User talk:Andyjsmith/Archive 9

New Section
Hi, in reply to you comment on my page... Firstly I re-added my updated reason, because this better portrays the reason for changing it, but I have also kept the original discussions and made it clear what replies and votes are to. Secondly, there is evidence to support such statements and they are in the article, perhaps you haven't noticed them. Heuh (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You did not follow the rules for changing your comments. You should not make invisible changes to your comments after people have replied. Please read the rules. Also, if you have the evidence, why not supply it? andy (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What the hell? First you delete my material, then you delete Dirac740 material? I added information, I did not delete any. I kept the chronology consistent. Heuh (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Read what I wrote - you added material and at the same time rewrote the discussion. Not allowed. Have you actually read the guidelines? And I didn't revert Dirac's edit - I reverted his reversion. andy (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad - I over-reverted. Fixed it now. andy (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, it seems what ever I'm doing you have a problem with. If I wanted to update the reason for the proposal, to fix errors it has (noted by yourself and Gopher), how would i do this? Do I add another reason after your comments stating that this was written after your comments were given? This is basically what I did? It should be noted that Dirac740 has since edited his reasoning, commenting on my updated reason, hence now theres a confliction of editing. I will not at your advice use strikethrough, please do suddenly scream vandalism when I do this as I am doing it this way because YOU told me to. Heuh (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You haven't read the guidelines, have you? andy (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have. And have used WP:REDACT to make an edit. If you have a problem with said edit, please leave me a message, chances are correcting it is a simple a moving something around, and if not I will remove them myself if you show me they violate a guideline. You're making things harder for everyone by aggressively reverting edits with little care. Heuh (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Secondly, in reply to your first reply, I provided 3 sources as evidence below my reason for proposal 2. Heuh (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015
That is ridiculous.

"Musk isn't a business magnate - he neither controls nor dominates any market in any product." He clearly controls AND dominates the private space sector and the electric car market.

His activities as an entrepreneur and CEO (and Business Magnate) far outweigh his activities as an engineer, it is debatable whether he acts as a engineer at Tesla Motors or SpaceX, but acts, very clearly, primarily as the CEO, running the company. Additionally he was involved with the success of PayPal and Zip2.

I do not understand how you can possibly dispute this?!

Doc H e u h (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Quite easily, because I don't interpret material to suit my preconceptions. Who says his business activities "far outweigh" his enginering activities? Who says "it is debatable whether he acts as a engineer at Tesla"? You do, but where are the independent references? And he clearly does not dominate the commercial space sector and only dominates the private space sector if you define that in terms that exclude any space activities other than launchers; nor does he dominate the electric car market - the top selling electric car is made by Nissan.
 * The term "business magnate" is well explained in that article. An exemplar would be Henry Ford, which Musk may aspire to be but clearly isn't. As for being an engineer, this has been thoroughly thrashed out in the article's Talk pages, plus he is the CTO of SpaceX and Tesla which de facto makes him the top engineer (unless you are extraordinarily picky about what counts as an engineer).
 * You are free to debate these points on the article's Talk page, of course. andy (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * CTO ISN'T top engineer. That would be Chief Engineer, or VP of Engineering.
 * Who says "it is debatable whether he acts as a engineer at Tesla"? His position is 'Chief product architect', it is debatable whether this classifies him as a engineer or an aesthetic designer.
 * Who says his business activities "far outweigh" his enginering activities? 'His activities as an entrepreneur and CEO (and Business Magnate) far outweigh his activities as an engineer, it is debatable whether he acts as a engineer at Tesla Motors or SpaceX, but acts, very clearly, primarily as the CEO, running the company. Additionally he was involved with the success of PayPal and Zip2.'
 * Doc H e u h (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree. So, no doubt, does the other editor who removed "business magnate" from the article. Take it to the Talk page, please, and stop reverting anything that doesn't fit your personal views. andy (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
YOU'RE doing it again. That is following my edits and reverting every one, it's coming across as a personal attack. There is no POV here just facts. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is known as a science communicator. A requirement of this is he is a astrophysicist, and as a physicist he has produced one or two papers. He spends by far the majority of his career communicating science not as a astrophysicist producing papers. To deny this is ludicrous, it would be like saying Carl Sagan is astrophysicist, but a science communicator in his spare time. It is the reverse. Doc H e u h (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. Do you have any references to say that the terminology that has been consistently used in the article is wrong or misleading? andy (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Original Research
Your recent edit in "Isaac Asimov" presents original research. for future edits please refrain from saying information that is not sourced.Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dont be an idiot. I linked a Wikipedia article! andy (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You linked an article saying that he is prolific, That's not the original research, then you went on to write. "Isaac Asimov is one of the most prolific writers in the history of the world" which isn't stated anywhere in your linked article. That part came from your mind, If you can't respect Wikipedia enough to not write your own opinions and thoughts, it might be better you stop editing. I've fixed your mistake this time for you though.23:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Bryce Carmony (talk)
 * i have no idea what you're talking about. I reverted your deletion because it was unjustified, and supplied a missing reference. That's all. I didn't add a single word to the article. andy (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

