User talk:Kharkiv07/Archives/2015/March

Constitutional monarchy
''Reverted good faith edits by 195.147.25.84 (talk): Removed a lot of information, without a reason given. (TW)''

What was the "lot of" information removed rather than reworked, please?

Do you realize that your "reversion" removed presentation and layout from the article -- perhaps quite "a lot of" it?

195.147.25.84 (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies! I can see I clearly made a mistake, I misread the formatting change and how the information was changed, I see I made a mistake. I have reverted my changes, thank you and sorry! Kharkiv07 (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I wondered if it was a mistake, e.g. you had something else in mind. Best wishes. 195.147.25.84 (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to Dominique Jean Larrey
Hello. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person (Dominique Jean Larrey), but that you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you!  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 00:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Oops! I was attempting to revert somebody else for doing that and I seemed to have reverted a reversion! Thanks! Kharkiv07 (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Vickie Guerrero's Personal life
I only entered the section where she started dating again. the man's name is Kris Benson. Her facebook is official and personal. she is also a student as Herzing University I only posted the relationship. You must be signed in to your facebook to see it. I posted the link I don't know how to source by the numbers. here is the link the relationship started February 15, 2015. https://www.facebook.com/100004286433452/posts/439267869559424/?pnref=story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.48.216 (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Rollback
I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AKharkiv07 granted] rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Need some help
Hello Mr Kharkiv07 Thanks for your message on my talk page it was indeed very helpful. I wanted some understanding on how the Wikipedia articles are listed in google search Usually the biography of personalities are distinctly made available with thumbnails and feedback, the moment you type in their name but the article of a chess player "Mohammad Ashraf" that I have edited seems to have lost its place from the google search first page list let alone its distinct appearance like other biographies. Have I done anything wrong which has led to this awkward result. Kindly explain. Thanks--Nayeemm (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

RE: Draft:Cyberbullying: People v. Marquan M., 2014 WL 2931482 (Ct. App. NY July 1, 2014)
Thanks for your note Kharkiv07. I am new here as you may notice, so I appropriate you being patient. I think I managed to add the Edit summary to the page as requested - right? Thanks taliashwartz


 * I left a response on your talk page explaining, but yes thank you! Kharkiv07 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  20:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Dan Savage
I heard this directtly from Dan Savage, on his podcast. I'm not going to go back and listen to hours of podcasts to find which one. I don't think he would be offended at all by what I wrote. deisenbe (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Deisenbe! What you added was in violation of Wikipedia's sources about living people policy, which states "adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". Regardless if you believe he'd agree with your change or not, you must provide a verifiable source when adding that information, especially because it's possibly contentious. Thanks! Kharkiv07 (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources?
The amendments to the article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodluck_Jonathan were all referenced and cited.

Can you confirm why you have declared them unreliable? I'm worried of discrimination here - british media is commonly cited on the same page if Nigerian media cannot be cited this constitutes an element of racism.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CelebrationofCulture (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! One of the sources you cited- osun defender- is considered a tabloid which is strictly forbidden on a BLP, especially when the material is contentious. Moreover, for information that could be considered contenious, multiple sources need to be cited for issues. This had nothing to do with the fact that it was a Nigerian tabloid, and American one would've been treated the same way. If you need help I'd be more than happy to look over and sources and hopefully approve an updated version of the page, just shoot me a message. Thanks! Kharkiv07 (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Most sources in the whole article are tabloids? Sources which aren't have cited tabloids as their source? This is conflicting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelebrationofCulture (talk • contribs) 10:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to document a comprehensive list of accusations - these are accusations from prominent Nigerians which is an important element in his reign, it's not right for this information to be censored as Nigerians have a right to the detail of his governance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelebrationofCulture (talk • contribs) 10:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheshunt FC
I'm a little bemused by you reverting an IP in this edit. The IP was correct - the club's manager is Glen Alzapiedi (see the club website). Number  5  7  16:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes I see that was clearly a mistake, I searched for the new manager (Glen Alzapiedi) in Google News, and got an article listing him as the assistant manger for the Concord Rangers, though if I would've looked past the title I would've seen that it was older. Sheer stupidity on my part. Sorry! Kharkiv07 (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem – we all make mistakes! Number   5  7  17:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

