User talk:Lsmll/Archive 1

Move
thanks for moving the page Templat:PSM Makassar to Template:Skuad PSM Makassar, but if you can move it the page to Template:PSM Makassar Squad ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdhieHarnadi (talk • contribs) 08:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Note that when you become (auto)confirmed,you can move pages by yourself. L smll  08:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks :) .AdhieHarnadi

July 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Murray Korman, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. みんな空の下 (トーク) 05:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. Supposed to talk to Ailemadrah. みんな空の下 (トーク) 05:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's OK. L smll  05:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Filip v Belgie
Dear, you canceled the information regarding twitter I do think twitter is a reality now in lots of peoples lives in my opinion the information is relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.133.62 (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello,Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,and usually social networking sites aren't good choices for external links.Please see WP:LINKSTOAVOID(With the exception of official sites,but in this case,I don't think twitter can be considered as the official website of Prince Philippe).BTW,remember to sign your posts on all talk pages with ~ .Regards, L smll  11:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Official Twitter pages are indeed official webpages, and can be legitimately cited. An announcement from a notable person via eir verified Twitter is just as valid as on another site.
 * - Aurelian Carpathia (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks,but please see what 81.247.133.62 and I are talking about.(Diff),it is not cited,or used to support any statement in the article,and I don't think it is constructive at all. L smll  07:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Kardashev scale
I added reference on Michio Kaku's website. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.178.126.114 (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Alexandre Coeff
Hi, I added the additional information regarding the player to his Wikipedia page, which I believe offered more clarity & you were very quick to delete. Why so quick to delete this updated information, without first checking the relevence?

I work with Granada CF and the information I have added represents a better view of the flexibility of the player. He has joined Granada CF primarily as a central defender, but obviously both Udinese and Granada are conscious of the fact that he can play in a number of roles in defence, midfield and also in more advanced forward positions. Feel free to contact me via Twitter if you want to check any information - @HeathISF

I have often considered setting up an account with Wikipedia, so that I may keep a check on English language information for Granada CF and their associated players, however I would need to familiarise myself more with the Wikipedia page formatting options.

Thanks - Heath Chesters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.210.188.159 (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry,but if you have close connection with the player,you probably can't write his article with a neutral point of view,please read WP:COI.Obviously a player is unlikely to be capable of playing all of Defender, Midfielder, Forward.Please cite references when you edit articles next time. L smll  11:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly working with Granada CF, my neutrality may be questionable, but I would also point to information submitted as being more factually correct. Regards - Heath — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.210.188.159 (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you believe the information you add is true,please cite secondary sources that supports your statements.Also remember when posting on a talk page,sign your posts with " ~ " L smll  11:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not as familiar with the Wikipedia protocols and formatting options as you clearly are, however I am obviously better placed to provide more accurate and factual information about players and staff at Granada CF. I would welcome the opportunity to aid Wikipedia with their entries regarding the club and the players, therefore I would be happy to collaborate with one of your editors, who can contact me via: HeathGCF@gmail.com

Thanks 88.210.188.159 (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Heath Chesters
 * If you want to learn about how to edit Wikipedia,you can go to the teahouse or help desk.Regards, L smll  12:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

