User talk:Bellerophon/Archive 1

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 16:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Vandalism?
Hi, why do you call my edits vandalism? 69.126.43.214 (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Initially I reverted your edits because you did not cite any sources for the changes you made. You then undid my legitimate revert which I construe as vandalism. You did not provide an edit summary on either occasion. If you edits were made in good faith then please see the Help section and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies before making more edits.

The most reliable way to verify what I wrote is actually watch the show. Which I have by the way. How does linking to other websites with questionable editorial policies make a wikipedia article more reliable? 69.126.43.214 (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Watching the show' is not reliable source per Wikipedia policy. Linking to websites is... You can either follow the rules or continue to edit disruptively, if you choose the latter option your edits will be reverted and an editing block can be arranged. Pol430 (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In that case I will link to one more website and use the existing source to justify my edit. Will that work for you? 69.126.43.214 (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If what you write in the article is supported by a verifiable source in the form of an inline citation, then yes. Please also ensure your edit complies with Wikipedia NPOV Thanks Pol430 (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Would it be ok to revert and then edit to provide inline citations? 69.126.43.214 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Yep Pol430 (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Did what you suggested. 69.126.43.214 (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Great work, obviously another editor may wish to expand upon or change what you have written - such is the nature of Wikipedia. I, however am satisfied that your edit are constructive. :) Pol430 (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanx
Pol430, Thanx for removing vandalism by 98.143.101.158 in article Pashtun people. This is his second instance. Msrafiq (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry...
Hi, sorry, I'm new and I'm trying to figure out how to make the "Transistor Revolt" article, which is why I deleted the information from "The Unraveling" Wikipedia page. Since I'm working on making the latter a better article, I felt that the Transistor Revolt section was becoming increasingly out-of-place and was going to make its own article and expound on it further. I'm sort of lost though... There are existing redirects for "Transistor Revolt" and "Transistor Revolt (demo)" that would need to be deleted if I were to make the article, but I have no idea how to do that. Would it be too much to ask for help...? Thanks. --Silverskylines (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied on user talk page Pol430 (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I created a sandbox page displaying the article (or at least what I have so far) at my sandbox here. Can I ask you to look at it and see if it's suitable for creation, or if I should expand on it more? --Silverskylines (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Awesome. Thanks again for your help. --Silverskylines (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

was a legit edit
That was a legit (good) copyedit to remove duplication. If you feel different editorially, let's discuss it in the talk page. 96.248.6.169 (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have re-reviewed article Shawn Johnson and agree your edits were constructive. I have re-instated them and apologise. It was a hasty revert on my part.

THANKS!!!! :) :)  96.248.6.169 (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Upload
Hey there, i noticed you looked at my page, and i was wondering. How do i upload pics? ive had this account for awhile but never made any edits or creadted anything before today. Please help, Thanks Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dartheric1 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there! - There are two ways of uploading images to English Wikipedia; via Wiki Commons, and directly into English Wikipedia. You can find more help and instructions at commons:Special:Upload and Special:Upload. Hope that helps (will post on user talk also) Pol430 (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Cambridge School Rewari
Hello Pol430. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Cambridge School Rewari, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Something with an address, town, and URL has plenty of context. Thank you. Courcelles 05:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies; should have been a G11, My bad. Pol430 (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Upload again
ok so im trying this wiki commons upload, and im trying to upload a pic from a family album, it keeps saying i need license permission, how am i supposed to get that??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dartheric1 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * when you are on the upload screen you will see a drop down menu from which you can choose a license. Read the guidance notes for more info on what license might be appropriate for your image. Pol430 (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Callahan, Ph.D
Thank you for fixing the typos of this article! However, I respectfully disagree with the orphan tag you posted on this article. Although I disagree, I do see your point. I posted some more sufficient sources onto the external links section. There is another user who agrees that the links are sufficient. You can see for yourself by going to Daniel Callahan, Ph.D and clicking the View History tab. I won`t mention any names, because I think that would be a violation of some guidelines, I don`t know for sure. Please give me your thoughts on this. MetaCow (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello there! The orphan tag was placed by me via AWB. I have looked again at the article and believe the orphan tag was appropriate for the following reason: an orphan is defined as "a page with few or no links from other pages (in Wikipedia)." These pages can still be found by searching Wikipedia, but it is preferable that they can also be reachable by links from related pages; it is therefore helpful to add links from other suitable pages with similar and/or related information. See WP:ORPH

Another area of concern I have only just identified is that this page appears to duplicate an existing page Daniel Callahan without expanding on it very much. I am inclined to say it just falls short of CSD A10. I would be interested to know why you created this page in light of the existence of the page Daniel Callahan?


