User talk:Helpsome/Archive 1

Welcome

 * }

I had already responded here, but I though to rewrite the article, so as to avoid future problem. Thanks for your help along this line. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I can pitch in and add more if you would like.

Proposed Tibetan naming conventions
A while back, I posted a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions, i.e. conventions that can be used to determine the most appropriate titles for articles related to the Tibetan region. This came out of discussions about article titles on Talk:Qamdo and Talk:Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture. I hope that discussions on the proposal's talk page will lead to consensus in favour of making these conventions official, but so far only a few editors have left comments. If you would be interested in taking a look at the proposed naming conventions and giving your opinion, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the referencing tip! That was really helpful --Orgyen108 (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for letting me know about my mistake at the Budai article. Jakew (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Korean influence on Japanese culture
Hi, are you aware of that Marananta was Indian monk, who first introduced Buddhism to Baekje? I have added a link to a Korean Encyclopedia. Please read the last section of the page "Introduction of Indian Buddhism into Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koryosaram (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Korean influence on Japanese culture shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koryosaram (talk • contribs) 17:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Modern Anatta Philosophers
Hi I see you changed the section in the Anatta article on Contemporary interpretations of Anatta citing the advertisement of message-boards. This is true. It's my fault. I put those links and boards on there. I'd like to find a way to these places without advertising them. Any help you can offer is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonstroDon (talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the people on the message board claiming that they have proved there is no self isn't something that can be taken at face value. If there are reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that corroborate the claim then you should use that for a reference. Helpsome (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Help
The guy above keeps putting wrong information in an article, then he threatened me as you can see and then he went and changed the article once more. Can he do that? Helpsome (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you link to where he threatened you? --Nathan2055talk 23:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and give WP:DR a look. --Nathan2055talk 23:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * He threatened to block me above for editing the same article that he was editing. Helpsome (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the wait, getting some help with this now. --Nathan2055talk 16:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have left a note on the user's talk page. For what it's worth, the warning above seems out of order since  is the one who actually reverted the reverts did not take place within a 24 hour period.       Thorncrag    16:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Batchelor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Please provide reasons for your edits on Binsar Wildlife Sanctuary, Bodh_Gaya, Mahabaleshwar, Gokarna,_India, Munnar, and Daman_and_Diu. Edits without apparent reasons are considered nonconstructive editing by Wikipedia and continued, unwarranted removal of cited content maybe considered vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNdude11 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Funny, using a warning template, but forgetting to sign. Anyway, indianbackpacker.com is not WP:RS.
 * Oops, forgot to sign myself... And I saw that this problem has been dealt with already. greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!
Thank you! I'm not sure what a barnstar is but thank you for the gift! Helpsome (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you provide some info on yourself at your User page? It will give the rest of the world some impression who you are, and it will change your signature from red to blue, which looks much better. Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   03:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

TEAHOUSE
Hi Helpsome, rather than leaving, there's a project called the Teahouse for new editors who have questions or find themselves in difficulty. There are experienced editors there (hosts) who are dedicated to helping new editors find their way through Wikipedia's maze of policies and habits. Please take a look at WP:TEAHOUSE. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I don't feel that I am having trouble with Wikipedia maze of policies but instead have run up against a bully who refuses to let other people edit her pet articles and she has a few other editors willing to blindly support her even then they don't seem to understand her actions. Since this seems to be the way things are done here then I think it would be easier to leave. The bullies win. Huzzah! Helpsome (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been on both sides of this situation, Helpsome, and not only on that article. I've stood in the way of edits that I felt were not improvements, and I've been told I was being too discouraging, and I've also had my edits stopped, or watched others (including new editors) have theirs stopped when I felt they did indeed improve the page. When an editor has put a lot of work into a page, they have a certain vision for it, and it's upsetting when inconsistencies develop for no good reason (as they see it). We don't allow ownership, but we do allow stewardship, and it can be a fine line. All I can say is try not to personalize things, or let it take away your enjoyment of Wikipedia. Just reach out to people, follow the policies, keep the discussion going, be civil, and if it doesn't work take that page off your watchlist, but don't give up on Wikipedia entirely because of one article. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You are probably right. I will just walk away from this whole vegan/vegetarian thing. I do think Betty is taking ownership of those articles but maybe just bringing that to the attention of others and walking away is enough. Helpsome (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Archiving your talkpage
Hi Helpsome. I noticed that you removed warnings from your talkpage. It's better to keep them; removing them will raise questions about your motives. A more convenient way to "clean" your talkpage is to move content to an archive. Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And just an advice: use the Talk Page when there is an edit conflict. Provide arguments and sources. I like your Buddhism-edits; the way you're fighting over vegetarianism now is waste of talent. Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am done with that whole thing. I think someone there is trying to control the articles and not allow others to edit without her approval but it just isn't worth the fight. Unrelated, I was just cleaning up the references on Risshō Kōsei Kai and they are overwhelming the organization itself. Do you happen to have anything we could add to that article that might be more neutral? Helpsome (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh my, are you walking into trouble... Have a look at Talk:Nichiren Buddhism and Talk:Soka Gakkai. My advice would be: stay away from that topic. Bu alas, maybe this one. Good luck,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   16:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw Talk:Soka Gakkai and tried to get everyone to calm down for a minute and allow the third party to look at it on its merits and then I just walked away. I have never waded into Talk:Nichiren Buddhism and don't have any real desire. That was kind of the thing about it though. On the talk page for Risshō Kōsei Kai someone mentioned that it was Nichiren but there was nothing really outlining that in the article itself. I don't know why nor do I have any sources in my library about it as I know little to nothing about Nichiren. Helpsome (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Too late, you did find the trouble at Talk:Soka Gakkai. Pffff... My advice still stands: take another subject.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi
I really know next to nothing about Nichiren Buddhism, which is why I'm reading the articles. :) I'm just correcting simple obvious things as I go, not altering any content. Anyway, best of luck in writing, expanding, and correcting the articles. I hope you find all the help you need. Softlavender (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I just thought I would ask. Enjoy your reading! Helpsome (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Truce
Slimvirgin and I have been discussing ways in which we can all collaborate on the Vegetarian lists. We would very much like you to join the discussion at Talk:List of vegans since we have a potential solution. It would be great if we could draw a line under the dispute and move forward positively. Betty Logan (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

