User talk:Atcovi

User talk:Atcovi/Archive 1

Emmerson Mnangagwa
If you somehow think that this image is more appropriate for this article than the one that is currently on there, then I'm pretty sure that you're trolling, not only does it make Mnangagwa look like a fool, but its completely out of focus and has a watermark on it. EDIT however if you are deadly serious, then I would suggest you make a new section on the article's talk page before you change the image, as we have had two previous discussions there on images of Mnangagwa. Thank you for your co-operation. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm way too busy in life to argue over something like this. Do what you wish. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 03:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thank you for your contributions anyways. Good Day ChieftanTartarus (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Atcovi!


Happy New Year! Atcovi, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Copying licensed material requires attribution
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Alkhurma virus you included material from a webpage that is available under a Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * By "but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself", do you mean I copied it word from word? If this is what you mean, then I kindly disagree. I read the paragraph myself and added the section into the article in my own words. The word order is very similar since there is really no other way around it. I changed a couple of words and word formations when it came to every sentence that was added. Here is an example:


 * Journal: AHFV is one of the nationally notifiable diseases in KSA and an effective surveillance system for it was established by the Ministry of Health. The system requires an immediate reporting of all suspected cases of Alkhurma according to the criteria of the case definition using standardized forms.
 * WP article: As a response to the troubling illness, the KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) is treating ALKV as one of the nationally notifiable diseases in the country. An effective surveillance system was established by the Ministry of Health, where any suspectable case of ALKV must be reported immediately.


 * These two comparing sentences seem to be similar but differ significantly in word order.


 * I don't like doing lazy work, so I ask for you to review what I've written above. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed per above comment and no response. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

CRAM / FACTS101 textbooks
Are made from Wikipedia and are not suitable sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for enlightening me on that. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 18:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous People's March incident
Based on my own observations, as well as near-unanimous YouTube commentary, it seems as if the testimony of Nick Sandmann has been found to be more credible than that of Nathan Phillips. This whole thing was a highly ironic event in that the mainstream media gets influenced by a seemingly powerful abortion rights lobby that tends to restrict coverage of the annual March for Life. Initial negative perceptions of this particular incident were given more coverage at which point a turn of events generated portrayal of the whole event in a much more positive light. Savannah Guthrie was indeed criticized quite a bit for even agreeing to give Nick Sandmann a national platform via interview on the Today show. Guthrie's photo with Sandmann and Phillips' refusal to interview until the next day seemed to further enhance Sandmann's credibility.

Media bias in favor of abortion rights, as well as typical age-based stereotypes and perceived sense of respect for Phillips might explain the lack of source citation in favor of the recognition that Sandmann's testimony had more credibility. However, I do think that there is strong evidence pointing to this fact. I will re-write the edit with mention of the YouTube commentary as part of the actual article text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.60.41.24 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for taking the time to explain your rationale behind your edit before editing.


 * Uhuh, but remember, this is YouTube commentary--we can say the same about any other platform. If a website that is anti-Trump in every sort of way is full of comments in support of Phillips and in opposition to Sandmann's testimony, then can I say that unanimously people are in support of Phillips? In fact, I could try to play this card for YouTube (btw, YouTube has millions of video--one video cannot represent the masses of people's opinion on this situation). I'm an avid watcher of YouTube myself. If you see Inside Edition's first video of the incident between Sandmann and Phillips, you'll be a witness to the plenti-loads of negative comments regarding Sandmann. If my memory is not playing a sort of wicked joke with myself, I recall a few, well-liked comments stating that Sandmann has a punchable face. So, can I use that as evidence when I add "Many viewers are opposed to Sandmann" to the Indigenous People's March Incident WP page? EDIT: "Based on my own observations" -- red flag: please see Original research and the warning left on your discussion page.


 * Anyways, I'd thought I'd pose this out to you: Is it really necessary to add this information? Do unsourced, heavily-biased remarks on the views of Phillips and Sandmann really need to be mentioned? Everyone has their own opinion on this matter. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:National Thowheeth Jama'ath
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:National Thowheeth Jama'ath. 2600:1700:BBD0:8050:796A:F7DB:EFDF:F2A6 (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Blue Goose SC
Hello Atcovi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Blue Goose SC, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Blue Goose SC.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Anwegmann (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)