fairlife page
fairlife is our company page and should not redirect to the coca cola page - please help me to understand how I can add information about our company and not have this page point to Coca Cola. Thanks50.77.185.109 (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! When I saw that page there were a few issues. First, there wasn't an edit summary so anybody reviewing your changes would have no context to what you were trying to accomplish. Two, your new article didn't cite any sources. Lastly, the article seemed to have a promotional tone. I'd be more than happy to help you work on an article, but be advised if you work for or represent the company you may have a conflict of interest that may prevent the article from being neutral. My advise is to either go to articles for creation or just ask me, and I can give you a space to work on your article, review it, and eventually move it. Tell me if I can be of any assistance! Kharkiv07 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for that. I totally missed it. :) - Amaury (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please Do Not Ever Delete Me Like That Again.
If you feel a deletion is necessary, demonstrate the minimum of courtesy by talking to me about it BEFORE YOU DELETED IT. I am seriously offended by your actions and the next time you do such a thing to me, I shall take it to conflict resolution. Deleting other peoples contributions simply because they appear to be of no value to you is really, really contrary to any sort of working together.Pauci leonum (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that my edit made you upset, but the revert was justified under Wikipedia's policies on vandalism being that you seemed to be redacting a user's name for no particular reason, thus I took the typical response to vandalism. The issue was you didn't use an edit summery, therefor I had no context for why you were undoing it. See Kudzu1's response where he provided an edit summery to give context to the issue. I apologize for the misunderstanding, but next time please use an edit summery so this can all be avoided. Thanks! Kharkiv07 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Your revert without discussing the matter with me first was totally unjustified. I was dragged in front of an admin. board by another user for the baseless accusation that I was attempting an 'outing' of an admin. It was yet another of the baseless attacks made upon me in the last few days. It was requested that I remove the name (which was neither the private name nor the user name) of the admin. I did so. Next time, please have the common courtesy to at least TALK to me first before you jump in and delete something I've written. Of course you edit upset me. I've not even made one single correction to the typos in the article which need attention and yet I've had nothing but baseless accusations made against me - it took up the entire day to settle that nonsense, I've had two editors who seem to think they own the article threaten to revert any edits I might make and now you come along and without so much as a comment delete my postings to a talk page. I don't need to justify deletions to my own comments to you. Again, next time, at least have the common courtesy to talk to be first before you start deleting my work left and right. I'll be keeping a very close eye out to see whether your one of those people who just randomly attack other people with whom you disagree.Pauci leonum (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do! I always appreciate feedback! :)  Kharkiv07 &#124;  Talk to me  03:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I really hope you mean that. My experience to date has been absolutely dreadful. I've not even made an edit to the article I'm interested in yet and already it's been nothing but nastiness. So, here's to hoping you're sincere and not just gaming the system.Pauci leonum (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and an FYI for you
Hello K. Thanks for your cleanup on the Elvis (helicopter) article and for reporting to AIV. When I checked the edit history I found that was alternating with Benny in damaging it. It doesn't happen very often but sometimes one or two vandals will work together in the hopes that some of their deviltry will be missed. You may already be aware of this but I thought I'd mention just in case you hadn't encountered it before. Thanks for your vigilance and cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi MarnetteD, I did realize that and I did warn Harrymint, it was an oversight on my part that he wasn't reported to AIV as well. Sorry!  -Kharkiv07 Talk  04:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh I see what you were referring to, I reverted back to cluebot but missed the one before cluebot reverted. My bad!  -Kharkiv07 Talk  04:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No apologies necessary at all. There is always so much to do around here that it is easy to miss things. I do it all the time too. Materialscientist blocked Harry as well- yippee. Best regards!! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Pillsbury Doughboy
I removed your warning to regarding their edits to Pillsbury Doughboy as they were correcting the name. The name was changed back in February and nobody noticed. See my or their talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you!  Kharkiv07 Talk  19:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on IP User:77.238.218.96 for pseudoscientific OR.
Thanks for the note. I have reverted the (other) IP once at Gravitational constant and twice at Dimensionless physical constant. There are multiple problems regarding the demanded edits both regarding WP OR policy and, simply, with the physics. User:Quondum is also involved and between the two of us, the (other) IP should exhaust his/her 3RR before either Quondum or I do. 166.184.170.35 (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You are also involved in the edit war here and getting close to breaking the 3RR, but you need to seek dispute resolution or talk it out on the article's talk page.  Kharkiv07 Talk  21:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't edit other user's comments
Even if there are typos in another's comments, do not edit their comments. only (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea sorry about that... I don't know what I was thinking.  Kharkiv07 Talk  00:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

09:34:24, 16 March 2015 review of submission by Design Archivist
Design Archivist (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for reviewing this article. Could you please advise as to why this article has been declined again and the subject deemed not-worthy of inclusion? I have added links to every siginificant online reference that exists, and have also included links to academic sources, and added images from the Imperial War Museum that exist on Wiki Commons.

Rothholz has produced a significant body of work and was influential in his field. I am keen to get a page for him established and would appreciate any feedback.

Thank you.