About Dinesh Subasinghe
i agreed your request ,but please i request for you to add his oratorio work coz he is a genius who work in sri lanka,please check the web details,and google or yahoo search on buddhist oratorio,its not advertising and i will limit my edits on wikipedia,thanx  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiclanka (talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

music Lanka request
if i submit citations for the genius works he has done,please explain why is it inappropriate to mentioned his name on relevant pages,his oratorio was a famous one in sri lanka had huge sales we have proof and it is the only oratorio wrten for buddhism after ages,please help ,and he has introduced especial segment for Ravanahatha,please help me  to mentioned him on these pages,thank you


 * His oratorio isn't world famous or anything and according to his own article it isn't the first Buddhist oratorio as you keep claiming. I know you think he is a genius but stop adding him all over wikipedia. Helpsome (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Genjōkōan, Helpsome!

Wikipedia editor FoCuSandLeArN just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"nice article!"

To reply, leave a comment on FoCuSandLeArN's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thank you
Thanks for helping to steward the pages on Four Noble Truths and Dukkha. Much appreciated. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know why there seems to be a recent flurry of people trying to overexplain those concepts and use non-traditional terms to do it, but thanks for your appreciation. :) Helpsome (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Godzilla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chimera (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at V for Vendetta (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Helpful Suggestion Regarding Edit Undos
Hey there, this is just a friendly suggestion, but rather than undoing an edit for minor technical errors (in my case, references inadvertently pointed at the reference on the other page rather than at the external source), you might find it more productive, and faster, to simply fix the problem. In this manner, edit wars can be avoided, and quality can be advanced. I am of the opinion that the Undo option should mainly be used to correct vandalism; using it outside of that very limited realm interferes with the work of other editors, and should be done only in the most pressing circumstances. Wgw2024 (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Shorthand
Helpsome, why did you take Keyscript Shorthand out of Notable Shorthand Systems? Sure it is also in the external links, so what? Cassyjanek (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Helpsome, you replied to this on my talk page, four minutes after I wrote the above, unbelievable! But the reason you gave was not the same as the one you gave in the History of the article, i.e. that it is also in the external links. If you want to undo someone else's edit, you must give the correct reason for it, or it could be seen as vandalism. Cassyjanek (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Helpsome, It is very late here, and I am getting tired. I find it very strange that your replies and mine are in two different places. What do you mean, my constant self-promotion? I tried to get an article about Keyscript in Wikipedia, twice, about 4 years apart, they were deleted. Anyone has the right to write for Wikipedia about any subject they have information on. A lot of articles get deleted. You have to be completely neutral, and this is very hard if you are writing about yourself or something that you, yourself have created or are very close to. But if nobody had a go, nothing would get written, would it? By the way, both articles were deleted by proper Wikipedia editors. By your unfriendly, undiplomatic tone and the lack of helpfulness and knowledge in your replies, you do not seem to me to be one of these. Cassyjanek (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

