DNIV and WP:APR. Invoke wikipedia guidelines on where they apply to make your arguments. (this is the strategy I try to follow) Right now I don't have the time to get involved in another edit war, sorry. This might change later in the week. Good luck! Cordialement, AadaamS (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you[edit]

Mediator Barnstar Hires.png The Mediator Barnstar
Thank you for your efforts to try to end the edit warring on High-speed rail page. Now that the issue is closed. I have a high hope that we will continue to see it as closed. Z22 (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Z22 this is my first barnstar and it is great to know that my efforts are appreciated! AadaamS (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited R-77 (missile), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Exfoliation (cosmetology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colgate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of whistleblowers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

hey.[edit]

Rafale's Malaysia intertsered but.i read it the wrong sorces.that's why i put the real Sorces.Don't Say It124.13.234.53 (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Research Invitation[edit]

Hello Wikipedians,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects

Marge6914 (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roebling (River Line station), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Single-track (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Female genital mutilation. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi! are you planning to participate or should we proceed without your input? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Guy Macon:, I am not planning to participate so go ahead. AadaamS (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Smith & Wesson[edit]

Hi there,

Yes you did something for which I was legitimately thankful for, removal of poor prose or "How to" advice. However, I think that several of your deletion nominations are misguided. I am not trying to judge you or anything, but those two S&W revolvers are very notable as two of the most powerful handguns ever made. Their power threshold has eliminated many other models from the marketplace such as the Savage Strikers, Thompson Center Contenders, Encores and Remington XP-100s which were single shot or bolt action pistols chambered in high powered rifle cartridges. Those 2 revolvers by S&W have been met with such demand for Silhouette shooting and handgun hunting that the demand for the others has pretty much vanished. Why carry what is essentially a chopped down rifle with no stock that beats you up when you can get the same power factor from a 5 shot revolver that is more comfortable to shoot and carry? There are sources out there and if you are an astute scholar of google you should know that they supress sources pertaining to firearms as part of their misguided antigun policy.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I am not an active shooter myself and haven't fired a gun since the mid 90s, so I can't really comment on the quality of that firearm. I am still interested in discussing the sourcing for it, though. What must I do to find better sources on firearms with Google? If had found sources that prove market impact of this firearm that would have stopped me from nominating in the first place. AadaamS (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I can swamp the article with offline published sources if that would make you happy. Fortunately, google does not hold a monopoly on the world's knowledgebase.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mike, yes of course, offline sources are as good as online sources. I was hoping there would be settings in Google that I could have tuned. AadaamS (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I wish I could help you out on that, my friend. I know of no setting that can help you. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You must now moderate your behavior[edit]

Since, you are now painfully aware that you are using a FAULTY, RESTRICTED, and quite possibly CENSORED search engine to conduct your research, it is your responsibility to moderate your behavior. Therefore, you must assume that other editors have access to more information than you do. And, when another editor questions your edits, you must relent, back-down and bow to their superior knowledge. I also recommend that you STOP nominating articles for deletion and that you STOP making major changes to articles without first discussing them on the talk page. Remember, competence is required on Wikipedia, and by your own admission, your competence is seriously compromised.--RAF910 (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi RAF910, I can see that you have posted that link that link twice now. In the section above this one in my talk page I admit to being in the wrong on this occasion (and having failings when it comes to finding sources for firearms in AfD discussions) yet you still come chasing me after the fact. I am a competent Wikipedian because of the rough dozen AfDs I have nominated, most have passed. Of the dozens of AfD discussions I have taken part in, I notice that my recommendations for Redirect/Delete/Merge/Keep seem to be on the ball. I therefore consider myself competent (but not an expert) on AfD, WP:GNG notability and related sourcing discussions. I have also thanked the editors who provided good sources to prove notability on the '460 AfD and some of the other firearms I recently nominated. So my conclusion (and advice) to you is that in AfD discussions it is evidence of notability for the subject (not mere existence) that counts in the form of references. The first order of business when writing a standalone article is that its subject, even a firearm, meet the WP:GNG and that bar is rather high. The references you provided weren't strong enough to prove GNG, particularly not the Swith & Wesson homepage because it's a WP:PRIMARY source (read this link) and primary sources can never prove notability. Also, the Car & Driver mag mention by you in the SW460 AfD was not helpful, try reading this link: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Editors other than yourself provided better references to prove notability (not just firearm features), I have thanked them for doing so and yes, those AfDs where they did are now unlikely to prevail. And even though you specifically mention that I should stop making edits in general, my experience is still that I quite often get "thanks" button press in return for articles on a wide range of topics or that other editors agree with me in AfD discussions. So RAF910, I freely admit you're competent when it comes to firearms but you have important things to learn when it comes to contributing to Wikipedia AfD discussions. AadaamS (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
How will you be able to argue WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV with a CENSORED search engine? As a result your competence is seriously compromised.--RAF910 (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
RAF910 rude and repetitive, again, this time with added misindentation. I can only wish you good luck. AadaamS (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

DS[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please excuse this notice, I am alerting recent participants at Homeopathy. Manul ~ talk 23:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Illegal immigration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wars involving the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iraqi Civil War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)