 * Good point, I never looked at it that way. Maybe I should just delete the article to avoid further confusion? To answer your question, I created the article without realizing there was another article focusing on Daniel Callahan. I`m new to Wikipedia, so I do not yet know how to delete an article. Which brings me to my next question -- How do I post a Speedy Deletion tag on an article? Please reply, MetaCow (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem :-) If you would like the article to be deleted you can add the CSD G7 template (see WP:CSD) to the article and save the page, be sure to mention in the edit summary that you are the author and request deletion. That will make if easier for the Admin deleting to take action. If you're still unsure, reply to this message and I will tag it for deletion for you. There did appear to be some information on your page not included at Daniel Callahan. Please feel free to edit that page and expand upon the article. Welcome to Wikipedia!


 * I think I might have just merged the 2 articles, but I`m am not absolutely sure. You want to take a look, please? MetaCow (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, no... I cant see any changes to either page. For more info on merging articles please see WP:MM I would emphasize caution with merging two pages of almost identical content. The merger process basically involves copy and pasting the source page markup into the target page edit box. You could copy the entire content of Daniel Callahan, Ph.D to User:MetaCow/Sandbox which is a sub-page of your user page (that does not exist yet, but you can create it by following the link) that you can save you work in whilst you decide what content to copy across to Daniel Callahan. If you decide to that then please remember to place a speedy deletion tag on Daniel Callahan, Ph.D, or, if you need help I will do it for you. Pol430 (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, that`d be great if you could do that for me! :D Thanks! MetaCow (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Done! The page Daniel Callahan, Ph.D is now blank and tagged for speedy deletion. I have moved all the content on that page to User:MetaCow/Sandbox for you to edit as you wish. Kind Regards Pol430 (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks much :) MetaCow (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Tebson
I dont understand what was wrong with the "Tebson" article. It looked pretty informative to me. Tomas Gilbfarb (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was identified as spam and has been deleted by an Administrator.Pol430 (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but i read the article. It wasn't spam at all.  It was about a species of rodent that was discovered in bolivia. Tomas Gilbfarb (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * *Take it up with the deleting Administrator User:Soap Pol430 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So you admit that you didn't read the article or had any personal knowledge about it before choosing to comment on the article as "spam" ? Tomas Gilbfarb (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I have made no such admission; clearly! This discussion is now concluded. If you persist in spamming my talk page I will revert your edits. Pol430 (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page! 

Wayne Olajuwon has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

 WAYNE  OLAJUWON 23:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Woo hoo! Cookies! Thanks Wayne :) Pol430 (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome, Pol! :)  WAYNE  OLAJUWON 21:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of My Brother, Borat for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article My Brother, Borat, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/My Brother, Borat until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

World Series
Aside from rearranging the order, what "new facts" did the IP add? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a reply on my page, too. It says basically the same thing. -- undefined18:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing the IP of adding any, I mentioned that purely for information purposes as I do not know how much experience of Wikipedia the IP has.
 * Then that's a misleading, and frankly bogus, comment. What's your issue with the way he arranged the order? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. I restored the edit where the IP changed the order after another reviewer reverted it and have since approved his latest edit. Not quite sure why you are attacking me for this course of action...
 * "Please do not make edits you can not clarify with inline citations/references" is a totally irrelevant comment in that situation. As to the sort order, yes, it needs to be discussed, as I have issues with the way he did it. Just don't put stuff in the edit summary that has no relevance to what you're reverting or changing. I'm sure you meant well, just don't do it again. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I came into this article from a neutral point of view, an edit summary indicated an edit war was about to break out. Therefore I feel that my comments were: justified, applied to the situation overall, and I would not hesitate to do it again. Thank you for your comments.
 * No, the part about sourcing was NOT justified. It was misleading and resulted in my asking the question "which sources?", after which you admitted it was not relevant to this specific situation, hence you had sent me on a wild goose chase, which I don't like to be doing. Do that again, and I'll complain to you again. DO NOT post misleading comments in the edit summaries. It only makes a touchy situation WORSE. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And I see you had posted that exact same misleading comment on the IP's page, and he raised the same question. I'm guessing you have a template of some sort from which to paste that generic comment in. You should change it to say "IF" rather than blindly implying that there were actual sourcing violations, so as to avoid sending anyone after wild geese. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I stand by my actions. You have managed to create a "touchy situation" here, out of nothing. Nobody "sent" you on any kind of chase. I will not be bullied by you and your soapbox rants, based on actions which in fact did not involve you in the first place. You have said your piece, and I understand your concerns, however I do not understand your bullying tone. I have now said my piece, and do not wish to say anymore on the matter. Pol430 (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is on my watchlist, which is why I noticed it; and I was annoyed with you for misleading both me and the IP into thinking there were sourcing issues, which there weren't; and I'm hoping you'll do things in a more thoughtful way the next time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as a "bullying tone", you've merely picked up on my irritation with your initial action. When I do something wrong, I expect to be told about it, and I don't worry about the "tone", just about the facts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, noted, I apologise if my edit summary caused confusion to either you or the IP. I will tell him the same on his talk page. Pol430 (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger. We're good. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Javier Vazquez
How is my edit unconstructive? The deal is still pending a physical. TL565 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edit was reverted using a semi automated anti vandalism program. The reason for this is I could not see any references for the info you were providing. Having checked the article history I can not see any references for some previous edits by others. This article was flagged up because it is prone to vandalism. I'm willing to assume good faith but it is helpful to add references in the form of inline citations to avoid you edits being considered un-constructive. Feel free to re-edit the article. Pol430 (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Steel Train
Why was my edit to Steel Train's History section reported as vandalism?
 * Because you removed references and replaced it with unreferenced content. You also wrote about this group of living people without adhering to WP:NPOV or Biographies_of_living_persons. You then ignored the progressive messages you were sent and did the same thing a further 3 times. Pol430 (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I made the same edit three times because I thought I was supposed to redo the changes if I felt it was a false positive. The new history info was written by a member of the band, and those were the only references I was given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ath5r (talk • contribs) 21:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Only the first warning was given by a Bot, the rest were by me. If you re-write an article about a band, with text written by the same band, then the article ceases to be encyclopedic. It's a conflict of interest (see WP:COI). References must be shown in the article in the form of inline citations. See WP:REF for more info. You can re edit the article but you must re-word your text to a neutral (non-promotional) style and give verifiable references (like websites or books). Pol430 (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I edited the article and added in references, why was it still marked as vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ath5r (talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your changes | here (shown in yellow highlight) cited some references, but were written in a style that did not conform to this policy - concerning BLP articles and were also not in keeping with WP:NPOV which you were warned about before. Your edit changed the context of the article from encyclopedic to promotional. You are welcome to contribute to this article but please familiarise yourself with WP:BLP and adhere to this policy. Wikipedia takes BLP policy seriously and generally any edits that do not conform or contain potentially contentious material will be reverted. Pol430 (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