So you have a list of all my edits? I'd like to see that! Oh, and I don't do perfunctory, do you? Let me try to make it clear to you again: There is such a fine line between writing about one's own creation and promoting that creation. For some (including you, probably) they are the same thing, but I contend that it is possible to write absolutely neutrally (i.e. no advertising, no promotion) about a personal creation, though very difficult. My efforts to do this did not satisfy the Wikipedia editors, so the articles were deleted. End of story. Such an article is much more likely to be neutral if someone else writes about it. And if someone else writes about it, it kind of acknowledges that it actually exists and is what it says it is. This makes it notable. But Wikipedia is, after all, supposed to be an encyclopedia, encompassing all knowledge, particularly, in this case, about shorthand systems, and there was no-one else who would write an article about Keyscript Shorthand, which I knew actually existed and had many students, so I wrote it. Cassyjanek (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Helpsome; that list is very helpful too. I also looked at your contributions - quite considerable, but from the subjects of the other articles you have edited, I wouldn't have thought shorthand would be quite your thing. Cassyjanek (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Buddhism in Japan‎
Hello Helpsome, thanks for reverting the recent edits on Buddhism in Japan‎. Have you ever tried the "Twinkle" gadget (activated in preferences/gadgets)? It takes just one mouse click to revert 3 edits. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Consider watching the page.
Hello metta , Thanks for contributing to the page Buddha in Hinduism. I ask you to please keep a check on it as many hypocrites will come and revert it saying its outsourced or unreliable. With, metta. Stalkford (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Helpsome
I am fade off of changing references etc. since I have put this articles. Please guide me how to put appropriate references. This article is very important as no one has yet written this. Dhammapower

On external links removed / 18 July 2014
Helpsome,

Regarding the editions you made to a number of articles I added external links to, I wanted to make it clear that they are references to www.musopen.org

I am a volunteer for Musopen myself. Musopen is a non-profit focused on improving access and exposure to classical music. We provide copyright free recordings and sheetmusic for free and no signup required (per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Sites_requiring_registration) - These editions I made to the aforementioned articles are a mere extension of our policies of trying to make sure that everyone has easier access to public domain recordings, which I am sure goes in concordance with the spirit of Wikipedia. We have made such editions in the past and they have never been revoked, as they contribute to the content of this encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koushikroy14 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:EL gives the guidelines for external links and under the "Links normally to be avoided" there are a few entries which I believe apply here. Number 6 - Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. and number 4 - Links mainly intended to promote a website. Number 6 is relevant because users must register with your site to download the "free" work there and number 4 is relevant because every single edit you have made is to promote this website. Helpsome (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You said that you have added these links before and "they have never been revoked". This made me look a little deeper and unfortunately I have found that statement to be completely untrue. This talk page shows numerous IP addresses which were caught mass adding links and reverted. Some were even blocked for it. Helpsome (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Musopen is not "of limited use to most readers" as WP:ELBLP specifies. Anyway, that section is headed "In biographies of living people" so I can't see how those guidelines apply to C. P. E. Bach or Beethoven's piano sonatas. I have reverted your removal at the latter and will do the same for the Bach article later as it requires a bit more work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, WP:ELREG is the relevant section and the section above that (WP:ELBLP) is headed "In biographies of living people". If you are going to quote the wrong policy to me then of course it won't apply. Helpsome (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct and I was wrong in placing ELREG in the context of ELBLP. The fact remains that Musopen is of more than "limited use to most readers" even if downloads are limited to registered users. Musopen provided many sound files to Commons and unregistered visitors can listen to free performances on their site. Further, it seems to me that a registration to Musopen is vastly different to the intrusive behaviour of sites like Facebook or fee-based site like newspapers and magazines mentioned in the guideline. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The policy clearly states "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the website itself is the topic of the article (see Official links below) or the link is part of an inline reference" and on that basis I removed the links. I am not the only one who has removed the mass addition of these links. Helpsome (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * However, that claim is based on the second paragraph of WP:ELREG, which employs a concept that stems from the first paragraph. And the first paragraph clearly states that external links to websites that require registration or a paid subscription to view should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers. Not only this is not true of Musopen, as users can access the content of the site without registering (if we understand that the term 'view' translates to 'hear' in this case), but also citing that implies that Musopen is of limited use to most readers, which is also not true. Musopen has contributed recordings to Commons, and, not being a fee based site, continues to contribute to the spread of copyright free resources among music students and hobbyists.Koushikroy14 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You are ignoring both the second sentence which speaks of registration being required to "access some or all of their content" as well as what I have quoted to you previously from WP:LINKSTOAVOID which states "Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content." The relevant content in this links requires registration to view so this absolutely applies. Earlier you said "We have made such editions in the past and they have never been revoked" which is problematic in many ways. For one thing, I have shown that this is untrue. For another, WP:ISU states that "promotional editing is not permitted." There are WP:COI guidelines that I urge you to read about editing with a conflict of interest. Helpsome (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey all Aaron, founder of Musopen here. Would it help if I removed the registration requirement? I can do that in the next few days.


