User talk:Lembit Staan/Archive 4

Polish Constitutional crisis
Per WP:RM obviously controversial moves should be discussed first and not moved until a WP:CONSENSUS is reached, please respect this policy. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Editing in Page
As you have post for further editing you seems a exerienced editor why not you add some citation as i have seend many such sites by searching for Prof Adya Prasad Pandey and he is Currently Vice Chancellor of Manipur Central University which is top most post of Academics and many leading news papers even government websites have information regarding it. he comes under Point 6 you can check it so remove flag for notability. Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.219.14.168 (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Pilot Pirx
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Google Street View in Africa
I'm unsure what your objectives are regarding the removal of the information indicating what coverage certain countries and territories have. Clearing unreferenced information is good, but I think you have gone a little overboard. Maybe doing some research and adding references before doing something hasty would have been better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesky10 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I have also noticed you have removed large chunks from the google street view in Asia and Europe pages. I must protest at these changes and say they are not beneficial to users, you now have to navigate so much text to find the information you want, which you didn't need to do before as the page was split by country who had coverage of varying amounts and you could skip to a certain country/territory.

I hope I'm not the only person who preferred the previous layout which was here, and in the Asia and Europe pages respectively, and hopefully I have given enough reason for you to change them back to how they were previously. Hesky10 (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am disinclined to acquiesce your request (means "No!"). Wikipedia has certain policies which were militantly ignored by "Google Earth" sockpuppets. They were given quite some time to clean their act. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, I'm sure I will get used to the layout changes in time! Hesky10 (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You have removed the entire list of places covered by Google Street View in Europe and Google Street View in Asia. But the list of covered places had references. On https://www.google.com/maps you can see that listed places are covered or not. This reference was maybe not properly formatted, but that should have been fixed.--BIL (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A software output is not a valid reference. It is called original research Staszek Lem (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The output of Google Streetview is not original research. The output of Google Streetview counts as source for what the content of Google Streetview is. Please describe where in WP:NOR this is described. All of the internet is software output.--BIL (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * :: Not not everything on internet is software output. Anyway, if you want to waste your time and make a catalog of Google Street View, I will no longer object, as long as you will provide a valid reference for each and every item. How long will it take for you? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * At least for the list of included areas in Streetview, it must be accepted that it is referenced by Streetview itself. The list of introductions by date is more doubtful as Streetview itself does not include this info directly. So for the latter list I won't really try to revert any deletions.--BIL (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Beast fable
Panchatantra is mentioned prominently in Beast fable -- in fact, it constitutes one of this article's few referenced statements. And Beast fable occurs in Panchatantra. Isn't this sufficient justification for the template to appear in the article? Phil wink (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Navboxes are used to navigate across articles which constitute immediate coverage of the topic in question. "beast fable" is a generic term. We don't include "panchatantra" template into India article, do we? Panchatantra is mentioned prominently in Beast fable simply because this article is severely underdeveloped.  Likewise we don't include Aesop and others into "beast fable", because this would be upside-down hierarchy. The "immediate coverage" criterion is crucial, otherwise we will have some articles mightily littered by marginally relevant templates. 00:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

best AfD nom ever...
for Sanathdeva Murutenge. :-) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources guidelines
Here is the direct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources#.22Secondary.22_is_not_another_way_to_spell_.22good.22 Articles in journals are often not free to read full text. Don't delete such self-published sources. thx. I have purposefully found primary sources that are free with full text. --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This looks like a direct link to wp:FRINGE, if not nonsense. See more at your User talk:Asterixf2 - DVdm (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Asterixf2. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Entropic force. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.--Asterixf2 (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not "censor" anything. Please don't use warning templates the purpose of which you probably don't understand. Please write in your own words what you have in mind. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Vaxxed Drama
Your input would be appreciated Here. Thanks. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  21:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Victim feminism
Hi Staszek, I just want to ask you a couple questions, as I'm trying to assume good faith at Articles for deletion/Victim feminism. Why are you arguing so forcefully on a topic that you admittedly know very little about? You have taken a controversial political framing used by a certain segment of feminists and argued that it is just a classification system used by "some scholars". That is very misleading. The concepts that it represents are already covered on Wikipedia (under more neutrally titled articles such as gender feminism and radical feminism). What can I do to convince you that "victim feminism" is a politically biased term? Kaldari (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed in Military globalization
Military globalization is the increase of range within which military power can be projected through the progress of military organization and technology and the increasing strategic interrelation first of regional systems and later of the global system.{{}citation needed|date=April 2016}