Design Archivist (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! What you need is more secondary sources, just a few, such as news articles. Tell me when you do that here and I'll be happy to review it right away. It's a pretty good article!  Kharkiv07 Talk  13:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)



Thank you. I have added some further secondary sources and have resubmitted the article today. Design Archivist (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

AfC Submission
I have submitted several articles previously and they have eventually been accepted. I am at a loss to know what to do about the one titled "Ethics Olympiad" I have sited notability evidence eg it is not a local event, it involves schools from around the world. I have included about 6/7 third party references...and I have improved the referencing as per the guidelines. Can you make any specific suggestions? regards sydney59 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney59 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)  Comment moved to new section


 * When I look back at it I only see one secondary source. You've inclued many refrences to various schools' teams/clubs, but what you need is, say, a reliable news source which talks about the topic.  Kharkiv07 Talk  16:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

21:56:09, 16 March 2015 review of submission by Bobowikibobo
Bobowikibobo (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kharkiv07 for the suggestions for improving the entry. I’m adding two more external evaluations of this project from other researchers in the field. This makes seven altogether. Some of them are quite prominent, such as Jane Hill, the leading authority in Nahuatl studies in Mexico. These are independent and unsolicited reviews of the work of this innovative project in Mexico published in important journals in the field of linguistics and indigenous studies. I think they should count as secondary sources since they are peer-reviewed and not from anyone associated with the project in any way. With the additions, this makes the secondary sources outnumbering the primary sources. The controversy raised by the critique of one of the reviewers, I think makes the quotes more interesting. In addition, I looked for quotes that are substantive and that add relevant content to the main idea of the article. I should have a revised submission ready for reconsideration soon.

Here are the external reviews and commentaries:

Groff, C, (2004). Review of Language and literacy teaching for indigenous education: A bilingual approach. Language in Society, 33, 301-303.

Hill, J. (2000). Review of Malintzin: Bilingüismo y alfabetización en la Sierra de Tlaxcala. The Nahua Newsletter, N. 30.

Chondrogianni, V. (2013). Review of Bilingual competence and bilingual proficiency in child development. First Language, 33, 654-661.

Xu, Y. (2014) Review of Bilingual development and literacy learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 163-164.

Han, M. (2014). Review of Bilingual development and literacy learning. Bilingual Research Journal, 37, 214-217.

Xue, J. (2013). Review of Bilingual Development and Literacy Learning: East Asian and International, Language Problems and Language Planning, 37, 298–300.

Kirke, A. & Miranda, E. (2013). Emotional and multi-agent systems in computer-aided writing and poetry. Symposium on artificial intelligence and poetry (AISB'13), (pp. 17—22). Exeter: Exeter University.

˜˜˜˜Bobowikibobo


 * Can you find any news sources or non-academic sources mentioning him? For a professor this isn't necessary needed, but it would really help. Also, pro tip, to sign your name just put "~", no need to also add your name.  Kharkiv07 Talk  23:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)



Bobowikibobo (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kharkiv07. Here are some other secondary sources, still more of the “academic” kind as opposed to “media,” but they add some interesting information about the project (some of it high profile, like the debate with Gottschall and Cameron about sex). I could add them in a section (7) called “Commentary and Controversy” following External links section (6). I have the feeling that the entry itself already has enough quotes for a short piece.

Commentary and Controversy

Scott Hadley of the Facultad de Lenguas, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, reviews SEMYCA anthology of traditional narrative: https://nahuanewsletter.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/nahua-no-46-47.pdf

Naldic News on Language and Literacy teaching for indigenous education: A bilingual approach: http://www.naldic.org.uk/Resources/NALDIC/Publications%20and%20Resources/Language%20and%20Literacy%20Teaching%20for%20Indigenous%20Education%20NN31.pdf

Language Research Centre of the University of Calgary - Extensive discussion of the project’s model for indigenous language teaching: https://education.alberta.ca/media/349351/ablitrev.pdf

Sex, gender, language and evolutionary psychology - Exchange with Jonathan Gottschall and critical response by Deborah Cameron in Language and Literature: http://lal.sagepub.com/content/20/1/59.abstract and in Philosophy and Literature: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/philosophy_and_literature/v038/38.1A.francis.pdf

˜˜˜˜

16:45:32, 17 March 2015 review of submission by Lcamus
Regarding: GERANIUM HOMES submission. I am writing to inquire about the recent decline of page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Geranium_Homes User:Kharkiv07 Thank you again for reviewing it. This submission was edited and resubmitted further to recommendations from a previous reviewer. I am anxious to get this resolved and get the site up live. I have added many independent, reliable published sources including the Toronto Star newspaper, governing bodies of CHBA and BILDgta external sites, newswires and magazines. I would very much appreciate if you could guide me to the areas you feel still need improvement. I welcome your advice and look forward to hearing from you -again thank you for your time. User:Lcamus

Lcamus (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Alan Jones Drummer
As per your feedback I combined over 25 duplicate references using the method, so the list of references is not so long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaher (talk • contribs) 21:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Great! I'll take a look at it!  Kharkiv07 Talk  21:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Contributions to New Cross
Hello!