 * Removing the registration requirement would take care of only one of the issues. The fact that people from your organization have been coming here for a couple of years with the sole purpose of mass adding links to this website and never editing actual content in a constructive fashion remains a problem. There are WP:COI guidelines that I urge you to read about editing with a conflict of interest. Musopen already has an article, how much more promotion do you think you need? Helpsome (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Helpsome, the fact that you are choosing to freely interpret the relevance of the content Musopen provides without requiring registration seems to speak about a conflict on interest on your side. The recordings are available to listen without registration, and users can even register for free if they choose to do so. As a matter of fact I have edited music articles in what you deem a 'constructive fashion'. I used an account for adding references to content that is relevant to the articles: references of that sort have been added before and, even if some were taken down,the fact remains that the ones remaining are of use.Koushikroy14 (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You have used another account for adding references? How many accounts have you used to promote Musopen? Helpsome (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The point of links to music performances at Musopen is not to promote the site but to provide additional resources to our readers. As I wrote above, there are a large number of sound files on Commons sourced from Musopen and every link which Helpsome objects to could be replaced with an upload of that file to Commons. However, as creating content is a very time consuming activity, it's often just simpler to add the link to Musopen. I argued above that in my opinion the registration requirement at Musopen is not what is meant by the guideline WP:ELREG. The site has been discussed several times at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and elsewhere, to always positive comments. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact that the above user has admitted to using multiple accounts to add Musopen to multiple articles contradicts your claim that the links are not meant to promote the site. Helpsome (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again you are choosing to interpret whatever you want of words. I have not contradicted my claims: I said that I made use of an account (THIS account) to add references to Musopen. References of that sort have been added before (NOT by myself). I really don't understand the point behind this aggressive behavior: as the user above said, linking to Musopen is less time consuming that creating the same content. The registration requirement issue clearly not an issue here, because it still allows the user to get to the relevant content.Koushikroy14 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No I am not "choosing to interpret." You said you have used an account for adding references. Your Kouchikroy14 account has never adding a single reference to any article. Every single edit has been to add an external reference. So if you used "an" account to add references and your current account has never added a reference, logic dictates that you used a different account to add references. Helpsome (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have used 'an account' to add such references, because I usually make my contributions to wikipedia in an anonymous fashion, which is perfectly fine and acceptable. You are turning this into a personal attack against Musopen and myself as a way of sidetracking the main issue here. Koushikroy14 (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * So to clarify, you are now admitting that you have used multiple accounts to add links to Musopen? Helpsome (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understand why this appears to be so heated. If I may speak on behalf of my volunteers, we list among other ways they can contribute, adding music or links to/from Wikipedia as one of the ways they can help. For example, linking from all our music recordings and sheet music to more info on Wikipedia, and when we have content, linking from wikipedia to a quick download. This does not really help Musopen to promote us, it should be seen as neutrally as a link to IMSLP or any other free resource. In my mind, if there is an opportunity to enable a download of sheet music or a music recording from an article, or to a wiki commons file as suggested, this seems beneficial for a reader to have. If you'd like specific formatting or other constraints, I'd be happy to include more instructions on Musopen.org, so please let me know. We are a registered non-profit and have been trying to increase the availability of public domain music since around 2005, we have no other objective here than to make this content accessible + open. Thanks - Aaron

Did you read the conflict of interest guidelines (WP:COI) I have linked to here? You really shouldn't be asking people to link to your website for you. The reason this seems "heated" to you is that all of you who are promoting this site refuse to concede that maybe, just maybe, all this self-promotion is wrong. Policy has been both quotes and linked for you but you still ignore it and basically ask "what's wrong with me linking to my own website in hundreds of articles?" Helpsome (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes I've read this, and in case it helps I will remove any language asking volunteers to link from Wikipedia to Musopen. I suppose what I don't agree with is that there is a benefit to us causing a conflict of interest. We're a free resource and a link to us doesn't help us as much as potentially anyone else. Again, this should be equivalent to IMSLP benefitting from the links it has, but in some cases we have content that they don't. How is this different?


 * So it doesn't benefit you to drive traffic to your site where people have to register and two of the three registration options cost money? You keep talking about how you are a non-profit as if it was impossible for a non-profit to advertise itself. Helpsome (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Honestly not really. We ask for registrations so we can generate an email list to announce projects. I also just offered to turn this off above. Would that solve this?


 * Are you seriously asking me if you alter the registration would it then be ok for your volunteers to mass spam wikipedia with links to Musopen? No. This is exactly why this seems "heated" to you. You just ignore the fact that what you are doing is wrong and act like I should meet you halfway so you can continue to self-promote. Helpsome (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Again I said I would remove any requests on our side to ask for links, and offered to remove registrations. I don't want to make this a big thing so I'm happy to stop discussing this, but I would appreciate to know for the future why alternative site's are ok but Musopen is not, with the changes I'm suggesting above. thanks.


 * I have no idea what other sites you are talking about. I never said any other sites were OK because I wasn't talking about any site other than yours. Helpsome (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Symphony_No._5_(Beethoven)&action=edit&section=25

I assume you are talking about the Template:IMSLP2? That has been around for years (since at least 2006) and I would have to poke around quite a bit to find discussions pertaining to its creation. How is that in any way similar to people associated with your site mass adding links to multiple articles? Helpsome (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Per my point above, the question was why Musopen links are not appropriate but other similar projects/non-profits are. Anyways I'll drop this, it's not worth getting so upset about, I've removed any requests for links on our site, but I can't stop others from adding links when they feel they are appropriate.