Citation does not exist. I composed the opening section basing on the opening section in Globalization. Max. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxaxax (talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Filing at 3RR
I know they've been removing all sorts of messages from their talk page, but it's generally a good idea to let a user know when you've nominated them at 3RR. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help with the Dmitry Polyakov article. As you said at the AfD, the user is alarmingly uncooperative. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC).

Thank you for mentioning that I left off the end of that sentence on the victim blaming article. I have corrected it now. Studentuser1 (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Oława
It's simple for an ignorant to say: "Wild speculations"

at: http://sbb-music.jimdo.com

You may find countless links showing that those are not "speculations". But this demands deep understanding, time and will to do so !!!

By the way, some of the Iakšaku dynasty Spyra line were known as Pernus or Pernusius in Kraków, their tombs were in the St. Mary's Basilica, Kraków and their descendants were neighbours of the real Mr. Stanisław Lem - the famous novelist. One of them assisted Charles Vern Bender in preparing the Hollywood version of "Solaris" just 2 years before Mr. Lem passed away.

Also in Kraków at exactly 50⁰N/20⁰E there is a monument placed by one of them (probably in the 17th century).

Please study facts (there are many downloads including ancient documents at he sbb site) and restore to previous state.


 * This is the editor banned at WP:PERUNBAN. Doug Weller  talk 19:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please provide edit summaries
Given:, and other recent edits at Scientific dissent please provide edit summaries. They help the rest of us understand what you are contributing. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Victor W. Marek
Thank you for bringing back the notability tag. Unfortunately, I have very little time to handle this case, but given the amount of time you spend on WP I believe you can find yourself plenty of evidence in accordance to Notability (academics) in favour of keeping this person (one of maybe 10 most notable Polish living computer scientists, author of legendary, but written only in Polish, handbook Analiza kombinatoryczna) in en.wikipedia.org. alx-pl  d  13:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that my time is less valuable than yours? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Scientific dissent for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scientific dissent is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Scientific dissent until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Google Street View
Look, you are the only one who wants to delete the article, that is not fair. I think we need a voting, but until that, the article has to be kept. For many years everybody accepts the article, edited very well, but now you call them "sockpuppets". How do you know they were sockpuppets? That is too subjective, in your mind, but we need facts. I ask for a voting and not just deletion because you want or think that is a "directory". Please, do not undo my contribution when I do the same. Excuse for my English, I'm not English language native speaker. --Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You should wait for the result of Articles for deletion/Coverage of Google Street View before redirecting similar continent/country-level articles, such as Google Street View in the United States and Google Street View in Canada, to Google Street View. Pristino (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting me at Ronda Rousey, I had on a silly browser extension, which I've disabled now. That is the only affected edit. Make91 (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

116 lbs is what she weighed at, and that information is from Sherdog. For non title fights there is 1 lb leeway so fighters often weigh exactly 1 lb over the limit. Make91 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Moved post
Hi, I moved your WT:FRINGE post to Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. That's the place where particular articles are brought for discussion, while the focus of WT:FRINGE is just the WP:FRINGE guideline itself. Best, Manul ~ talk 23:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Heraldic family