ACC Request
I requested an account on the ACC account creation interface. Pol430 (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphan page
Hi, Pol430. You have put an "orphan" tag on my article (in fact my first article) on Executive master's degree, though I thought I have enough links within Wiki as well as external links. I would really appreciate, if you explained your action (not to argue with you, but rather to consider this for myself in the future). And since you are at it with this article, I would appreciate if you found some time to look at another article I created (but so far only as a draft page) for review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RukhShona/Executive_Master_of_Science_in_Communication). Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RukhShona (talk • contribs) 15:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, Yes, I did tag your article using AWB. An orphan is defined as "a page with few or no links from other pages." Specifically articles with fewer than three incoming links are tagged as orphans. The Article Executive master's degree has no links from other Wikipedia mainspace articles. If you view the article and look to the left of the screen there is a section of links called toolbox if you click on what links here it will tell you what other articles link to the article you are viewing. In this case only my talk page and your draft page. As for your draft article, there are no pages that link to it at the moment because it still exists in your userspace. Hope that answers your question Pol430 (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I confused the links in the article with links leading to the article. But it makes sense now. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RukhShona (talk • contribs) 15:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyvan Speedy deletion
Hi there, thanks for looking at my first upload. I was sorry to see that you identified it as requiring speedy deletion. I have made some pretty sizable changes, so I everything is completely objective. Could you perhaps let me know via the talk page what's wrong (if anything) now that I've adjusted it?

I intend to do more wiki uploading in the future, so it'd be great to get it right here.

Again, thanks for your time.

Tompey (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied on the article talk page Pol430 (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi there again.

I have neutral-ized the anyvan entry, I believe. How would I make changes to other articles to undo the orphan tag? I obviously don't want to start spamming entries such as 'reverse auction' or 'online marketplace'. Is there a standard sentence or link that I could use?

Thanks for your time, and please let me know if the article meets your criteria for advert tag removal.

Cheers,

Tompey (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I have noticed that snowy12345 has put a speedy deletion on the page. Is this right, given that I have worked to make the article more neutral? Can I just delete the tag?