Hello Helpsome
Hi, this is Rieman9. The links I was adding to the artist pages are educational materials. They are historical documents, such as academic articles on an art movement or art reviews on particular art exhibitions, etc. The International Center for the Arts of the Americas (ICAA) provides access to numerous writings by artists, art movements and critics from Latin America. I am not advertising to sell anything. I only want people who are interested in Latin American art to find out more information, which they have in their digital database. What could I do, so the links won't be taken down? I notice other artists, usually have links for more information from research universities or museums.


 * The entire conversation just above this one is applicable to your issue, too. WP:EL gives the guidelines for external links and under the "Links normally to be avoided" there are a few entries which I believe apply here. Number 6 - Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. and number 4 - Links mainly intended to promote a website. Number 6 is relevant because users must register with your site to download the "free" work there and number 4 is relevant because every single edit you have made is to promote this website. There are WP:COI guidelines that I urge you to read about editing with a conflict of interest. Helpsome (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to ask, have you also been editing under the name Picasso426? You use the exact same wording in edits as in Picasso's edits. Helpsome (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for your help with the vandal(s) on Joseph Beninati.

HtownCat (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC) 

Hello Helpsome.
I am not touching the first sentence or any of its content at all at B.R. Ambedkar page which was already in consensus. Akhil Bharathan (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I never said you did. I asked you to see the talk page, specifically Talk:B._R._Ambedkar. Helpsome (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Helpsome, The information you removed was simply a neutral reporting of expert professional Wildlife Ecologists and Biologists' scientific analysis. The reports are professional and public documents, and the public has a right to know what the scientists in the field of their expertise have to say (I believe). I request that you please check with your supervisors before making such a judgement decision as to delete their information. This is in NO WAY meant to be any kind of PROMOTION. Perhaps they can explain to you directly if needed? Thank you, Maura Kelley

Legal threat
Maura Kelley was blocked because of legal threats. Her original comment contained: "Please send me your email address so I can have the professional wildlife experts and their attorneys contact you." JimRenge (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow. That escalated quickly. Thanks for the heads up and honestly she can probably be unblocked. I'm sure it truly was a heat of the moment thing. Helpsome (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Revert on Lejeune
Why exactly?


 * You have been warned for edit warring already and yet you continue. Please use the talk page instead of steamrolling every other editor. Helpsome (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing stuff from talk pages
Warning notices can be removed, shows they've read them. Also, 3RR applies to talk pages so please be careful. The editor is on my watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't revert any removals, I just added new ones each time the editor continued. Unless I am thinking of a different editor. Did I make a mistake that I am unaware of? Helpsome (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's ok but overkill. And you know you are over 3RR at Research? I suggest you quickly self-revert since your AIV report might bounce back on you. I agree with you about the issue. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I felt (and I might be wrong) that after admitting that he just didn't like the information, the repeated removal because vandalism and not simply a content issue. Was I incorrect in that assumption? Helpsome (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, see WP:3RRNO. I wouldn't consider the content removal blatant vandalism, especially since the editor had valid rationale and attempted to explain their actions both through edit summary and the talk page. Looks like the talk page is finally serving it's purpose. I will not block for violating the three-revert rule but consider this a formal warning. Next time use the talk page to find consensus, seek dispute resolution if it can not be met, and report to WP:AN3 if an edit war breaks out. I've also warned the other editor. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 17:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining my error to me. Helpsome (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Bodhidharma
You have reverted more than 3 times on Bodhidharma. These IP edits might just be seen as unconstructive editing. I am not sure if his edit is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. (, WP:NOT3RR). You might get blocked if administrators don`t perceive his edits as obvious vandalism. JimRenge (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Those were an editor adding a name in another language in spite of a message in the text which explicitly stated "Before adding a name in another language, please see discussion on the talk page and discuss the edit before making it". Even when warned, the editor continued to add contentious material without discussing it. This happened twice. The third edit seemed like outright vandalism as it altered the text of a referenced sentence. Helpsome (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don`t think that altering the text of a referenced sentence is always seen as vandalism. The definition of obvious vandalism is quite narrow. You might consider a self-revert to get on the safe side. There are more editors who will recognize his edit as unconstructive. JimRenge (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Altering that text made it inaccurate. How is that not vandalism? Helpsome (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume it is disruptive editing. The bad intention, a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia seems to be the point. "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus . Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such." WP:NOT VANDALISM I am not sure that I`m right but why do you want to take the risk? I have seen several editors get blocked for making more than 3 reverts of disruptive edits. JimRenge (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just warned above about the difference between edit warring and vandalism so I am really not trying to be argumentative here, but the editor altered referenced text to make it say something the reference doesn't state. That isn't edit warring or a simple difference of opinion. That is vandalism. Helpsome (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Hall Ingram
No taunts, I just figured out how to Thank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfrankb (talk • contribs) 18:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And you thanked me for reverting your edit? Helpsome (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I thanked you specifically for "Ingram isn't even mentioned in those articles", so I corrected. Cfrankb (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Amygdalin Bias
I didn't realize I couldn't contribute to a page with sources to support the addition unless it was approved by another (presumably biased in this instance) party to review it. I was attempting to maintain neutrality of the article by adding another scientifically valid section, but due to the level of subjective criticism in relation with the rest of the biased content, my contributions matter not. I have just spent the last 4 hours trying to add information to this article, and not wanting to diddle away any more of my life on this trivial matter, I will just say this: The entirety of the article is biased and needs to be rewritten for neutrality's sake. Please do not waste my time, and had I known my first major edit would be this much of a hassle, I would not have even considered contributing to Wikipedia at all. Kudos to you for ruining my experience with Wikipedia, and to my regret, I have only scorn in my heart for an encyclopedia dependent on covering half the content an article should have due to its noticeable pairing with one side of a controversial topic. Perhaps it is beyond scorn; I feel pity for all of the people having used this as a resource for information up to now and since.ArrowOfAces (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You thought a sentence like "the textbook definition of a corporately funded fallacy propagated by a medical industry driven by profit above the welfare of its patients" was unbiased? Your addition was soapboxing and incredibly non-neutral. Helpsome (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Buddhism
I am new to editing, so I may have made a mistake in adding the links that I did on the [|Criticism of Buddhism] page. Those links were to blogs that are written by well-informed observers of Buddhism. One is run by a person with a Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies from Harvard. So I don't understand why you say that they "seemed to be inappropriate." I read the link guidelines that you referred me to. I couldn't see any prohibition against on-line sites there. I think those sites that I link are really important to a critical, contemporary assessment of Buddhism. Thanks. --Bodhidharma666 (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)bodhidharma666


