User talk:Gsingh85

Welcome

 * }

Ownership of Articles
Hi. I was concerned to see your comment on article A Royal Flush: "I will be keeping my eye on this article to prevent unnecessary changes being made. If your going to edit or change it can you please give your reason for the change or I will just reverse it if I think it doesn't improve the article." Maybe it was not your intention, but that sounds like a claim of "article ownership" and we have a policy against article ownership. You can, and should, revert bad edits but reverting edits purely to reserve your own favoured version would not be acceptable. Maybe that wasn't what you were intending to do anyway but I thought it best to draw that to your attention just in case. Regards, --DanielRigal (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Daniel-craig-naomie-harris-skyfall.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Daniel-craig-naomie-harris-skyfall.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean
I don't know what exactly your role is in this. Rather than making threats why not just explain why your doing what you are doing in simple terms. Your using jargon that I'm not familiar with. I don't know what a "spam-promoting edit" is. Instead of firing accusations why not just explain what the problem is. I think what your referring to is the website link. The reason why I put the link in there what to show the information I put in was not my own, it was from another source. Why not try to think first before making absurd statements.


 * I am afraid you've got it backwards. You must do the thinking, not I. First I have told you repeatedly that your source is not reliable and I gave you links to look up to see what constitutes a reliable source. But that didn't help much because you continued reverting. Then I told you about the three revert rule rule in vain as it seems because you reverted after that. Then I gave you a level 4 spam warning telling you that advertising online retailers is considered spam. The Shaving Shack is a non-notable retailer and is not supposed to be included in any article. You made "The Shaving Shack" the centerpiece of your edit at Straight razor. This is a non-notable piece of trivia and promotes a single online retailer and without using a reliable source. This is spam and covered under WP:SPAM. If you had a reliable source such as the Guardian, the New York Times or CNN etc. perhaps a single line mention could be included in the article. But definitely not a whole section on the Shack based on a self-published source like "Digital spy" authored by a blogger at the Digital spy website. So please do not readd this info into the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  23:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please just stop getting angry as I don't want to have heated exchanges. I don't or I didn't know who you are but I'm guessing you're a moderator or an administrator. I have dealt with other moderators before and I haven't encountered such threatening words. Like I said you have used jargon that I'm not familiar with as I am not an expert in wiki articles, I'm just a casual user. That's what I was referring to when I said think. There is a mountain of information in terms of guidelines so forgive me if I haven't read every word, you obviously have more time than I do to read all of this. If I got things wrong then fair enough I can put it right. Online retailers have been mentioned on other wiki articles so I didn't expect there to be a problem when I mentioned The Shaving Shack. The online retailer in question was mentioned in the article I referred to which was my reference. And you are incorrect when you say the "Shaving Shack" is the centerpiece of the edit. The information says that online sales have increased by 405% which means exactly that - online sales, not limited to any one online retailer. There was no link of this online retailer but I take the point you have made. "Reliable sources" such as the Guardian that you have mentioned also contain statistics they have gained from other sources so I was a little puzzled at the definition of "reliable source". Nevertheless I will read the guideline again. The point is if I got it wrong there is no reason to get out of you pram and start firing accusations at me. I am interested to know, since your the moderator who has more time reading these guidelines, as to what your definition of "notable trivia" would be. May I also point out other articles including ones with the star marking have references from the digitalspy website.


 * Please stop making unjustified and personal comments at me such as: Please just stop getting angry... and no reason to get out of you pram and start firing accusations at me You perceive things in my remarks that don't exist so please don't try to read my mind and try to stay well within your own "pram". Personal remarks about other editors are covered by our policy on ad-hominem comments so I would ask you to stop making them. It really makes it very unpleasant for me to communicate with you. It is also unfair to me because all I am doing is trying to help you. It is not my fault that I have to quote a myriad of policies. They are just part of Wikipedia's rules and require some type of learning curve on the part of a new editor. But do not shoot the messenger. Anyway, I have modified your edit and included it in the article using a better source and more encyclopaedic tone and I gave you credit for submitting it. I hope this is satisfactory to you because I really would like to end this incident and resolve it without any further recriminations. By the way I am not an administrator. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  00:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "It is not my fault that I have to quote a myriad of policies" ok fair enough. As I have mentioned before I am a casual user and I do appreciate any one trying to point out any mistakes I have made. It is rather regretful this exchange has gone the way it has. I appreciate what you have done and I hope these warnings you applied on my account wont impact any future edits I make in good faith in the near future. As a casual user a mountain of guidelines, rules and polices are not always clear. A lot of information can also be ambiguous so it is appreciated when someone offers help.


 * Thank you very much for your kind comments and I am sorry for any misunderstanding. FWIW I find the spirit of your edit a really nice addition to the article. Further, the article on the Economist also links the effects of the film to longer term trends of increased razor use which are a very nice addition to the article. Without your initial edit this would not have been possible. So I thank you for that. The final form of my edit is this and is based on the "Economist" reference. As far as the previous warnings, since the matter has been resolved they will have no effect on your editing here. You are also free to remove them and completely clear your page if you like. This is another rule that I think can help clear matters. :)  Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  01:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)