Cheers Tompey (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I will work on the article and see if I can rescue it, no promises tho, I have requested the reviewing admin give 3 hours for me to edit it. i will let you know what happens. Pol430 (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have given the article a major edit, rewording for neutrality and COI. I have removed some of the references to the good work of Anyvan because they were not needed to make the articles point. It would appear the User:snowy12345 is a new account and the only edit they have made so far is to tag Anyvan for CSD. I would advise against adding anymore material to the article that highlights the work of Anyvan to avoid it becoming promotional again. You might want to see if you can find any references to support the articles 'History' section. But I think thats all it needs. Pol430 (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

LGBT rights in the United States
Hello. It is a well-known fact that the states of California and Maine legalized gay marriage and then banned it again. Why would I need to verify this statement?66.194.72.10 (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not a well-known fact to me, Wikipedia english is global site not everyone is familiar with US state laws. The template message you were sent explained Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. See WP:CHALLENGE for more info. Pol430 (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

AWB edit summaries
Hi there; your current AWB edit summaries are misleading - you put that you were "typo fixing" at Tommy Veitch, but all you did was add Persondata. Just a heads up. Many thanks, GiantSnowman 22:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, I had left it on typo fixing from its last run, I've changed it to the very general 'clean up' now. Pol430 (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Venues of the 1992 Winter Olympics
I will put information in the After The Olympics section of this article. Please be patient. Chris (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Safdie Brothers
Thanks for cleaning up the citations, I wasn't sure how to do that.Justinkrivers (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, it can be a bit fiddly sometimes; thats why the Wikipedia god invented AWB :) Pol430 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Shashthi
Thanks for the copyedit. You have commented that there is a lot of repeated information. Can you point all the instances on Talk:Shashthi, so the information can be streamlined. Also, in some cases the intended meaning is changed, so I am changing a few things. I am explaining the reasons in the edit-summary comments. Please take a re-look if I have spoilt the grammar again. If you need more clarifications, please add a note on the talk. Thanks again. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will do that, when I have some more time, I'm on another project now. Pol430 (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Please add on the article talk when you are done. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 17:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pol430 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ellie Goulding
you changed my listing...its common knowledge they are in a relationship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.92.127 (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Common knowledge is not sufficient for adding potentially contentious information to articles about living people. You need to provide a reliable third party source for any such information. Linking to other wikipedia articles is not appropriate for this purpose. Pol430 talk to me 19:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Jenna (Benoît Laliberté)
Hi Pol430! I'm new to Wikipedia and haven't learned all the tricks yet. I'm trying to upload an image to the page I recently created...I would like it to show up on the top right and be able to put in quick facts like I have seen on other pages. I was having trouble finding out how to upload the image directly to the page, but thought I had finally found a way after hours of searching. However, somehow I ended up uploading the image to a general Wikipedia page. I tried erasing my incredibly poor attempt at the alt codes in the description but I received a message saying that I had removed information without cause and my changes were not made. What I would like to do is delete the image from that location altogether and re-upload it onto the page that I have recently created. If you would be able to help me out with this it would be greatly appreciated! Thank you in advance from an exasperated user! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd333 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, The image you uploaded was successfully added to the encyclopedia, it did not goto another wikipedia page even though it may have appeared to do so. I did not realise you were the editor that uploaded the image, which is why I reverted your actions when you blanked the file page. For future reference simply blanking a page will not delete it regardless of whether it is a file page, article, talk page or any other. Only administrators can delete pages. Don't worry, wikipedia can be a confusing interface when you are new... I have added the image to the article you created in the top right corner as requested. If you are struggling with how to perform a particular editing action you can find plenty of assistance in the Help section. The article you created has not been reviewed yet, I will do that now to ensure it meets Wikipedias criteria for encyclopedic entry, I will let you know the results. Pol430 talk to me 20:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Mughar Ridge edits
Hi, I'm a bit worried that meaning is being lost during this process. e.g. 'On 12 November, while General Allenby prepared for battle by ordering the 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division to attack the Ottoman Armys right flank, the Australian Mounted Division was reinforced by two additional brigades. After advancing towards Tel es Safi they encountered a determined and substantial Ottoman counterattack.' who is advancing and encountering the Ottoman counterattack - it could be the 52nd and/or the AMD when it was just the AMD.

But I see your point the original sentence was a monster. A more clear interpretation would be 'On 12 November General Allenby prepared for battle the next day by ordering the 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division to attack the Ottoman right flank. On the same day the Australian Mounted Division reinforced by two additional brigades, after advancing towards Tel es Safi encountered a determined and substantial Ottoman counterattack.' Sommeil/Summeil is a place - 'about Sommeil' means around about, not just near.

What is GOCEinuse?

I appreciate this article has a lot of foreign and obscure information so I would like to collaborate with you in any way you suggest, regarding the odd content. :) --Rskp (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, you asked for this article to be looked at by a copy editor at GOCE Requests. I was answering that request. As a copy editor I do not have any detailed knowledge of the subject matter and try to avoid changing the semantics of an article wherever possible. My task is to alter the prose, checking text for spelling, grammar, sentence structure, cohesion, and tone. In this case I could not discern what the meaning was; so had to change to sentence to its closest approximation. Also, it was not clear to me what 'Sommeil' was (place, person?) hence; I tagged it. In the context of that sentence I don't feel that 'around about Sommeil' would work. I understand that article authors and contributors may want to alter some aspects of what I have written, rest assured I will not take offense :). GOCEinuse is a tag I add to articles whilst I am copy editing. It asks other editors not to edit whilst the tag is displayed. Because I edit by section to decrease page load times, if another editor edits before I save my changes it will result in repeated edit conflicts. I add the tag to the article whilst I'm working on it and remove it when I'm finished, or taking a break of more than a few hours. So far I have only copy edited the lead section of this article, I will continue with the rest of the article, but it may take some time. Pol430 talk to me 00:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot - I have reworked the first section with the benefit of your edits and appreciate the value of your work and am happy with the process. :) --Rskp (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

