User talk:Galaxy Kid

Welcome!


Hello, Galaxy Kid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you are enjoying editing and want to continue. Some useful pages to visit are:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)

You can sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you need any help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. We're so glad you're here! 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ram Aur Shyam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pran. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Rajesh Khanna.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rajesh Khanna.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP
Hi Galaxy, if you remove problematic references like this, you should also consider removing the content that will be left unsourced by its removal. This is especially important in biographies of living people, which require impeccable sourcing. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right now i want to free the pages from these crappy websites. I am not removing the content as some content might be true and other editors might revert might edit (including IP editors). I don't get it, that users prefer crappy websites over google books and reliable sources. BLPs of TV actors who are one Tv series wonder can be created through timesofindia, bollywoodlife (part of India.com),Dainik Bhaskar, Navbharat Times, but even experienced users prefer unknown websites. Are they trying to promote the small time TV actors or these unknown websites?  --Galaxy Kid (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand, but we can't have potentially incorrect information in BLPs, because they could potentially be defamatory. Unsourced birthdates and birth names violate WP:BLPPRIVACY. Unsourced religions could cause trouble for some people, blah blah blah. It doesn't take much more time to remove the problematic content. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rajesh Khanna.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Rajesh Khanna.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply to email
I hav a feeling you're right. But we're going to need more concrete proof than that to put him on the hook for violating the ToU -- and I have checked by googling the obvious things. MER-C 20:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism
Thank you for your reports at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Administrators depend very much on editors such as yourself bring vandals to the administrators' attention, so that they can be dealt with. However, there are a couple of points you should take into consideration when deciding whether to make a report. Firstly, it is usually not helpful making reports on IP addresses that have only one or two edits over the course of several months. Unless there is clear evidence that it is one vandal who keeps coming back over the course of time, it is likely that recent edits from an IP address are from a different person than ones from long ago, and if the recent activity is just one edit, then it is likely that it is from an editor who has never made any other edits, and has never been warned. In that situation, an administrator is not going to take any action, and the only effect of the report is to take up an administrator's time which could have been better spent on checking other reports, which are more likely to need action. Secondly, except under really exceptional circumstances, there is no point in making a report on an editor who has only had one low-level warning. Under almost all circumstances, a vandal is unlikely to be blocked unless he or she has received at least two warnings, first a fairly gentle warning, and then a warning making it clear that continuing in the same way may lead to a block. If you use standard templated warnings, that means at least one at level one or two, and at least one at level three or four. Even with two warnings, some administrators are reluctant to block unless the vandalism is very serious, so three warnings may be safer. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Different Administrators have different outlook. Anyway i will look at the current edits, instead of past edits for Ip editors. In case of School Ips i will look at block log and recent vandalism. The Ip i reported just now has clean block log, but a school IP and already made enough disruption for now. Galaxy Kid (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Declaration
Hi Galaxy, you should probably declare your multiple accounts on your various user pages to avoid problems with sockpuppetry accusations. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I have declared in other Wikimedia projects.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Avengers

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Galaxy_Kid

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Galaxy_Kid --Galaxy Kid (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You used to have a statement on your talk page to the effect of "I am user and . This is my alternate account. " What happened to that? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * My user page was deleted after my deletion request . Now my meta page is visible. I don't remember mentioning on my talk page. In my userpage I mentioned what is written in my Userpage of French and Italian Wikipedia. Now it's not visible as the page is deleted. Galaxy Kid (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , is actually an alt. account of yours? If so, why has it been editing as recent as yesterday? And  as recent as October? Could you explain how and why they're being used in line with the legitimate uses section of the sock policy? Face-smile.svg samtar  { t } 09:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have seen userpage of many editors, where they mention that they have alternate accounts. Sometimes the alternate account is mentioned, sometimes it's not. Right now i can't login to my Conan The Barbarian account. If i mention my alternate accounts, i believe there is no problem. Everybody knows The Avengers is a popular superhero team. If i can access My Avengers account, then i can't use it to edit Wikipedia?. I mentioned in Wikiproject Spam that "Today this IP 59.177.43.26 was spamming this link in Wazir. I searched for two hours, going through the differences to track this user Tihomv. The IPs are probabaly related to him. I am The Avengers. This is my alternate account. Please blacklist this and reduce our work. As i mentioned above with my previous account; new Bollywood sites pop out from Mumbai. In this case, the IP is from Delhi. --Galaxy Kid (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)". If there is any policy against use of two simultaneous account, then i will stop editing from "The Avengers". Galaxy Kid (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Other than that my password was not working for The Avengers. I used my registered E-Mail to reset my password. A blocked user came to my talk page addressing me as "The average" instead of "The Avengers". That was very irritating. I never expected that The Avengers will be addressed as The average. I believed my username "The Avengers" was very popular.Galaxy Kid (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Or, If you are implying that I am the alternate account of The Avengers, as that account is older; I will use this account more frequently. Galaxy Kid (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As stated above, please read the legitimate uses of multiple accounts. I'm sure you're doing all this in good faith, and nothing will come of it, but editing from two different accounts for no good reason is actually against the username policy. I would recommend properly disclosing and ceasing editing from it, just in case an overzealous editor sees it as socking.  would you care to weigh in too, just in case I'm talking rubbish? Face-smile.svg samtar  { t } 10:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I mentioned it in User:The Avengers and User:Conan The Barbarian. Galaxy Kid (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"link spam"
In your edit of Swades, the edit summary stated, "Removing linkspam per WP:EL..." So, I'm reverting you again on Swades. You can remove the same refs except for Bollyvista. Please fix the reliable ref you broke. Stop using the edit summary and use one that says what you are doing. Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) There was no linkspam in there.  Unreliables refs are not link spam.
 * 2) You only removed references, nothing in the External links section.
 * 3)  You've also been removing "Bollyvista" links.  While the reliability of this site is questionable, it has been acceptable to use because reliable sites do use it.
 * 4) You've been  leaving parts of the ref behind or messing up the reliable ones.  You did this in Swades.  I've fixed atleast 10 Indian film articles today that had screwed up references.  I know two of them were yours, I suspect many of the others are too.
 * Bollyvista is not reliable at all. I am removing unreliable references. Maybe linkspam edit summary is not right. You must be aware that those who create bollywood related websites, they use Wikipedia to promote their websites. It's not external links. Even critical reception section is filled with reviews from unknown movie critics. And why you believe bollyvista as reliable when there are no third party mention. Galaxy Kid (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Grrr, I mixed up BoxOfficeIndia with Bollyvista. Yea, they don't even sound the same.  You made a good call.   Thanks for fixing the ref error in the article.   Its still not a spam link...  Use "unreliable reference" or something similar instead.  Bgwhite (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)