 * Greetings! I just saw Your input on question rased and we post in same time. So You could go back to page and see what is posted! Best regards and thank You for Your input! camdan (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I invite You to discussion about question raised on WikiProject Heraldry camdan (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2016 (CEST)
 * Do You have time tio help to improive some art.? Its lot of work to be done here to make it all on acceptable level. I will do "Polish heraldry on FA level" as I have done it before on pl:wiki, then we have art. "Heraldic clan" - it need to stick to the subject and explain the origin of the term and finally "Polish Clans" - here, necessary to work in team since subject is big and very difficult. Unless we wish to write art. that consist many errors and forward those errors to the reader. camdan (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Look, I dont want to cause problems or waste time. Just to point out few things. When I write about old publication like Kutrzeba's, I dont mean that its all wrong - in fact he have done lot of great work. However, narration and conclutions are old. Science go fast now, there is cooperation between all European scientiest to find the truth, also DNA technics add a lot of value. Six years ago, when I created the art. "Clan of Ostoja", the narration is different than today, and art need now to be rewriten in some sections because narration is not of what we know today. Soon we will know if Rollo was Danish or Norwegian (DNA tests) and also about the origin of Piast and origin of population of Greater Poland (DNA project). Indications tell that we might rerwrite entire history of slavic population in Poland. Problems with sources and to correct huge amount of errors - Uruski is completely dissmissed as academic cource and as reliable source. Boniecki is a mess - part of his work is correct and part is not, how on earth can onyone tell what is correct and what is not without checking original sources? What I mean is that we can use different sources and forward narration that is false. And people tend to believe in what is written and not question becasue of lack of knowledge. Like the list of names in Gajs work. This guy is a fantom, I just cant believe that he make all of this without having mental break down (actually he have been close few time). But...its still just a list, he dont verify if the documents is false or not because its not possible for him to do as he would need 200 years to do that. When Bajor created DNA project of Rurikid lines, only 4 years ago origin was not clear, conclutions questioned but today indications are much stronger and its close to consensus. In same way, article "Polish heraldry" need to be rewritten using also more modern sources but there is problem with new publications since its expensive to publish a book and not many are interested in subject of heraldry. Its not easy! You read a book, a source and You dont know if it is correct interpretation or not. We are actually in the middle of huge fog, we see and understand very little. And You can read history 30 years on academic level and only what you get is more questions raised than before. To make good article, we all need to understand the problem and cooperate, discuss and find best possible way to forward as correect narration as possible. camdan (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.197.196 (talk)

laser welding equipment
I broke the laser welding equipment section into two sections - one for CAM and one for lasers -- I hope it is clear at what I am getting at....added more information and refs.--Tornwaily (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Scientific dissent for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scientific dissent is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Scientific dissent& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
Tianderni (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

SpotOption and Banc de Binary
SpotOption itself says that Banc De Binary is one of its "brands".. John Nagle (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure this comment is addressed to me. At least I didn't ask any questions about them. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That was in reference to your edit at with edit comment "Regulation: different company; no sources cited describe their "collaboration)". Although that connection probably should be sourced better. Don't worry about it. John Nagle (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Polish heraldry

 * Hello. Im working with art. to improve it adding citations, sources and also trying to imnprove it to be at GA level. I would much appreciate any kind of help form Your side. Aa well as with improving art. Heraldic clan. Best regards, camdan (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Nie doceniam Pana poczucia humoru

 * Czy warto tracić czas na rzucanie diamentów Pana dowcipu przed takiego wieprza jak ja?
 * Ten artykuł jest o Polakach, nie o Kurdach, a w Wielkiej Brytanii nie ma wojny. Ja pan widzi, nic a nicXx236 (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To tak, lecz Pana wersja poprzednia miała nic do  artykułu (mian. antypolonizm; może chciano po prostu kogoś zabić z nudów a to pech Polaka  trafił). Teraz ma to Pan sensowniej. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban for Jed Stuart
I really think it's time to request a topic ban for Jed Stuart. Do you agree? If so, a simple "yes" will be enough. If I can find a couple of good editors who agree, I'll start an ANI thread requesting it and post a link back here. If you don't agree, please let me know why. Thanks, MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed Topic ban of user:Jed Stuart from editing articles related to conspiracy theories. Thank you. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  16:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tsai Ming-Kai