thekeenone
Heya Pol430! I'm new to Wikipedia so I don't know all the rules and regulations perfectly yet, can you please help me make my article meet standards? Because I'm almost certain I can, thank you.
 * Hi, I nominated the article for deletion because it does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC, in particular the guidelines for notability. If you want to have a read through that policy and let me know if you can provide reliable sources to show that the article meets WP:MUSIC. And let me know here, I will then be happy to assist you in bringing the article up to standard. You might also want to take a look at WP:BLP as your article is about a real living person. Best wishes Pol430 talk to me 22:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel that my edits now make it meet WP:MUSIC, I have included multiple news articles about the act,(from news and blogs)(in the references)

Pixie Lott
Shall we put in that she is dating model Oliver Cheshire?  (Same website that says Ellie is dating Greg James.)Blackstarship (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's already in the article... If you feel it should not be there, then be bold and remove it, but another editor may disagree with you and restore the content. In which case you should attempt to resolve the matter on the article's talk page. Pol430 talk to me 22:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

David Azrieli
Hello, Pol430!

It appears you may have mistaken me for an entry vandal--no harm done!

I have reverted the page to include the original controversy topics, the concerns of the subject's family member notwithstanding. I'll make sure that the page does not get vandalised again, not to worry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.162.150 (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I reverted your last edit (prior to mine) because it seemed only to serve to insert a single piece of unexplained markup. You also forgot to provide an edit summary on either occasion. I'm happy that your latest edit is constructive. Pol430 talk to me 20:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Monosuit
please guide me what i have to do. i need some suggestions on how to revise the topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpen129 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like User:Feezo has already helped you out and re-written the article. You may want to visit WP:INTRODUCTION to learn about contributing to this encyclopedia. Pol430 talk to me 09:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Word Gratis
I have just create my account on wikipedia. About the word, can you give some references where appear that French, German, Portuguese, and so on use gratis? I speak French and it's not a word in it. I know a little bit Catalan and it's not a word. AFAIK, the other languages don't use it. I don't know if wikipedia put my user and the other things, if not, i'll do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkis2 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I forgot. What I mean about from Spanish and not from Latin is that, obviously, the word comes from the Latin but English took it from Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkis2 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, quite frankily I have no idea wheather the term means 'for free' in those languages. Your edit was reverted because you removed sourced content and replaced it with different content that you did not provide a source for. I have removed the unsourced information concerning other laguages from the article. I have reworked the section with a new source from the Oxford English dictionary. This source shows the word gratis (as used in English) has its origins in late Middle English, from Latin. You are free to edit the article again, but please provide reliable sources to illustrate any points you make. It is not sufficient under Wikipedia's policy of verifiability to simply say "I speak the language/s". Pol430 talk to me 21:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Must Be The Music
It was axed on December the 27th.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s134/must-be-the-music/news/a294898/sky1s-must-be-the-music-axed.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.160.61 (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, glad you found a reference, feel free to reinsert the information (if you haven't already) and illustrate your reference using an inline citation. See WP:CITE and WP:RS for more info. Best Wishes Pol430 talk to me 23:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser/Typos
An edit you made involved adding an extra line space between the categories and the stub, and your edit summary linked to the above page, but I could see no mention there of adding lines. Could you clarify your edit? Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, in short I have no idea why AWB added those extra lines, perhaps it felt it was tidying up the whitespace. This edit was made almost one month ago using a previous build of AWB. 'Typo fixing' was the edit summary I had selected at the time hence why it appeared, this was based on the AWB documentation which suggested it was an appropriate edit summary when regex typo fixing is enabled. I have since refined my settings in AWB to skip only whitespace changes, and I have changed the edit summary to 'clean up'. I only use AWB to scan new pages to perform very general clean up's of articles, and for my work as a copy editor. I hope that has answered your question, if you disagree with the edit feel free to revert it. Pol430 talk to me 11:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your swift reply. I don't know much about AWB and other automated tools, but from your response it seems its perhap closer to being a fully automated process than a semi-automated one, as you say you have no idea why the programe added those lines. You say that there have been changes since the time of the edit that mean this type of edit won't be done in future? However, I note you also state that you have changed your AWB settings so that 'whitespace only' changes would be skipped, but a) does this mean that whitespace changes combined with other changes would still be done (i.e. as per the Pinehurst example when the orphan tag was also added), and b) if other AWB users do not apply your rule then they (via AWB) may continue to make whitespace-only edits? Sorry if my questions may be a bit basic - if there's an easy guide on AWB which may be of relevance to my query feel free to point me there. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * AWB is a semi automated process, and ultimately I am responsible for any edits I made and accept responsibility accordingly. My AWB setup will still make whitespace changes, but only if other changes are made. Other users could make whitespace only changes if their settings dictate that. I didn't notice it added the orphan tag in that example, so yes my current AWB setup would make that same edit again (if I click save). It is possible to decline specific changes suggested by AWB by double clicking the relevant line in the diff preview. It is also possible to use custom edit summaries and change the edit summary for each edit. However, the purpose of AWB remains to make tedious tasks easier. If I do a new pages scan AWB will pick up 500 articles to check. Whilst I am careful that I do not allow AWB to make destructive changes, It is possible I may make edits that some users feel were not particularly needed. There is no easy guide to AWB but more information can be found at the project page WP:AWB. Whitespace changes by AWB users have been discussed before (I forget where, maybe AN/I). Best wishes Pol430 talk to me 13:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have had a chance to look through WP:AWB (not read through every word!) and had a quick search for ANI/whitespace issues. Having done this, I have a few minor follow-up points and then I was intending to make a post at AWB.