I ran Saturday nights at The Venue in New Cross in the early 90s and worked/attended Friday nights so thought I would fill that into the bit about clubs. I'm not sure why mentioning those two nights wouldn't be constructive to the paragraph. Surely it adds correct factual detail? Not many other mentions exist on the web. My sources are my experience and memory.

Thanks!82.0.140.56 (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! I have two main concerns with this, first I'm not sure that the people who ran/worked in the night club is exactly a notable inclusion for people coming to look at an article about a district of London. I mean this in the nicest way possible, but (assuming I'm understanding your contributions correctly) if you came to an article about a city would you care about who ran/worked in on Friday nights? This isn't the type of encyclopedic content that we like to include in general, just because it's not notable. If you were reading an article about a restaurant in say, New York, would you care that "Joe Brown was the manager of Insert Restaurant Here on weekends? Second, you need to include sources for your edits, and per Wikipedia's policy on primary sources, being there isn't good enough. I'd be happy to discuss it more though. Thanks!  Kharkiv07 Talk  01:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Kharkiv07


 * Hmm. When you say 'we', are we not all custodians of Wiki? Am I somehow excluded?


 * The changes were made to an important venue in the area. At the time of its heyday, from which bands are listed, there were two club nights that made that reputation.


 * So what makes something notable? I would like to argue that to London clubbers of the age 30-50 that Jonathan and Eko's nights at The Camden Palace, Tufnell Park Dome and Venue were incredibly influential and had a cultural impact. They were the first people to put bands like Suede and Supergrass in front of a large, weekly audience. I've been able to add Allison as part of the Flim Flam club, but not for our Saturday night (Club Awesome) which was ten times as big and also brought many bands such as Carter USM, Chapterhouse, Hole, Silverfish and some others mention to the attention of the 1,500 kids we had there every week.


 * I feel I am fleshing out a small amount of detail within a detail. Context, in fact, while The Venue does not have its own entry. However the Camden Palace does, mentioning Jonathan and Eko's night Feet First, as well as people who ran other club nights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden_Palace_Theatre. What's the difference here?


 * To anyone researching the history of the culture of these areas this may be of interest. I work as a music journalist now and these tiny details give you leads to a bigger picture.


 * Having worked/run nights at Camden Falcon, Camden Monarch, Finsbury Park Sir George Robey, The Marquee on Charing Cross Road, The WAG Club and more I feel I could fill out quite a few useful facts that would be notable to popular culture. But would I get some sort of wrist-slapping for trying to factually enhance the tapestry of 80s/90s London club and gig culture?


 * As for sources, I see 'citation needed' many times. If you need a clipping of Club Awesome, sure I can find a listing from Melody Maker/NME/Sounds and put a picture up. Film Flam is there with no source, so how do you know that existed? (I went to it, so it did exist, but as per your point...)


 * Kind regards 82.0.140.56 (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! Sorry if you believe I came off as rude, it wasn't at all my intention, and I used "we" to describe Wikipedians in general. That being said, I was trying to approach this issue from a strictly policy based standpoint, trying not to take an opinion on the matter. If you want my personal opinion, we can include clubs (to an extent, I mean there's a point where it gets ridiculous) if they have cultural value, especially since the section of the article was referring to a specific time period at the time. That being said I think a line is drawn when we start to talk about individual people or bands who played these clubs, especially if they don't have any notability besides playing at this clubs. So, what exactly do you want to include? People and bands? Because unless you can prove their notability with reliable and independent sources, it's hard for me to justify the inclusion of it. If you're interested I'll submit a request for a third opinion to get an un-biased editor's opinion on the matter.  Kharkiv07 Talk  02:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome.
03/17/2015

To Kharkiv07;

Thank you sincerely for your welcome to Wikipedia.

My name is actually Dr. Damian Stone, and I utilize the user name The Ecumenical Theological Seminary, with which I am affiliated.

I highly respect the endeavor of Wikipedia, and I am pleased to be a relatively new editor.

I want to emphasize the fact that any and all edits that I work on will be intended to improve upon Wikipedia, and the wonderful project that it is.