 * For one thing, you added them to the "See also" section which is for articles, not external links. As to the links themselves, one was to a discussion forum (see number 10 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID) and the others were personal blogs (see number 11 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID). While they may be written by "well-informed observers" the guidelines state "This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people". Helpsome (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=620636809 your edit] to Maria Foka may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maria Foka Μαρία Φωκά, (d. 15 June 2001) was a Greek actress and participated in character roles.

Reference Errors on 17 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Johnny Manziel page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=621663142 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F621663142%7CJohnny Manziel%5D%5D Ask for help])

Millfield House
Hi Helpsome. I noticed you made an edit on Millfield Manager talk page. I've added some comments of my own to his page and I would you like you to see what you make of what he's done. It was probably a good faith edit but all of the original text has disappeared to be replaced by a redirect to Millfield Theatre. None of this was discussed. Cheers Northmetpit (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I understand what happened here. Did Millfield Manager have an article deleted? Helpsome (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reply. Let me explain. The original article was Millfield House which has been on wiki for ages. User talk:Millfield Manager decided to redirect the article to his own creation Millfield Theatre and in the process deleting all the previous text. He has set up a draft article for Millfield House which is awaiting approval. As I said in an earlier message to you it was probably done in good faith. But it seems a strange way to do things on here. Please take a look at his talk page. I can see why some editors get fed up when they encounter this type of behaviour. Thanks Northmetpit (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Khidr
I wrote clearly that the new hypothesis is not of Bilal Aksoy. My basic references are some books of Gurdal Aksoy and his opinion. Because he thinks that Khidr is originally from Ugaritic culture... Although I repeated it, you changed the information. I don't know what do you want to do? Is this a bad joke? Tarasyani--Tarasyani (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. --220  of  Borg 12:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Conferences list
It means that only SOME conferences are allow be in the list? It is real democratic approach:-)


 * It means wikipedia isn't a place for self-promotion. Helpsome (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Good Omens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phil Davis. 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) 09:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Black Panther Party
Thank you Helpsome for your earlier edits and discussion on the Black Panther Party page. The page is in need of serious help from editors interested in presenting an evenhanded picture of the Party's history and political significance. BlackHistoryScholar (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Scott Crow
It's inappropriate for the Scott Crow article to have a section of a list of blog posts and a section of a list of "interviews" (blog posts). I moved those things to the talk page (as stated in my edit summaries), definitely not in an act of vandalism or random deleting of legitimate content. -108.176.24.195 (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You did more than remove links (something that should have been discussed on the talk page first) but you altered content, too. scott crow's name is intentionally uncapitalized as was noted in the reference you obscured when altering all of the instances of his name. Helpsome (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

~ Need you attention
Honorable Wikipedia Authorities,

Greetings !