AutoWikiBrowser states that whitespace only edits should be avoided, and you say above that indeed your AWB settings have been tweaked to avoid this. I take it this means that AWB is not set-up so as to prevent whitespace-only edits (or indeed any other 'insignificant' edits), and that it is solely down to AWB users to follow the rules?

Anyway, that is a bit by-the-by. I have gone to the general fixes page of AWB and this sub-section is the only one I can see that might be dealing with why whitespaces may be being added to some articles. Do you know any more on this, or if not this will be the main question I will be asking at AWB. I would like to use the Pinehurst example above when I post, and I may link to this discussion for background info, if that's OK. Anyway, if you have any further points to make on this let me know, else I will ask a question at AWB and will post a link here when done as well. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Xebulon
Hello Pol430, User Xebulon continues disruptive editing as seen here ignoring your warning. Please warn this user against edit-warring again.  Tuscumbia  (talk ) 15:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: Talk:WP:UTM
— Spike Toronto  21:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive news
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 20:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

Lulebo
Thanks for letting me know about Lulebo, I'm not too familiar with the notability criterias for companies. Is a company notable enough if it has around 70 employees, owns and manages approximately 11 100 apartments, and has a turnover of around half a billion SEK? Otherwise, I suppose you can delete the article. Thanks! --Skizziktalk 01:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, speedy deletion is not used for articles that fail to meet notability criteria, but because an article does not make any credible assertion of notability. If you were to edit the article and add content that shows how the company is notable then the tag can be removed. Managing a lot of houses does not equal notability. Managing a lot of houses and receiving coverage in the media, because it does a very good (or bad) job of managing those houses could be notable. Does that make sense? <font color="#00008B">Pol430 talk to me 11:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer! I thought a company was notable if it was big enough, but it make sense that it should have been covered in the media too. I don't have time to do the research now so I have no problem if You delete it. It can always be recreated at a later date when someone can dig up more sources. --Skizziktalk 12:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Comrade!
I'm glad to have found you!

I seriously need your help concerning the addition of false information being added to wikipedia by a stubborn, poorly-informed user. I have messaged him over and over, and he will not relent, and accuses me of vandalism whenever i correct his mistakes. It is regarding the band Dying Fetus, and their genre. the user is Blackmetalbaz, who insists that Dying Fetus is a hardcore punk / grindcore band, while they are neither - i have known the vocalist/guitarist of dying fetus, the only remaining original member for almost 20 years, and i can attest 100% that they are not, nor have they ever been punk; they are Death Metal - a combination of brutal death metal (drums and vocals) and technical death metal (guitars). He told me specifically that when he writes their music, that is one thing he keeps in mind.

I have explained my case logically, rationally, and passionately, but he is quite dense, and refuses to admit that he has made a mistake. He found a website that erroneously classified them as hardcore, and has taken that as golden truth. it is untrue. please take the time to look into this and correct his misinformed action. John Gallagher and dying fetus would greatly appreciate it, and i would again adore wikipedia the way i did before this menace ruined it for me and thousands of other hardened Dying Fetus fans. just look at the discussion on their page!

Thank you in advance!