Thank you again. TheEcumenicalTheologicalSeminary (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! I'm glad you're here, editors who contribute positively help the project tremendously and I'm glad you're here! I'd like to reiterate that if you need anything just drop me a message here, or if you put it on your talk page just put so I'll see it. Once again, welcome!  Kharkiv07  Talk  04:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. And in many respects, [at least in my opinion], it can be a reciprocal benefit. As I have been 'surfing through' random articles, searching for areas which could potentially be improved upon, I have been increasingly impressed by the vast amount of information available on this fabulous resource. As an established editor, I assure you, I also will be searching for any vandalism or otherwise. Very nice to meet you.TheEcumenicalTheologicalSeminary (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello again Kharkiv07; I have a question for you. Through some research on Internet, I have located a photograph that I believe would enhance a particular page. Can you please instruct me as to how to go about incorporating a photograph to a page. It pertains to the following .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XC2200 TheEcumenicalTheologicalSeminary (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Great! However, due to copyright reasons, we first need to make sure that Wikipedia can actually use the picture. Just take a quick look over this policy to make sure that your image is usable. Once you're sure that we can use it, go to Special:Upload to help you upload it. If you need any more information feel free to ask or check out this page which explains uploading images in more detail.  Kharkiv07 Talk  21:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Kharkiv07; When you have the chance, could you please take a look at the following page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:XC2200. I was able to successfully upload the photograph, but I seem to be missing the detailed method on how to incorporate it into the page. Also, just to mention parenthetically, I am interested in editing this page, however at this point it is also in order to learn and develop the methods to properly edit. Thank you again.TheEcumenicalTheologicalSeminary (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I do have a concern that the image you provide may not be acceptable for use. Unless the manufacture released it or provided permission, it may not be usable due to copyright concerns. I'm not an expert with images though.  Kharkiv07 Talk  02:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Kharkiv07; Great. As I progress I am optimistic that I will continue to learn and develop. Feel free to communicate with me on my talk page with any feedback that you may want to share.TheEcumenicalTheologicalSeminary (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Eric Sollee
Hi Kharkiv07,

I see that you made some changes. I'm not sure which ones. (I'm still new to editing so I might have missed it).

If there is anything that I can do to help, please let me know.

"RobSVA (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)"


 * Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia! I was simply preforming an automated cleanup of your article to prepare it for other reviewers, but when I get a chance I'll look over it again and give you some feedback myself. Just for future reference you can go to view history in the top right corner of the page and click compare selected revisions or dif to see what changes other people made. Tell me if you need anything, happy editing!  Kharkiv07 Talk  14:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Kharkiv07, Thanks. I'll play with the history, and I'd appreciate the feedback. RobSVA (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Kharkiv07, Thanks for your note at. I'll be pleased to provide more materials and do more research. Could you please be a bit more specific?  Currently the draft article has 23 references. Is the quantity insufficient? are specific areas insufficiently referenced? is it the type of references?  In terms of news articles, for which parts or throughout? References 2,3,4,5,6,13,18,and 22 are news articles.  I have or can find news articles on: MIT and Harvard wins and coaches and students.  I've listed wiki as a source (often with a direct point using double square brackets " " instead of using the "ref /ref" as well as sources such as the museum of fencing and the hall of fame.  Anyway, if you can provide some direction, I'll do the legwork. Thanks again. RobSVA (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey Rob, I'm looking back at it and I think it's just about good to go, I think the sources should be find. I made some major formatting changes, feel free to comment and/or change if you don't like anything. I think it should be just about ready to go but I'm pretty involved now so I'm going to let somebody else review it, or at least provide the opportunity. If nobody has in a little time I'll consider approving it. Thanks for the article!  Kharkiv07 Talk  21:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Kharkiv07, thanks!! I'm heading out, but I took a quick look and like where you're headed. His time at Harvard as a student probably shouldn't go under the heading "Professional". Perhaps add another title for that section? e.g. "University" or "College" or "Competitor". (he was an amateur competitor). I'll look again in detail later.  thanks!  RobSVA (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Kharkiv07, thanks for all of the assistance. The changes make a big improvement over the original; one which I might have kept, was the part summarizing the results of the people who aren't listed, including All-Americans, IFA titles, and 14 consecutive New England titles. One editorial question: I was always taught to never start a sentence with "Because".    Thanks again RobSVA (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yea I wasn't able to organically add that in, but to sound neutral I'd give more specific people instead of saying "including Olympic champions and international champions" or whatever you said. "Because" is an interesting word, however how I used it is correct (I think), check this article out. I could be wrong though.  Kharkiv07 Talk  01:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kharkiv07, It's been accepted! Thanks!!. There's a note at the top that the citations are inconsistent. Does that mean that we are using different styles of citations? Thanks again for all of your help! RobSVA (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I added a new section, if there's anybody else who's notable stick them in and what they're notable for.  Kharkiv07 Talk  01:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

19:48:07, 19 March 2015 review of submission by Bobowikibobo
Bobowikibobo (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kharkiv07. I uploaded the four additional secondary sources that I mentioned to you earlier in the place that I suggested to see how it all appears and whether they are coherent with the rest of the entry. I think the idea works pretty well, as these sources complement the quotes in the text of the article itself. The one about the recent controversy on feminism and evolutionary science that the project got involved in makes for a good addition in particular. I will now check everything over one more time and then resubmit. Thanks for your tips and suggestions. ˜˜˜˜