you added the words "one of the most prolific writers of all time" which I've since removed ( again ) since you have failed ( again ) to say which # he is. # 1 # 2 #3? # 696945821985785792? do you understand that you can't just write whatever you want. this isn't your personal blog this is a temple for the mind. I take my duties here seriously I recommend you start to do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 02:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Business =/= A Business
you recently vandalized an article becuase you are under the impression that Business = A business. if you say " a business" certainly you mean a company. but if you say Academics is not the same as saying an academy. The importance is targeting a field of study. not the people in that field of study. thats why we say " Academics" instead of "people in academics" I know that it is nuanced. but saying " A business" is not the same as " Business" if you have any further questions about the English language. I'm happy to help you out. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Academics was your word not mine
When I changed " business people " to "business" you were adamant about keeping Academics instead of Academia. so when I chose academics it was because you were so vehement about keeping it when I went from Business People to Business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 02:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

also Businesspeople is one word not two. ( if you read the Businessperson article I suppose you'd know that, but I guess you don't read as much as puff )Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

New article in need of help
I started an article for a highly regarded award nominated board game called splendor. but I can't seem to puff it up with a bunch of fluff words could you help me out? you seem to be good at making articles longer than they need to be. thanks in advance for your assistance! :)Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * editor's behaviour discussed at AIN andy (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Executive summary
Please discuss your issues further on the talk page for this article. It's been requested that the article be protected, but I'm sure you and Bryce Carmony will be able to talk this out between yourselves which would avoid page protection. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that please assume good faith both of you and consider dispute resolution so that to avoid page protection in future. A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 15:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm happy for it to be protected. andy (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that the article isn't locked down. Andy here always has the best intentions behind his edits. as do I, I'm 100% confident that any contrasts in vision for the article can be addressed in discussion and we can get Executive summary up to FA status. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I usually post links
In this case, I simply refer to the topic you may or may not have opened, "A tentative question". You were way late on that one. I'm rather depressed by the length of time it took you to get there. I'm sure I was well and properly TROUTed at the ANI, and you may have mine. &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what this means andy (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that's OK too, the ANI is archived, seems the universe has done a revert there. The above needn't have meaning, it is a response to the diff in your contributions at oldid=651705137.  At the moment, I wanted to comment that I just stumbled across an essay, in relation to an entirely different matter, that is germane to the above, in case you hadn't seen it (I hadn't):  WP:THERAPY.  It thoughtfully adds to your observation, I thought you might like to consider it, as I am.    &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss articles in article talk page
Help:Using talk pages discussing articles in user pages is not how we do things here at wikipedia, please for future discussion about articles use the article talk page. If you don't know how to do this I'm happy to help you out and learn. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not starting all that nonsense again, are you? Andyjsmith (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that discussing articles in article space was nonsense. It's not fair to dicuss articles in user talk space since it makes it harder for people to see the conversation, how can we say we're trying to reach consensus when we have closed door conversations in random user talk pages about the articles? Just keep your discussion about articles in article space and it works out a lot better, I'm sorry if you think that's nonsense I didn't write the policy. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh this morning
I liked your post about me having "bad faith" when the only way to state that is for you to have bad faith. it reminded me when I was a child and we would peek our eyes open during a prayer to see if we could catch ( and thereby accuse ) each other of having eyes open when the only way to catch them was in fact to have their eyes open. was pretty funny made me laugh. but no worries andy, I assume that your assumptions of my bad faith are made in good faith. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you really ready to go again down the same path you trod so recently? Try to keep personalities out of it - you are here as an editor, that's all. Mind your manners.Andyjsmith (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume that your implication that my manors are bad is made in good faith :P Bryce Carmony (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The word is spelled "manners". Andyjsmith (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I don't put a lot of thought when I reply to spam mail thanks for catching that for me. Bryce Carmony (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This attitude got you into trouble previously. Andyjsmith (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What attitude? thanking you for a job well done? you gave me a good laugh, and I appreciate it, I convey nothing but sincere gratitude for you efforts made in good faith. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Use article talk page for article discussion
I've asked you a couple times before that when you want to make a claim about an article that you put it in the article discussion. When you try and circumvent consensus that hurts wikipedia. if you want to discuss things about articles, all you have to do is write a section in the article talk page. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Eh? Andyjsmith (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A recent inaccuracy you propagated about a reference in Gray's Anatomy was placed in my user page instead of the article talk page. just use the article talk page when you want to discuss article content ( like what you think is or isn't in a reference you may or may not have read ) Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I simply cannot understand your motivation. You know from personal experience, repeated four times, that trolls get banned. Why bother? Why not simply be a good editor? Take your ego out of your editing, read the guidelines and essays, look at how other editors work together on this collective endeavour. Andyjsmith (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My motivations are simple. when you try and circumvent consensus by posting article related discussions in user talk spaces it hurts wikipedia, If you want to throw personal insults and call names to make yourself feel better I don't mind, just don't post article discussions in my talk page. post it in the article page. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