- AE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.125.204 (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems strange that you contacted me for support, seeing as I was the patroller that reverted your last edit to this article. Anyhow, a quick Google search gives several websites that show the band as a death metal group. User:Blackmetalbaz has provided a ref to verify his content and I see no reason to dispute his edits. <font color="#00008B">Pol430 talk to me 18:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Mangalorean Catholics
It is i who should be thanking you. I'm glad you enjoyed the article. Regards, <FONT FACE="Haettenschweiler" COLOR="#ff0000">Joyson Noel</FONT>  <FONT FACE="Haettenschweiler" COLOR="#ff0000"> Holla at me!</FONT>  21:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Halo
dear sir user Shshshshsh uses group sock puppetry he edits with mutually agreed groups I have not done any nonconstructive edits I have explained all my edits you see the article now

you please stop abusing fellow editors please please please u please stop group sock puppetry and warn others with the privilages u ahve please please I have not revrted all ur edits - what i did is correct u please check the article please stop abusing me plese please dont send messages - i dont know how to use talk page - film fare awards are not equivalnt to oscars - national awards are - You please stop abusing me) I have not added any unsourced information (Kaverijha23 (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)).

Within a second
Now, that was quick! Thanks - DVdm (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :) <font color="#00008B">Pol430 talk to me 10:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Nikolai Tikhonov
While it's true that the Nikolai Tikhonov article has reached GA-status it may be wise to get a good English writer as yourself to fix any minor, or for that matter, major issues with the article. --TIAYN (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

NPP 'warning'
Hi Pol. I appreciate your interest and work on the warning template project, but with all due respect I feel you are not taking  a global view of what  some of those templates are for and the work their parent  projects represent. Barging into a discussion without reading  it  from  the beginning and not following  the links to  problem it  discusses, and then making  an out-of-process major edit without joining in with the consensus building is not  the way  we do  things around here. You'll notice however, that I  have not  had the discourtesy  to revert you  edit  and replace it  with  my  own - yet. I would much prefer to  win  you  over to  providing  some positive input  for improving  the NPP system as a whole, rather than innocently disrupting it in good faith. --Kudpung (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replied to your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace <font color="#00008B">Pol430 talk to me 10:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Pol. I have a habit of keeping business on the business pages, and personal comments on the user talk pages, so  I'll  continue here,  because from  the uboxen on  your user page I  would have thought  you  might have had a deeper understanding  of our policies concerning the constant  deluge of crap  pages, the importance of New Page Patrol, the crisis it's in, and hence my  reasons for kicking up such a fuss. You  made your  edit 'at  the risk  of a rebuke' so  you  already  had an idea that  it  might  not  meet the entire approval  of the community.
 * 1. There is no such  thing in Wikipedia Realpolitik as 'tacit' agreement. A tacit understanding is a fallacy, an abstract manifested by the fact that no contradiction or objection is made and is thus inferred from the situation and the circumstances. It's like if no one said don't  drop  a  bomb on Buxton, we can go  ahead and nuke the whole of the Peak District. Less cataclismic would be to  claim  that  if nobody  !votes on  an WP:RfA everyone can have the admin  tools by  default, or the WP:AfD system  would be superfluous because we could delete or keep  according  to  the mood we're in. Your edit to  the template was neither discussed, nor had you  participated in  the discussion  prior to  doing  it.  In that thread there was absolutely nothing that could be construed as an agreement for anything, other than perhaps a consensus among  one or two  others to lecture me as if I were some kind of lame-brained newbie and push  me aside because I'm  not  a member of your WP:UW cabal.
 * 2. The discussion was in  no way  'cyclic' either - perhaps you got your rhetoric mixed up and meant something else - it  was going straight ahead and waiting  for someone to  synthesise the best of three or four suggestions for a rewording. Hwever, as you have the support from  an admin, I  suppose there's little else I  can do but to  appeal  to  common sense elsewhere. In  the meantime I'll  leave you  with these thoughts because I  don't  want  to  be accused of talking  about  anyone behind their backs; I  trid above to  end on  a friendly  note, but  you  weren't  interested, but  I'll  nevertheless close with another friendly and genuine suggestion that I very often make in more collegial areas: if you need any help understanding editing or policy at any time, don't  hesitate to ask me on my talk page:) Kudpung (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)BTW: there is something  wrong  with  custom  format  of this talk  page.