 * Anytime! Give me a shout when you resubmit and I'll give it a look!  Kharkiv07 Talk  23:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I just checked it over and resubmitted. In all there are now 11 footnotes and references from secondary sources, from 13 different researchers in the field. Like you mentioned, for professors, media (aside from newsletters and such, I found some of these) are almost always professional journals. Some of these folks get into the mass media, for good reasons, some for not so good reasons. Tell me what you think. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobowikibobo (talk • contribs) 02:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Warning
Hello! I noticed you left a warning on my page and quickly removed it, just making sure, there isn't a problem, is there? Thanks!  Kharkiv07 Talk  17:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all, unless you're creating attack pages :) The similarity between your username and caused me to misclick and template you rather than them. Sorry about that. Thanks for all of your patrol work! &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  18:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha thanks, sorry about the confusion.  Kharkiv07 Talk  18:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:IUAPPA
Hey, I did what you suggest and add over 10 independent source incl. News - I also analyzed some of the more than 1.000 related resources Google scholar / books and add what I could fond. I think now it fits all the criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations. Can you please check again.--Acad1989 (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you - sorry, but source 1 (German book),2 ,4 (korean news),6, 16 (African news),17 (African news), 18 (Science) are independent, 6 is form the Untied Nations. This is from the German Environment Agency https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/377/dokumente/linklist.pdf were IUAPPA is listed as a international major organization for air pollution, page 2 or her http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40966454?sid=21105667114051&uid=4&uid=70&uid=2129&uid=2, What you understand concerning "secondary sources" ? --Acad1989 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, I saw that and the sources are really coming along! However, I do have a slight concern that some of the article may have been closely paraphrased from some of the websites listed here. In fact, some parts seemed to be copied almost directly. Per Wikipedia's policy on copywrite violations we cannot have content that's closely paraphrased or directly copied. We may want to look into that a bit more before we move ahead.  Kharkiv07 Talk  20:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I copied only something from the News / Statues - and make this now, as a citation with "XXX", also what I copied from Statues, with "XXX". The paraphrases I take, I try to rebuild, so that there should be no violations - it`s very difficult to create complete new words in this "special context" for e.g. for the goals. Because the source are all mentioned, this should be no problem. I can also ask their secretary to give me copyrights or even better material, it´s a huge, very big source context (after 50 Years) and not easy to structure or to clear what is relevant or not, because there is no "good summary". We have to work further after creation.....--Mingo 12:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acad1989 (talk • contribs)


 * Butler and I renewed some parts. One new important source (news are integrated) is the new book from Joachim Radkau: The Age of Ecology. Wiley, 2014 where the foundation of IUAAP is mentioned as one milestone of the "Ecology Revolution". Can you please check again.--Mingo (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:IUAPPA
Hey, I did what you suggest and add over 10 independent source incl. News - I also analyzed some of the more than 1.000 related resources Google scholar / books and add what I could fond. I think now it fits all the criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations. Can you please check again.--Acad1989 (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you - sorry, but source 1 (German book),2 ,4 (korean news),6, 16 (African news),17 (African news), 18 (Science) are independent, 6 is form the Untied Nations. This is from the German Environment Agency https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/377/dokumente/linklist.pdf were IUAPPA is listed as a international major organization for air pollution, page 2 or her http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40966454?sid=21105667114051&uid=4&uid=70&uid=2129&uid=2, What you understand concerning "secondary sources" ? --Acad1989 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, I saw that and the sources are really coming along! However, I do have a slight concern that some of the article may have been closely paraphrased from some of the websites listed here. In fact, some parts seemed to be copied almost directly. Per Wikipedia's policy on copywrite violations we cannot have content that's closely paraphrased or directly copied. We may want to look into that a bit more before we move ahead.  Kharkiv07 Talk  20:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I copied only something from the News / Statues - and make this now, as a citation with "XXX", also what I copied from Statues, with "XXX". The paraphrases I take, I try to rebuild, so that there should be no violations - it`s very difficult to create complete new words in this "special context" for e.g. for the goals. Because the source are all mentioned, this should be no problem. I can also ask their secretary to give me copyrights or even better material, it´s a huge, very big source context (after 50 Years) and not easy to structure or to clear what is relevant or not, because there is no "good summary". We have to work further after creation.....--Mingo 12:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acad1989 (talk • contribs)


 * Butler and I renewed some parts. One new important source (news are integrated) is the new book from Joachim Radkau: The Age of Ecology. Wiley, 2014 where the foundation of IUAAP is mentioned as one milestone of the "Ecology Revolution". Can you please check again.--Mingo (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