I am an actor called RAHUL SINGH and my wiki profile was created by an over enthusiastic person who probably likes my work but has put several wrong names and figures (including wrong date of birth & film names), and that too without my permission !

With the help of someone, i tried rectifying those mistakes but Wikipedia has undone my corrections.

If wiki wishes to check weather it is ‘’ truly ‘’ me writing to you, we can skype and you will know. The other option is to check me on facebook.

Please let me make corrections and upload facts on the site. If this is not possible please delete the entire page. I have serious objections to wrong information about me, particularly because it’s on such a great and genuine site.

When you completely delete the page, I will then ask a professional to create a new and organized one with facts. It’s a question of my career being represented in the correct light. Please help.

Thank you,

RAHUL SINGH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sober rsingh (talk • contribs) 13:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The edits I reverted were these and these. You added information that was unreferenced as well as promotional phrases such as "popular young actorin indian (bollywood) cinema, as much respected for his versatility as appreciated for his charming looks" and "admired for his warmth & humility". It should be obvious why edits like that were removed. I will go through and remove anything unreferenced but please don't add promotional material or have someone else attempt to do so on your behalf. Helpsome (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

External audio link
Hi Helpsome, and thank you. Please, reconsider. I wasn't advertising anything. As a linguist, I am aware that wikipedia users could benefit from the presence of links to the right pronunciation of entry names, which too many articles unfortunately lack. I have chosen the instrument of External Media because - as you may know - there are on the Village Pump (Miscellaneous) explicit suggestions to do so when useful content cannot be uploaded to Commons, belonging to some other institution. Now, crucially, the linked website is managed by a staff at the University Roma Tre, lead by a university professor of linguistics. The names included are pronounced by verified native speakers under scholarly guidance. Such standards for thousands of names from dozens of languages are very difficult to provide under different conditions, therefore extremely difficult to find elsewhere. The mentioned source is not commercial and doesn't promote anything. It just makes useful data available. For these reasons, I maintain that mine was a useful edit, not violating any of the wikipolicies. In other words: with my intervention, the considered articles are richer in extremely relevant information (the actual pronunciation of the entry!!); without my intervention, they lack it. What is better for Wiki? Still, you helped me reconsider something myself: linking to the home page of the pronunciation website is unnecessary and actually may look similar to advertising: one should only link to the pronunciation of the entry. This is what I think I should do. I hope you share this opinion.93.44.184.13 (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * A site doesn't have to be commercial for you to be advertising it: promotion is promotion. Do you have a conflict of interest in this case? Are you affiliated with the website you were adding? What tipped me off was where you were adding these links. I don't think there is widespread difficulty pronouncing Richard Gere or Tommy Hilfiger. Instead it looked like the work of someone adding links to high profile articles. Helpsome (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is no difficulty pronouncing those names in the Englisk-speaking world, but there is a lot elsewhere. Perhaps you should realize this.They are "classical" examples: all around the world people wonder whether it is "Gere" or "Jere", etc.: Wiki does not work only for those who have English as their mother tongue. I have no conflict of interest, I know the pronunciation website very well because it is managed in the University where I have studied, that's all. The people who have created the site did it with the only purpose to provide a useful service, exactly as (with quite different proportions!-)) Wikipedia does. Such enterprises only have something to gain from synergies. Do you think that an article without the pronunciation of the entry is better than an article that provides it? And what is the difference from the dozens of links to all kinds of useful (and sometimes much less useful) websites contained - for instance - in the 42 footnotes of the Richard Gere Wiki article? Please check, and consider your answer to these questions. If you try to give up a perhaps too suspicious attitude, I hope you will also agree that I added those links to high profile articles because providing pronunciations of most searched names is more useful than doing so in articles that less people read. Still, if you think that this should be done only in unimportant articles, I will be obliged to comply just in order to avoid your disagreement and undoings. As a matter of fact, I would like to contribute to Wiki in an effective way, but if this means struggling against opponents and having no actual possibility to be useful to Wiki users, I may conclude that I have better things to do. Please let me know what you think, after all.93.44.184.13 (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * For non-English speakers there are various other language wikis. If you admit that you added links to "most searched names" rather than ones "less people read" than I cannot understand how you can claim that it wasn't promotional. You clearly wanted more eyes on your links. Helpsome (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you also using Edoardo_Lombardi_Vallauri to add these links? Using multiple accounts to spam wikipedia is not a good idea. Helpsome (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

I am not Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri. It should not be necessary to explain to you that Wikipedia English is used by millions of people speaking all languages, especially when they look for English language related stuff, such as Richard Gere. It would make much less sense to add a link to the pronunciation of Richard Gere on German or Korean Wiki (should one do that on all Wikis except the right one???) than on English Wiki. Then, adding info where it is most useful doesn't mean doing promotion. If choosing to do interventions on more important topics instead of less important ones was automatically advertising, then important topics (that many people are likely to see) should not be treated on Wiki, and articles should be written only about marginal things, so that nobody sees them. Outstanding.