What vandalism is not
It seems you are confused about what vandalism is and isn't. so I have some information for you.

Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Dispute resolution may help. See also: Tendentious editing" Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Disruptive editing or stubbornness[edit]

Supreme court opinion is not a primary source
The Restoration of Religious Freedom Act (RFRA) the primary source would be the text of the act itself. a supreme court opinion about the act is not a primary source. I know you aren't a soverign like american citizens are (sucks not having popular soverignity I know) so I can forgive your ignorance. but heads up. Supreme court opinions are primary sources of supreme court opinions not of acts that they are opining. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that it is a primary source. Legal opinions always are, even in dictatorships. Please read the policy, which explains it clearly. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again
If you want to discuss an article, use the article talk page. if you want to argue that every branch of the government is a primary source of every topic of the government (the SEC is a primary source of the FDA, etc) then you are more then welcome to make that argument, but don't spam my talk page about it. spam the article talk page. I care about consensus, stop trying to circumvent it by boycotting article talk pages. Bryce Carmony (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please be civil - that's what nearly got you banned at ANI very recently and that door is still open. I see from your talk page that your recent rudeness has already begun to attract the attention of disinterested bystanders, with the very pertinent comment that "Civility is not optional".
 * FYI legal documents of the sort that you quote are usually taken as being primary sources, whether you like it or not. They are the justices' interpretations of other primary sources (the laws and evidential documents) but are in themselves also primary. If I want to know what a court has said I can quote court documents, but if I want to know what it means I have to go elsewhere. I don't say so, Wikipedia says so. You really must get the point that these policies and guidelines must be followed. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the difference between us, your definition of civility is lying about vandalism and getting laughed out of complaint after complaint. My definition of civility is that I talk about articles directly and boldly. to you civility is back door requests to admins. to me its open and transparent conversations. I'm direct, I'm bold, I'm not going to apologize for that. go lie about my vandalism more that's always a good laugh. Bryce Carmony (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't post to my talk page again, if you do I will take it as personal harassment you're the only person who has a problem with my work and people besides myself suggest that you are personally motivated. leave my talk page alone. discuss in articles. this is the final time I'm telling you this. Bryce Carmony (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, will do. In future I will post - where relevant - on talk pages and never on your talk page unless essential. Please do the same - don't post here unless absolutely necessary. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do andy, only when it is required by policy will I post to your page (notifying of a deletion etc) I appreciate you respect and accommodation and wish you all the best. Bryce Carmony (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"Crewed" rather than "manned"
You reverted my edits, saying while "crewed" does in fact sound odd, "that's the way it's now written". According to whom? Manned is the standard term for nearly all space agencies I know of.
 * Wikipedia's manual of style, I'm afraid. See MOS:GNL. NASA now calls it "human spaceflight", which sounds a lot less ugly than "crewed" but doesn't work in every context (e.g. "humaned spacecraft"). Andyjsmith (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Manned is already gender-neutral, however; just as "mankind", "manhole", and "congressman". MeanMotherJr (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to argue otherwise, simply pointing out that WP:MOS says otherwise. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Where in the style guide does it mandate the use of "crewed", or state that "manned" is not gender-neutral? MeanMotherJr (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, I have no stake in this. I grew up with " manned" so it sounds ok to me. Why not ask for a third opinion? WP:3O Andyjsmith (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to, but from who? MeanMotherJr (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's all explained at WP:3O Andyjsmith (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Elon Musk Stanford advisory board
There is nothing on his Forbes profile, see; http://www.forbes.com/profile/elon-musk/. A quick Google search will provide zero reliable sources, merely a small collection of unreliable sources, almost certainly getting the information from Wikipedia itself. Doc H e u h (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was reverting the guy before you who thought Musk wasn't American, hence the ref to Forbes. I'd thought I'd preserved your edit but I goofed. Andyjsmith (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, no worries. Will change back now. Doc H e u h (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Dust devil
It was not disruptive editing. it is almost all about Earth so it should not be in the Mars category. 118.93.90.74 (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that we measured articles for categories - I thought it was to do with the semantic content. A non-trivial part of the article is about Mars, which is why it was given that category in the first place and why it should remain in that category. Reverting after a clear objection on sensible grounds is disruptive, especially given some of your previous edits. Please discuss on the article talk page if you want to change it. Andyjsmith (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If we use you reasoning we would almost end up with every single article in every single category. And we don't want that do we.  WP is in enough trouble already.  So think about it: an article that is predominantly about a terrestrial phenomenon is placed in a category that is about Mars.  Does the make sense?  No it doesn't. You are not even considering putting it in one of the subcategories such as Geography of Mars. Have a look at how categorisation is done. 118.93.90.74 (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you can find an appropriate subcategory, be my guest. Andyjsmith (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There isn't so I didn't. 118.93.90.74 (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * PLEASE BE MORE CAREFUL WITH YOUR EDITS lol! Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  20:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * wot do u mean? wot r u tryin to say? 118.93.90.74 (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You are gung-ho, is what it means. E.g. Your edits to Peter Singer. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * And you have no idea about rational editing of wp. you seem to think the every aricle should be connected to every other articlke and to every category. u need to THINK befory u EDIT. 118.93.90.74 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't a pissing contest. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that but if your pissing is like your editing it will be a dribbler and mine will be over the roof of the house. 118.93.90.74 (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Friendly notice
Incase you are unaware:

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Andyjsmith. Thank you. -- Orduin  Discuss 20:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

MarsDrive
Your recent changes and attacks on our article are unwarranted as we worked hard to ensure we passed wp rules. Our main website went down 12 months ago but we are rebuilding 2 websites at .net and .org which will contain new links and evidence of our projects and work over the last 10 years. This is why the links don't currently work. Your research is only skin deep at best and as a real world organization I would warn you against defamation and damage to our reputation by your poorly researched changes. My name is Frank Stratford and I am the President of MarsDrive. Our work in mission design, funding concepts and human Mars settlement programs is important and our group is actually numerically bigger than it has ever been. Once our .org is up again over the next 2 months there will be more than egg on your face as you will clearly know your slander has been ill conceived.

Please hold off on any further actions at this time and if we have not updated everything over the next 3 months you can review it then with my permission. FrankS71 (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not your article. And please be civil. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact remains that yes the main website is down but the organization is not. All of the data and links from the old .com main website do exist still but it will take time to reconstruct them. If you had taken time to actually read some of the files you keep deleting you will see they are of an extremely high technical grade and valuable in research for human missions to Mars. Your research is shallow and as a result you have put this article into a category it should not be in. It will take time to reconstruct everything so again,please respectfully cease tearing the information apart without actually researching the content. We understand that you are just trying to keep things relevant and clean and we want the same thing too. But unless you are an expert on this article (and it's clear you are not), what you are doing is an abuse of the rules here. Wikipedia strives for accurate and neutral reports, but by being overly technical you are violating the very rules you seek to uphold. How can we establish accuracy, reliable citations etc if you just keep removing them? If you would like to constructively assist in rebuilding this article it would be appreciated. All the information is still there but just in different format now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.128.250 (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Although you're using an anonymous IP address, I assume you're user FrankS71 i.e. Frank Stratford. You have a serious conflict of interest (see WP:COI) and you seem to be unaware of some of wikipedia's most basic rules, those of notability and verifiability. The current article is unsatisfactory because there is no internal evidence, based on reliable sources that the organisation is notable. You also seem to be unaware of wikipedia's rules about civility to other editors (WP:CIVIL) so please stop posting on my talk page unless you can do so without seeking to insult me. Andyjsmith (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit seems heavyhanded
I added a sentence to colonisation of mars mentioning hellas planitia. My edit You reverted it as unreferenced whereas all 3 facts in the sentence seem amply supported and referenced in the hellas planitia article. You could have reworded it slightly or flagged some or all of it with (as the section above had been). Did you check the Hellas planitia article ? or could you clarify why you reverted my edit please - eg what needs a reference? If we reference all such easily verified facts articles will have unmanageable lists of references. - Rod57 (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually I now think you're probably right. But at least one ref would be good because the article ought to be able to stand on its own. Why not reinstate it and include a reference? Andyjsmith (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Good grief, that's hilarious . . ..