Hello. A tag has been placed on Tsai Ming-Kai requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Tsai Ming-Kai
And yet you're not allowed to remove that tag. You can, however, contest the deletion. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me the guideline. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Tsai Ming-Kai for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tsai Ming-Kai is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tsai Ming-Kai until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Tsarist autocracy
Your comment on Talk:Tsarist autocracy in the section /* Requested move 21 September 2016 * / does not make much sense, but I'll be happy to clarify the process for you. Was it meant as well-intended advisory or is it a request that disputed RMs be filed differently? I any event, please do not modify other editors' posts, read WP:TPO. — Sam Sailor 06:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Contrastive focus reduplication
Maybe [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contrastive_focus_reduplication&diff=prev&oldid=741377582 this] was too much of an inside joke. We (late-nineties/early-aughts grad students) routinely called contrastive reduplication salad-salad reduplication, alluding to the paper. I think your version is better. Cnilep (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? What joke? Must be a very deep inside one, because I saw the caption as a misplaced (and hence missing from the "Example" section) example, so I simply put it closer to the source cited. So, what was the joke, now? Tell me, or I will be really UP–up and have to write wikipedia all night long. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The 'joke' (I guess more allusive than humorous) is that green salad is salad-salad, and salad-salad is a metonym for contrastive focus reduplication. Cnilep (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 *  not anymore. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone
hyperlinked towards an AfD discussion that you opened here. I thought I should let you know. Pwolit iets (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

exopolitics
Please explain your reversion of my edits? The only comment you placed is a "No" without any explanation. As I already placed in my comments, "exopolitics" is a well-established term used in a number of publications, most notably a number of articles in Astronomy magazine. Nicole Sharp (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Fairness in your edit
I gave you examples of two clearly self-promotional cites, and you found no problems with them. I personally don't have anything against them, however, by this logic any professor in any university, including me, has to have a wikipedia page - all these hundreds of thousands professors around the world are verifiable, notable and even contributed something. So, why these two Brits are in and other profs are not? If you want to stay neutral and fair as an editor you shouldn't have favourites. You let the UK-based scientists promote their work (and directly - their names) with rather modest scientific value but attack my work, based on much more extensive science, I wonder why. Unlike them, I even don't have a page with my name, in spite of having several documentary projects, a couple of altruistic projects in the past before the Internet era, 7 books and several published ideas that people liked. I appreciate your time to make the Wikipedia better, truly, and I have no objections when you restrain someone's self-promotion, including mine. I just want a fair game for everybody and don't like the UK-US dominance in giving credits in science. China has much richer history of studying medicine; Russia - math, physics and education; Germany- philosophy and machinery; India-statistics, psychotherapy and cotton processing; Poland - aesthetics in clothing, building repairs and food processing; Italy - arts; Iran - analytic thinking, US - show business and clinical psychology, UK - writers and social thinking, etc. I believe any nation has bright scientists, but the attitude "notability first" is a hidden competition of "who had more money or proximity to a microphone for PR to leave more trace". In