Now, please consider this, from the "soapbox" page, which you referred me to: "External links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article;"

I expect that you explain: (1) why links to pronunciations should not be considered useful; (2) why, if useful, they should not be provided on Wiki like all the rest which is mentioned on the aforementioned page. Thanks. 93.42.37.207 (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Your cohort Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri admitted that you know each other so it stand to reason you are knowledgeable about each other's attempt to canvass across wikipedia to find someone, anyone, who will give you permission to spam. Your questions were answered by NeilN when Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri asked them. Helpsome (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Vincent Piazza
Hi

Could I ask how I am allegedly 'vandalising' the above person's Wikipedia page?

Wikipedia refers to vandalism as something that reduces the integrity of Wikipedia.

I edited the actor's page to clarify that he was an actor is Boardwalk Empire from 2010-2014 and that he is not currently starring in the show due to it concluding its final season.

This is all true and your reversals to say anything but are reducing the integrity of Wikipedia by including false and outdated information on the page.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswillerton (talk • contribs) 12:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, your edit keeps removing all the references as well as destroying the categories. It is vandalism. Helpsome (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Spam
Could you please take a look at this one? It looks like SPAM to me. JimRenge (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely spam. I think they have all been removed though. Helpsome (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * He was indeffed the same day.  JimRenge (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited City Fun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Fall. 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) 09:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Innovative Spam
I have reverted this yesterday and once again today. This one plus EL is quite funny. I think it does not comply with WP:EL, What is your opinion? JimRenge (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The first one clearly states that "the Amitabha oracle is a game..." so it isn't actually an informative link. That second one definitely doesn't belong. Right at the beginning of that "almanac" is says "(taken from discussions on Internet forums about Yoga, God, religion, mysticism and spirituality)" Number 10 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID lists discussion forums as things not to link to. If this is just an aggregate from various forums, it amounts to the same thing: linking to a forum discussion. Helpsome (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi . How are you
no its not a mistake. cleaning up a category to make it uniform as far as content is concerned 68.39.152.45 (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * To say that things like N.Y.H.C. (film) a documentary about hardcore punk, List of Minneapolis hardcore bands, and Hardline (subculture) somehow don't belong in the hardcore punk category is ridiculous. Please discuss this on some level with others before "cleaning up" the category to suit your whims. Helpsome (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_hardcore IS ALREADY IN HARDCORE category at the BOTTOM is The List. Are you using your head or emotions ? Also, why aren't ALL Lists of cities' bands there then. Only one huh. better that its NONE than one. the category is HARDLY just about Minneapolis. Thats the Point here. Whats your take on that 68.39.152.45 (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no need to be rude. Minneapolis hardcore is in category hardcore. So? That doesn't mean that List of Minneapolis hardcore bands doesn't belong there because a completely different article is already there. Helpsome (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

thats another thing It never was typed that a few of those didn't belong its that only ONE does not belong. Every city should be represented. the effort shouldn't be to put "one" in but ALL in or Uniformly None in. Why don't you add all of them. Instead of typing to me about it. it should be as equal as possible. All Films related to hardcore not "one" all festivals not just "one". 68.39.152.45 (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Then add them. Helpsome (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

c'mon man. dont hide. you already made a revert, SO you were saying how you were going to add the category for lists of bands to all of these Minneapolis hardcore, Chicago hardcore, Boston hardcore, Buenos Aires Hardcore, Australian hardcore, Argentine punk, Canadian hardcore punk, Italian hardcore, Japanese hardcore, New Jersey hardcore, New York hardcore, Philadelphia hardcore, or in your World and Whims its only important to have one city represented Two times and a list. Are you adding all the other Cities or you just defend what is there no matter how lopsided 68.39.152.45 (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

And still that is completely Incomplete. What are your concerns. That should someone see that category and it only represents a little bit of whatever or a full comprehensive category. I chose and still may chose to remove one. Its easier than adding all. However if you want I could go and add them too and even make lists based on the hardcore pages of each state and country. then it would be most ALL lists available instead on one. (it wouldn't be a "quick" process) One that is Also represented by "minneapolis hardcore". Ill be back to see where this goes. Then Ill read your reply. I suppose that will be quick and that your interested in making things better and not just "reverting" pages you most likely "watch". ttyl 68.39.152.45 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

lastly lets not call others work a "whim". If I see things that need work I work on them. When ever I have time to do so. 68.39.152.45 (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thich Nhat Hanh
Hello, Helpsome. You have removed a "Criticism" section about Thich Nhat Hanh without further explanation, and the flagging of the article as not neutral. I have therefore informed noticeboard for dispute resolution, as you have not answered anything on the talk page.Otaku00 (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Also requested mediation in the case of Chan Khong: [] and asked editors to look at it. Otaku00 (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Otaku00 (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Rasmea Odeh. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Fezzerof(talk)/(contribs) 15:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.