72.39.166.45's comment
Sorry but I sight my sources unllike other people and i don;t what you are talking about i am being vandelised by 114.77.238.179 that is who you need to go after no me as this person cannot site any sources as they are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.166.45 (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello,this sort of thing usually should be posted on the article's talk page(Talk:Charmed).Blanking the article page for that,is absolutely wrong.Also,next time you post a message on a talk page,please start a new section rather than posting on the top of the page.Regards, L smll  10:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Multifactor Authentication spurious content
The page titled "Multifactor Authentication" describes and discusses the three authentication factors identified with Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12), the FFIEC's numerous publications, CJIS guidelines, and other reputable government entity. These three factors are specifically identified by these agencies, who are tasked with auditing private industry for adherence to these 3 factors. Permitting the addition of spurious "other" factors to be added to this page only confuses those wishing to learn about the three approved authentication factors. While there may be other forms of authentication, such as "someone the user knows", "someplace the user visits", or "something the user smells", these other forms of authentication have not been approved or recognized by the regulatory agencies, whose compliance the reader must satisfy. If a contributor wishes to talk about other authentication factors, they may do so on another page not related to "Multifactor authentication". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.149.36 (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional: from the article's content:  "The U.S. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council issued supplemental guidance on this subject in August 2006, in which they clarified, "By definition true multifactor authentication requires the use of solutions from two or more of the three categories of factors."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.149.36 (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert at this field.But I think it's better to gain consensus or contact the editor who added the content before removing any content other than obvious vandalism on Wikipedia.Regards, L smll  00:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed you removed the content again.As your request,I won't revert,I will now leave it to another editor who may have more knowledge than I at this field. L smll  00:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback. The article's topic is clearly defined as "multifactor authentication", which by federal definition specifies 3 authentication factors. The page contributors reached a consensus on this topic several years ago, when other spurious authentication factors were removed from this page.  Permitting these other factors to be added back into this page would be the same as attempting to add information about the Cherokee Indian Nation to a page discussing the Apache Indian Tribe.  it would be inappropriate content for such a page and confusing for the reader.   Numerous vendors of other authentication factors cost the financial and medical industries millions of dollars by promoting as "multifactor" spurious authentication methods that do not comply with the federal guidelines.  it was for this reason that the FFIEC has issued guidance on this subject thus, "The U.S. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council issued supplemental guidance on this subject in August 2006, in which they clarified, "By definition true multifactor authentication requires the use of solutions from two or more of the three categories of factors. Using multiple solutions from the same category ... would not constitute multifactor authentication." (from the page content itself).  Thank you.
 * I apologize if editors did reach a consensus years ago,as you said.I'll be more careful in RC patrolling next time. L smll  01:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
✅  L smll  04:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Caliphate
Hello,

You haven't made an error in erasing what I wrote for I grant you it was not "constructive for the article". It was, however, "constructive for the wiki-people", the people who write the articles.

The article is stupid and says things that are nonesense, going against everything that is known about the Caliphate and not supporting its assertions with quotes. Therefore, I am going to try to emend it once again and I'll wait for an answer from you to assess you're seriousness.

Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.169.179.81 (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello,next time you want to express your opinion about an article,please use talk page of that article,rather than the article page itself.It is considered vandalism to add comments in article pages.I'm sorry but I don't have time to look into the article and answer your question whether is article is good or not.Again,please use talk page to discuss the article and post your suggestions on improving the article.Regards, L smll  10:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you tell me to use the talk page... But I did not want to talk, I wanted to correct the wrong in the article. If you want to teach me a proper manner to correct articles at wikipedia, please, be my guest. I'll be thankful to you. But on the other way, what you're suggesting is just for me to go to the Talk page in order to be ignored. That does not correct the article. Thanks, and have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.169.179.81 (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi,if you want to improve the article,just be bold and do it,instead of adding comments like "This article is nonsense" to it.If you need help in editing,you can go to help desk or the tea house. L  smll  11:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, when I have more time, I will definetly look at it. Have a good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.169.179.81 (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

97.121.8.206's comment
Section added by  L smll ,please add a new section when posting on talk pages next time.

>implying owls are birds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.8.206 (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but your edit,which replaced all "bird" with "mammal" is obviously unconstructive and is considered vandalism.I noticed you edited again,and your edit was reverted by another editor.You may lack the required competence to edit.I suggest you stop now to avoid being blocked. L smll  05:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Renatorock's comment
Section added by  L smll 

Hi Lsmll I really think you are making a mistake considering my comment no constructive, since it's a true experience, and is being impacting many other people. What would be more constructive in your opinion ? I really have no idea at this point. There are lots of self promotion on Wikipedia that are not untrue, and I do believe Wikipedia is a great place. In this case they are trying to get hold of these scammers but can't because See.Me (former ARTISTS WANTED) operates in large scale, change their business name quick, and are very savvy in media promotion. You can't know that they are the same people doing the same scheme each season, collecting money and not delivering what they promise unless you try in good faithto participate on their competitions, buy their catalogs and neither see results, neither receive catalogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renatorock (talk • contribs) 01:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello.First,remember to sign your post and add a new section when posting on talk pages.I understand that the information you added might be true,but I reverted your edit because:
 * You didn't properly cite inline source,please don't add a url directly
 * You put your information at the very top of the article(lead section),that is obviously inappropriate and is often considered vandalism.
 * You are welcome to re-add it if you can cite a reliable source that support your statement and add it to the right place of the article(add a new header if necessary). L smll  02:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Honourable Artillery Company
You must have the wrong person - I've never been near this site.

B — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.190.164 (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)