other words, complete idiots from a show business with $$ for PR can be very notable (see a dummy-brother character in my favourite movie Adaptation), but a career scientist from a non-English culture making a painful classification of some complex matter for decades will be not have a chance. If the peer-review systems (impact factor of journals) are controlled by the US-UK-based organisations, this pushes science from non-English cultures aside, creating a Masters&Slaves structure in the informational world. I hoped that wikipedia will not fall into the same trap of money-dependence as traditional science. It is an encyclopedia first, and everything else second. In any case, thank you for this dialog. Iratrofimov (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don'n give me this "ango-saxon", "rothschilds-rockfellelrs" crap of Russian propaganda. You are already in America not in Russia, thus contributing to "UK-US dominance", right? We have articles even for professors from Zimbabwe. English-language Wikipedia has certain rules about notability, see WP:NOTABILITY, in particular WP:PROF and WP:NBIO. If you don't like them, you are welcome to submit your proposals for improvement. Also you wrote, "you found no problems with them". If you found problems with them, nobody prevents you from handling these. However my concern were not about professor's biographies. I was talking about a person who is promoting himself or his associates/relatives/friends in wikipedia. This is a strict no-no conflict of interest, see WP:COI. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * it is not the matter of finding the problems with two cites that we looked at, it is the matter of the equal treatment of all contributors. The wiki-biopages of these two, I am sure, were created by their "associates/relatives/friends" - otherwise how would they know the details? Besides, the WP:NBIO clearly advises against self-promo biographical pages. So the your "no-no" attitude is weak when it comes to these two figures but suddenly shows up when it comes to figures of the Russian background? Why such a difference in your treatment of these two 100% self-promotional pages and my modest edits? Why you are so aggressively following my contributions and sending me attacking messages? You sound so full of hate to anything Russian, and I can understand it, considering what Russia did to Poland, but I had nothing to do with it. Iratrofimov (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: "difference in your treatment" - I am not the sole owner/proprietor/maintainer of wikipedia. "Equality of treatment" is to be achieved by the totality of wikicommunity. ETS came to my eyes by a pure accident. All I am doing is imposing wikipedia rules in what I see at the moment. I am not going to run around the whole wikipedia in order to right all wrongs. And I am strongly advising you to do the same: you see a problem right now, you handle it right now. Don't tell me to handle it, and don't play the" And You Are Lynching Negroes" card; the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is a dubious argument in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you mention thee ETS then if it is not me who put it together? I am not an author of the theory, I just added some specifics to it, and I am not handling the ETS page on Wiki. It took me a while to understand your last message, and I had to check what is happening on the ETS page first - it really sounds like And You Are Lynching Negroes. In any case, just stay fair - my main priority is to reduce silliness and ignorance around the world. Self-promotion is senseless as we are all mortal, and 100 years from now it will not matter for any of us.Iratrofimov (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of my edits
Sir, I can vouch you for the accuracy of my edits, especially to Nasz Dziennik, which I am an avid reader of.--Rev. Peter Barkley (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Bodnariu case for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bodnariu case is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Bodnariu case until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hanno (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

