User talk:Finemann/Archive 2

Removing others' talk page comments
Why did you revert the comments of another editor to Talk:Lead poisoning in this edit? User:Namati appeared to have made constructive, non-vandalizing comments; I'm not sure what would cause you to remove them. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing constructive edits without consulting the talk page
Please do not remove other people's edits without consulting the talk page. It is noted there why the changes were made although any idiot should be able to see the issue in the site, IF they bothered to research, all you are doing is causing unneeded problems with this community making intelligent people work harder for no apparent reason aside from pure ignorance!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pepper_spray&direction=prev&oldid=446497263

75.10.32.167 (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just like User:Mrmatiko pointed out below always use edit summaries when blanking part of a page. Nobody is gonna really check whether you discussed it in the article talk page or not. For you info. there are bots which look out for blanked pages and they even report users to admins. It just so happened that I noticed it before any bot did. So next time please use edit summaries. Thank you! &mdash;  Fιηεmαηη  (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit wrongly reverted
Deletion made in Bankruptcy in Canada was eliminating duplicate information contained in the immediately following section. Please restore. Raellerby (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk page stalker So that a misunderstanding like this doesn't occur in future, it might be a good idea to give an edit summary for every edit that you make. Some editors may find it confusing to see the (tag: section blanking) on an edit and revert it because there isn't any context for the section blanking given. Use of edits summaries is also something that people may take into account during a future Request for adminship. --Mrmatiko (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Scott Bundgaard
The material which you reinserted after the subject of the article removed it was indeed improper material, with grossly undue weight according to the BLP policy. He or anyone would be justified in removing such material. For BLP, we need to follow the spirit of the policy in cases like this. I shall deal with the person who inserted that material originally, if they have not already been blocked.  DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I should apologize for not reading the deleted material carefully. The editor had blanked a good part of the page (without giving any sort of edit summary) which had references from Reuters, Federal Elections Commision, Arizona Local News etc. I was hasty and didn't quite read the material and assumed it was vandalism. Hope you understand. Regards! &mdash;  Fιnεmαnn  (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. I assumed something of the sort; If I thought you had any but the best motives, I would have dealt with it otherwise; I checked your editing record before commenting here and I see no problems. And since in fact there was coverage from national newspapers for this Arizona event, and he is a an elected official, some proportionate coverage might be appropriate,  DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The lion of Egyptian revolution
Crisco 1492 have pointed out that image seems to be pixelated now (especially the protester). Can that be fixed? and if so how? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what Crisco 1492 meant, but image quality of the protester in the enhanced picture is same as the original. I don't see any extra pixelation. And did he say this when you nominated the picture for a featured or good picture? I personally don't think this image will be given an FP status because of the quality problem. I now have access to a couple of proprietary noise removal programs. I'll see what I can do more. Regards! &mdash;  Fιnεmαnn  (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Any luck with those new proprietary noise removal programs? BTW, the request that I placed on Graphic Lab/Photography workshop says its Stale. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry, I had forgotten all about the picture. I have uploaded an improved version of the image. See if it is okay. And as for the request being marked "stale" its okay. It just means that not much activity has happened since the last edit. That is, new editors haven't worked on it and you haven't accepted any solutions. Its nothing to worry about. Regards! &mdash;  Fιnεmαnn  (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The flag and the protester look amazing but the loin looks a bit pixelilized and noisy. I think once the lion is done, The image would be featured thanks to u :-). It amazing how the image has improved thanks to your effort and the help of others -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
 Puffin  Let's talk! 18:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Finemann, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Finemann/PornTube.


 * See a log of files removed today here.
 * Shut off the bot here.
 * Report errors here.
 * If you have any questions, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

CSD G11 on Word Worm
Hi, I wanted to let you know that I challenged your CSD G11 on Word Worm. While it may go in to a bit too much depth in some areas, I don't think it is so overly promotional as to justify a G11, particularly in light of the near notability established by the references. (Also it is less promotional now that the marketplace external links were removed after you nominated it) I'm not sure the article would survive an AfD on notability grounds, but I think there is enough there that an AfD would be the best way to handle it if it should be deleted. Monty 845  02:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, I also challenged your WP:CSD A7 on Amod Prasad Upadhyay. In my opinion the claim that the subject was or is a representative in the Constituent Assembly is a claim of importance sufficient to survive criteria A7. I have replaced it with a BLPPROD as the article is unreferenced. Just to mention, if the claim regarding his membership in the Constituent Assembly can be verified, it is very likely the subject would be considered Notable, though that is a much higher standard then is considered with an CSD A7. Monty 845  03:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

tb
Bazj (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)