23:53:57, 21 March 2015 review of submission by Kurtographer
Hello. This was my first submission to Wikipedia. You said I needed more sources. I've scoured available source material on the individual I wrote on and found a couple of more sources. I hope that is enough. Thanks. ~Kurtographer

Kurtographer (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at it when I get a chance!  Kharkiv07 Talk  00:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

My education
Is there a page listing the various warning for tag removals - specifically AfD.?Peter Rehse (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:WARN, look at the bottom of the ones with the numbers, under "Unaccepted practices, unilateral action against policies or guidelines".  Kharkiv07 Talk  13:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks much - exactly what I was looking for but could not find. Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

10:27:35, 22 March 2015 review of submission by Dhmellor
Having revised my first draft of the article Leeds Lieder, to include references to reliable independent sources, The Times and the Austrian Cultural Forum, I'm puzzled that it has been rejected again. I'd appreciate your advice as to what should be done in order to ensure that the article is accepted. Those two sources are certainly independent and reliable - do you simply want more than two? Dhmellor (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry about the delayed response! I think it would really help if you added more sources, but I suppose we can reevaluate it in its current state. That being said some more sources would be great.  Kharkiv07 Talk  00:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - done! Dhmellor (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Accepted :)  Kharkiv07 Talk  18:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User mediation in Souther Strategy article
Hi! You recently closed this request for mediation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Southern_strategy.23Proposed_changes I have a question here and relating to this article. As a new editor clearly I haven't handled this correctly since I have several editors accusing me of warring while, in my view, refusing to consider the sources I have been sharing (sources from academics in related fields). What is the best way to go about getting a change mad when several editors disagree with the change? In this case I feel the changes I would like to see added to the article, basically lead items that state the facts and nature of the material are subject to debate. I sadly, suspect that my initial push to get changes made branded me as an insincere editor and after that all I got was push back. What method would you suggest. How can I get a fair hearing if the editors want to claim this is warring rather than a real attempt to make the article better? Thanks!--Getoverpops (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I closed your dispute because none of the others were willing to participate, and since all of the methods of dispute resolution require all parties to participate. You can check out WP:DISPUTE for all of the information on the dispute resolution system.  Kharkiv07 Talk  12:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems with such a system a group of editors could basically block edits by reverting then refusing to participate in mediation. Is that correct?--Getoverpops (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Another idea is to start a request for comment (RfC), or if its a conduct issue on their part one of the administrator noticeboards. RfC might be your best bet though.  Kharkiv07 Talk  14:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

OK. - Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getoverpops (talk • contribs) 14:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Help
Curious on how to start wiki project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyruin (talk • contribs) 01:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey! Check out the WikiProject Council's page. They have all the advice you could possibly need, including how to make a new one. Best of luck!  Kharkiv07 Talk  01:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Odell Beckham Jr.
Hi, I was in the process of reverting an edit on this article when you accepted it. The edit basically messed up the formatting of the Infobox and other sections plus the source cited was not done correctly at all. I would have gone back and fixed it, but I'm leaving in its previous state. When you're reviewing edits, please scroll down and check the result before accepting. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I didn't mean to do that, in fact I thought I'd just left it up on my screen without doing anything, anyways sorry and thanks!  Kharkiv07 Talk  21:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries, but be careful about having the screen open if you're not reviewing it. I found that a stray hit of the "enter" key approves it even if you did not intend to. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh really? I wasn't aware of that, good to know! Thanks again!  Kharkiv07 Talk  21:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Isaac's Storm: A Man, a Time, and the Deadliest Hurricane in History
Hi Kharkiv07, You reviewed this draft and expressed some concern about the notability. I went and reviewed the book notability guidelines, which you posted a link to. I think that Isaac's Storm qualifies under the first guideline, as it has been reviewed and featured by the NY Times, the Washington Post, and some other major newspapers. Do I need to add something like that to the article? Any help would be appreciated. --No.1utfan (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey! Why not just included those in the references and/or external links? Do that and drop me a message and I'll see about approving it!  Kharkiv07 Talk  03:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Kickstarter
I'm seriously confused as to why you are denying that a Kickstarter campaign that is CLEARLY DOCUMENTED occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.95.34 (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not and never have made a comment on if it existed or not, it's just negative information that was never properly supported. This is a violation of every single policy on WP:BLPSOURCES.  Kharkiv07 Talk  23:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 98.193.95.34 (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, did you file a report against me? I don't see it, if you want to go to that page and create a new report... or see mine at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.  Kharkiv07 Talk  23:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi again K. The IPs report was malformed but it now exists here Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit warring. Fortunately the boomerang was swift. I notice that the article just came off page protection. Don't hesitate to ask for it again should the problems continue. Thanks again for your vigilance and have a great weekend. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ping
More material at. Montanabw (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I replied again. Was offline a couple days due to eye surgery (had one eye done a month ago, the other this past week).  Amazing how removing cataracts and the lens implant just is near-miraculous!  Anyway, sorry you are getting dragged into this endless debate, but you are doing a good job of gathering information and trying to be neutral and fair, so thank you.  Montanabw (talk)  19:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Proposed a new paragraph. Would appreciate some firm opinions at this point. Just put over an hour into that paragraph, cross-checking sources and such. Getting fatigued and frustrated - this editing dispute has been going on for over a month now across two articles and nothing has changed. I am quite exhausted and dealing with all these dramas is sapping my energy for actually working on the legitimate content issues that would be good to improve at the Mustang article.  I have helped on a couple dozen FACs in various ways (I claim "substantial contribution" to 17 of them) so I really do know what I'm doing here, I am perfectly capable of collaboration (just ask User:Wehwalt) but I am getting very, very tired of being The Little Red Hen and doing all the work on this one.   Montanabw (talk)  23:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your willingness to collaborate and I have no doubt that you have put a lot of effort into this, however my job is to be an impartial mediator to help you two resolve your dispute, not to provide significant input myself. I want this to be resolved as much as you do and I'm trying to help that, and if it comes to it I'll start offering more suggestions. Hope your eye is okay!  Kharkiv07 Talk  23:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The eyes are doing well. I am done arguing with Wysong; there is no movement happening, anything I propose, she has to have it her way, I have compromised, I have changed content, I have instructed her, tried to explain to her about how to edit wiki, explained why her style of "expert foo says endless long quote" is not good style, and frankly, I have had it. It's been a month.  If you have anything useful to say that can break the impasse I am all for it - so far I think I have done everything you have asked.   Montanabw (talk)  23:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