 * Kudpung, You are a well established and respected editor, who has contributed a great deal to Wikipedia. I think your efforts to restart NPP are extremely valuable, and will benefit the project enormously. Your cathartic release above and here (particularly the sweeping remark: "unfortunately, such projects as WT:UTM often attract those who will never make it to adminship, but who want to acquire a feeling of power over other editors.") are both unfounded and puerile. I'm not going to bite to each of the comments you have made above, because what time I do spend on Wikipedia can be better spent elsewhere (WP:GOCE for example}. I appreciate that you did not agree with my edit, but would like us to move on from that and enjoy a collegial relationship here on Wikipedia; what say you? <font color="#00008B">Pol430 talk to me 22:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference is, that I always remain objective, and appeal to friendly and more collegial collaboration. To suggest that my complaint is cathartic and puerile, would have other, more sensitive editors running and clutching  the skirts of aunty  ANI. Fortunately  I've worked with people for a very long time and I'm made of stronger stuff. With equal fortune, another editor  has reverted your template to  an acceptable form that conveys the very  message I made the error of being  polite and discussing first on a project page  that claims to be the authority on templates. I've read your sandbox draft and laud and support your interest in moving the templates forward away from their current chaos. But please do not lose sight of what those templates are for, who is going to  be using them,  and who is going to be on the receiving end. The effect they will have when they leave the template factory is more important than the making  of them. Let's leave it at that,  and thanks for fixing  your  talk  page code - I  didn't  want  to  commit  an indiscretion  by  doing  it for you. Happy editing! Kudpung (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to read through my sandbox, I will endeavor to keep your advice and comments in mind. I hope also, you won't mind me asking you for your feedback on the completed version? With regards to this talk page, I wasn't aware I had fixed the problem, and forgot to enquire about it in in my previous edit, could you point me towards it? <font color="#00008B">Pol430 talk to me 22:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

templates
Hi Pol. I would be most  happy  to  give you  any  feedback. Don't hesitate to  ask  me on  my  tp  any  time. I haven't  been able to  fix your format problem. It's probably  be a local problem. FYI I'm using  MacOSX 10.6.5 and Firefox 3.6.13. the problem is not  apparent  when I  switch  to  Safari 5.0.3. So it  may  be affecting  any  Mac users on  Firefox. I've made a screenshot at  User:Kudpung/Sandbox. Let me know when you  have viewed it  so  that  I  can  get  it  deleted again. --Kudpung (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Kudpung, I have viewed the screenshot, I see that the section headers are numbered, how weird! I'm a Safari user, but within Windows and I have never seen that before. <font color="#00008B">Pol430 talk to me 08:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh the numbering is an  option  you  can  check in your user preferences. It's particularly useful when viewing pages that have a lot of topics an d sub sections on them. However, check how your text spills over the blue border. --Kudpung (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah right, my mistake, yes I now notice the text spilling over. I don't experience myself, perhaps it's a browser issue? <font color="#00008B">Pol430 talk to me 14:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

GOCE January Backlog elimination drive conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 15:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

Talkback
Thanks a lot. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Golgenie
Hi there Pol430,

Thanks for your help with my last page. I noticed that you flagged a mistake of mine for deletion. I messed up the initial page tag, like an idiot.

However, the article I am looking to post has the same content. I have been objective in every aspect here, I think. Could you point me toward the area I am going wrong in, because it's a little frustrating when you think you've got it right. :)

Anyway, I have to clear it with another wikipedian first, as an article wth the same name (not written by me) has been taken down.

I dare say you will be notified anyway, but I will leave a message when I am clear to post.

Thanks again for your help.

Cheers,

Tom Tompey (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there, when you say you 'messed up' I assume you mean you got the article name wrong? The page you have created is called "Golgenie" when the business you refer to is called "Goldgenie"?! I could fix that quite easily for you; however, the page Golgenie has been tagged for speedy deletion under CSD G11 (Advertising) by another patroller. I have to say I am inclined to agree with them, aside from the promotional tone of the article, the company does not appear to meet notability criteria or make any credible assertion of notability. On that basis I am disinclined to remove the speedy deletion tag. You can place a tag on the article if you would like to be given more time to edit the article and make it less promotional, and to find some reliable sources with which to verify the articles content. <font color="#00008B">Pol430  talk to me 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Pol430,

Yes, that's an accurate run down.

I have altered the article in line with another patroller's comments, and would like to submit this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tompey

Would it be possible for you to run through it before I post it? I believe it now fulfils all criteria.

Many thanks again for your kind help,

Tom Tompey (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there is still some work to be done on the text, there are areas of WP:PUFFERY and WP:PEACOCK. Are you happy for me to make some revisions whilst this is in your userspace? Once these issues have been addressed I strongly recommend posting this article at WP:Articles for creation and allowing the reviewing team to decide if it should be included. By following that method there is less chance it will be deleted again. <font color="#00008B">Pol430 talk to me 18:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi again,

That's excellent. Thank you. Please feel free to make adjustments and I will follow your suggestion.

Cheers,

Tompey (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:9px;" class="plainlinks"> The Master of Mayhem has given you a LOLipop! This horrible pun and delicious candy promotes WikiLove and tells the world how low you will stoop for the sake of humor. Spread WikiLove by giving someone else a lollipop, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the unrelenting joy of lollipops by adding {{subst:Lollipop}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thank you for signing my guestbook.--The Master of Mayhem (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: SpikeToronto
— <font color="#DC143C" face="Garamond" size="3">Spike <font color="#000000" face="Garamond" size="3">Toronto  09:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)