"This guy is like a neighbour from hell doing a spot of gardening - he tidies up a few leaves, then runs a mower right through your flowerbed and tries to fight you when you complain. But when you call the police he's as quiet as a mouse, says he was only trying to tidy things up, officer, and anyway the flowers needed mowing."

AJS, you owe me a new keyboard. I don't frequent ANI, and I don't pretend to understand the merits of the underlyting dispute, but I spit coffee out of my nose I was laughing so hard when I read your comment above. I'm so gonna steal your simile/metaphor. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Andyjsmith (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

deprod
I have removed the prod tag from Artvest Partners, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed CSD tag
Hi. I removed the CSD tag you placed on Mina Ōba because A7's standard is WP:CCS as opposed to WP:N, and I think this meets WP:CCS. While it's possible Mini Oba is not notable, her involvement in AKB48 and SKE48 as well as her significant role in TV shows means that the article certainly meets WP:A7. I personally agree with a lot of what WP:A7M discusses about what cases A7 should and should not be applied. Regards, Appable (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

correct definition
weather it was a big deal or not Rahman does not mean merciful it means gracious/benevolent..definition of merciful is Rahim..do as you will with the info..as muslims we strive to make definitions as clear and accurate as possible..thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dueller8992 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * i have no idea what you're talking about Andyjsmith (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

BLOCKED!
I think it was you that blocked me and channged back my edits! Give me my privledges back immediately and leave me alone!!! 😠😠😠😠😠😠 Ololpoo (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * i didn't block you. In fact you're not blocked! Andyjsmith (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Marketing
Dear Andyjsmith, can you please explain why did you reverse the reference on the article about Marketing! Verbal.noun (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Collar workers. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.''We have an AfD process that involves multiple editors, not the whim of one editor edit-warring over it. I would also note that your redirect was rejected at the last AfD.'' Andy Dingley (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Marspolar
Hi, Andyjsmith, Why the hell you will not delete Mars One? Why is it notable and Marspolar not? If you need some media articles just enter "Marspolar" (with quotes) in google and read it. I tried to be honest, it doesn't works here. This part wasn't created by me, I'm just edited it to make information actual, watch the history. Yes, I'm co-founder and I'm just don't want to see wrong information on Wikipedia about us. If you deleting us, so delete Mars One, because these guys are not notable, not we.


 * I did not invent the rules on notability, I am merely applying them. If you disagree, you can raise the subject on the article's talk page and you can also ask for a third opinion via WP:3O. If you believe that Mars One should be deleted there is a process for bringing this about. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Basshunter
Hello what it mean "Reverted good faith edits by Eurohunter (talk). (TW)" in the Basshunter article? My edit, which was correct has been deleted so I back it. What to do? Please answer me on my discussion page. Eurohunter (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Linking Locomotion in Space
I am new to wikipedia, and when I got the message that my article was an orphan, I tried to link to pages where I would find the link relevant. On that note however, I may have not linked them properly. It may be the case that I would need to write or contribute more to make that logical connection to my page. In that vein, I was wondering if you could give me some advice on linking or some pages that you think are good for linking to my page. Eesimonds (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Eesimonds Eesimonds (talk)