General vandalism notice
sorry it was an acsedent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.95.191.105 (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, as long as it doesn't happen again there's no problem!  Kharkiv07 Talk  22:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism accusations
Hey, about my alleged vandalism to Ahecht's home page: all I did was unsubscribe to notifications. Let me know if there's a less invasive way to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strnbrg59 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, your edit here added a speedy deletion tag, which essentially requests an administrator to delete the page, which would be out of line in this instance. I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to accomplish, but I'm assuming it's removing the page from your watchlist. To do that you go to the page, and a few places over from the "search" box in the top right you'll see a blue star. Click that blue star, and that should remove it.  Kharkiv07 Talk  23:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There must be a bug in the wikimedia software. All I did was uncheck the "Watch this page" box and press "save".  But of course I'll use the blue star method from now on. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strnbrg59 (talk • contribs)


 * Hmmmm.... I'll look into it.  Kharkiv07 Talk  23:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!
Moved here

A cupcake for you!
''Moved here

Haha thanks! It's an interesting experience for my first case, but I think it's a good one.  Kharkiv07 Talk  22:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Grishko
Hi Kharkiv07, I was just checking up on my page and noticed that you had taken a look at it a little while ago, but it's still pending review. I was wondering if you could take a look at it and review it if you have a moment. I think that I have complied with all of the requests of the reviewers and am hopeful this time. :) Thanks! Aspaef (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look!  Kharkiv07 Talk  23:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

DRN case
Dispute resolution noticeboard will go into archiving status on April 2, which means that it will be automatically archived if there's not at least one edit on it during any 24-hour period. Since it looks like you're making progress there — and thank you for that — you might want to change the "Do not archive until" date in the section header to April 9th or thereabouts to keep that from happening. Though it's your call as the handling volunteer, the "quick and simple" premises on which DRN is built suggest that cases shouldn't be extended unless progress is being made, so it would be best if you didn't extend it much more than that at first and then reconsider extending it by another week at a time as needed so long as progress is being made. (On the other hand, you can leave it as it is and tell the disputants that you do not care to extend it so as to keep them talking, or some combination of the two.) Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I'll look into it!  Kharkiv07 Talk  17:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh god, just kill it. We are circling the same issues endlessly.   Montanabw (talk)  21:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Another DRN case
It appears to me that there are several other editors involved in the discussion at Elm Guest House who perhaps ought to be included and notified, unless there is some reason to believe that they will simply go along with whatever is worked out between these two editors without any ongoing input from the others. Ghmyrtle, Alarics, Gareth E Kegg, Kind Tennis Fan, and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi jump out at me. It's your call, but we generally don't take cases at DRN unless we can get everyone involved who is needed to stop the dispute at the talk page. If you've already considered this, please forgive this nosy intrusion in your case. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that Ghmyrtle is the only one that's extremely active in the discussion, and I'll send him a message that it's open, the others don't seem extremely involved and have only made a comment here or there but I'll look into adding them. Sorry I'm still getting use to this!  Kharkiv07 Talk  20:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll leave a notice on the talk page if any of those others want to.  Kharkiv07 Talk  20:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)