NYC mayor 2017
Can you assist me with editing a page. I am new here, I simply want to list my name as exploring the option to run for NYC Mayor. It was not a test, it was a real post. I am exploring the option and other Mayor pages list an exploring section so I created the section for those who may be exploring the option. I removed the more detailed version and kept it short like the others. How can I avoid this being deleted. Thanks

Gene Dr. Haynes (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social website for self-promotion. This is encyclopedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Staszek I am not sure I understand, they are listing their names so why can't I ? If its self promotion for me, its self promotion for them as well so I do not quiet understand why the average joe cannot post they are running for the same position as the rest? Dr. Haynes (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Gelotology
I do not understand how everything I post is self promotion, the work I did towards my doctorate contributes to the growing body of research on Gelotology. How is this self promotion the work every else post on this page would be self promotion as well ? My work has been approved by an accredited university so I do not understand how everything I post is self promotion. I feel anyone that is an average joe is not approved by yourself for some reason. Dr. Haynes (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * . If you don't understand the word "self-promotion", please look it up online. In wikipedia self-promotion is forbidden. Period. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Staszek That does not address the question. As everyone else is self promotions since their name is listed. I even had someone else post the information and I have email proof from the city that I am exploring this option which is a fact. I think its because I have no name and this is unfair that others can state they declared and others are running an I cannot. This is such a rude way to respond an attests to Wikipedia customer service its fine there is getting no where here. I will ensure my students do not use this resource. What information do you need the email from the city, someone else to post I tried all that and they all say self promotion yet everyone else listed is self promoting as well and from the history of editing I can see others feel this is such harsh reviews. Dr. Haynes (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In wikipedia self-promotion is forbidden, and this has nothing to do with rudeness. Your reply makes me think that you did not bother to read neither this policy, nor a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a product and you are not our customer. You are editing wikipedia, just like anybody else can, and you must follow the rules like any other editor has to. And in order to follow the rules, the first thing to do is to read the rule you are advised to. If something is unclear in the rule, ask questions. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sukuma calendar
Hello Staszek Lem. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sukuma calendar, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''since a printed source mentioning this has been linked from the AfD, I don't think it counts as a blatant hoax. Let the AfD take care of it.''' Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Reynolds American
You changed my entry on RAI from an acronym to an NYSE symbol. However, it's clear from this photo the company uses the acronym as an acronym and not just as an NYSE symbol.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  18:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - updated. Anyway, the article says nothing it is an acronym, not just a logo; I hope this is so. By the wey, you got wrong RAI :-) and it does say it was RAI and now Rai. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops. It was right there in my contributions. There are articles that use the acronym, I'm sure. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes there are, and plenty, but the point is that any info in wikipedia must be referenced. Of course, one may use any acronym they want and it it may be impossible to find a ref even if the acronym is widely used, but if it is an official acronym, it better be said so in the company's article, with reference. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article does say it, and this is the reference.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  23:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The word "RAI" is used only 8 times in it and none of the context says it is the abbreviation other than NYSE symbol. The reference you cited in useless. "Referred to as" is not the same as "also known as". Just the same, Cadence Design Systems is "referred to as CDNS" in SEC documents, but in plain English it is not even CDS, just "Cadence". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * PS. Please note I am not saying that the statement is wrong; I am merely pointing at inadequate evidence, and so far the only guideline that helps us out is WP:COMMONSENSE. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspected as a legal document it might be saying RAI was just how it is referred to in that document, just to make things simpler. But I misinterpreted the first use of RAI. You're saying it would have said "also known as" there. Anyway, for some reason the local newspaper has been calling it RAI frequently just in the past few months.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  00:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just checked, and RAI is usually in quotes. Still, that's someone with the company calling it that.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  00:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"Feminazi"? Really?
Stosh, you and I have not interacted a lot; but I was really appalled to see someone with your long history here using that bogus Limbaugher term in a recent Signpost article discussion. The issue is too important for sad little jokes like that. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not a native English speaker and extremely remote from American politics and news shows, and if you suggest me a better synonym for "feminist who went way overboard insinuating innocent people in all kinds of anti-woman sins", then please tell me, and I will use it from now on.  Staszek Lem (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Never Mind. I have read the article feminazi (never thought of it before) and found one: " militant feminist". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The historical meaning of "Nazi" is so fraught and specific that I would never use it to describe even the most radical members of, say Nowa Prawica, far less the more reactionary members of Prawo i Sprawiedliwość. I am angered by those who trivialize it with such terms as "food nazi" or "grammar nazi". -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Isolation Techniques (Individual)
Please can you comment at Articles for deletion/Isolation Techniques (Individual) as the landscape has changed.--Penbat (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

David Kritchevsky copyright problem
Some of the material you included in the above article was a match for http://www.muuka.com/finnishpumpkin/churches/s/church_s.html, a copyright web page. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation, even if you cite the source. This was detected by automatic plagiarism detection software. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. You need to re-state things in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't really think that simple lists are copyrighted. In any case, I am not an expert in biochemistry to rephrase these things such as what the heck is "reverse-phase paper chromatography". Therefore let experts work on it. I created this article simply because I was updating Krichevsky page with alternative spellings of the surname and found this 'Kritchevsky' surname in wikipedia mentioned and saw this person is highly notable. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a non-creative list; it contains creative expression and copyrightable wording. The content is too technical for me to attempt a paraphrase myself. Hence the removal. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how "first radioactive labeling of cholesterol with tritium" or "methods for separation and detection of steroids by reverse-phase paper chromatography" are creative expressions. But I don't care. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isolation Techniques (Individual)
Please respond to my latest comment at Articles for deletion/Isolation Techniques (Individual).--Penbat (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)