User talk:MB190417/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, MB190417, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quis separabit? 11:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: United Kingdom general election, 2017
Hi User:MB190417. My instinct is to keep Carswell and Marshall-Andrews in the campaign section as there was pretty widespread coverage initially, but keeping in mind we'll be able to edit the whole section in a few weeks when we know for sure what was most notable at this stage. SocialDem (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey there SocialDem! I see you're one of the active contributors on the GE article; I really like some of your edits (looks like we were both wanting to shed the amount of content under 'Party Campaigns' at the same time, by the looks of it! - arrrgh you got there first!). I'm only keeping a casual eye on the article as a newbie, but yeah :) Umm, regarding Carswell and Marshall-Andrews, I only thought to remove them because they've already been noted under the Endorsements section and Carswell is mentioned under the MPs standing down. I think my concern is it's not really enough to put under Week 1? (Marshall-Andrews especially - I don't think his defection attracted that much media attention?). It wouldn't be a bad idea to mention Carswell in passing under a section regarding UKIP's background performance since the election, perhaps, but my only concern regards the placement. Up to you though; feel free to reverse my changes if you think it's best. And yeah, totally understand that this will all be reviewed in a few weeks anyway!
 * Thanks. I'm normally pretty easy about inclusion as long as it's concise! And it permits better editing later. Expect we may need to move from week-by-week to themes anyway. SocialDem (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

DMY dates
Hi. Many thanks for your contributions to the General Election 2017 article, but could you please enter any dates in DMY format? The article does have a notice at the top (not visible unless in edit source mode) that states which is the normal standard of addressing dates for articles in British English. Thanks and regards. The joy of all things (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi The joy of all things - thanks so much for this. I've noticed you've gone back and corrected me a few times in the last few days; I'm so sorry to have been such a nuisance! Truth be said, I'm a newbie to Wikipedia and as you seem to imply, I use visual editor whenever possible. I've used the 'automatic' link creation in VE to create my references, and so am I right to say that the access date it gives is in the automatic non-preferred format? is there any setting through which I can change this? alternatively I'll have to enter my references manually in the future. Thanks for the support, the re-editing and the comment though :)
 * No dramas on the dates - the 2017-04-25 format is normally used in American English articles, hence why it defaults to that, as most stuff on the English Wikipedia is American generated. You could try using the EDIT SOURCE function where you insert the url in the parameter there and use the buttons adjacent to each field to generate dates which knows you are a British user and it defaults to DMY (25 April 2017).


 * There are some articles where this does not apply; however British English mostly defaults to this format as this is how we write dates. If you have any questions whatsoever about formatting, then please do not hesitate to ask. Additionally (and I am sorry to be a pain) but when writing on a talk page, please sign your edits with the four tildes ~ which gives a date and timestamp to your comments and allows traceability. Good luck and help is available if needed. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh no - I remembered the four ~ last time! Oops!! Thanks so much though :) Matt 190417 20:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Liz Leffman
I have nominated the article you previously mentioned for deletion for similar reasons to the George Turner article. You may wish to have your say in the article's deletion discussion. Maswimelleu (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All done :) Thanks for notifying me! Maswimelleu Matt 190417 (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

May 2018
Hello, I'm Abelmoschus Esculentus. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Merton Park Ward Residents Association— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 09:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"British English"
Not that I'd bother to change it back, just wanted to point out that "criticized" is just as much British English as "criticised". It might not be as common in the UK as it used to be, but it's not exclusively American and is the spelling recommended e.g. by the Oxford University Press (and thus was used e.g. by JRR Tolkien, who was an Oxford professor). See: Oxford spelling. Ausir (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand the frustration - I'm used to spelling focussed archaically with two Ss and hate it when I'm corrected! I acknowledge, but, as you imply, was keen to stick to convention. Matt 190417 (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made&#32;to Wilmar Roldán: you may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Pkbwcgs! I was unaware. Doubt it'll do much anyway until the match is over! Fingers crossed for protection. Matt 190417 (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the page has been protected and the vandals have been blocked after being reported so there should be no more vandalism to this page which is good. Job well done! Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing.
 * Apologies AchaksurvisayaUdvejin, I did not mean to duplicate. Please do contribute to the AfD page as highlighted in my edit! Matt 190417 (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

On Ujjawal Krishnam
I believe, the discussion is stretched a bit long. What was your question initially? Vandalism? You please see some past edits, they are defamatory to the subject. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * AchaksurvisayaUdvejin No, my point was to nominate the article for deletion because the subject is not notable. I am aware that the page has been vandalised; its request to be protected from vandalism was how I came across it. Whether the page has been vandalised or not has no relation on whether it should be deleted. Matt 190417 (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I would better urge you to contribute to the subject than engaging in a verbal fight because this discussion appears a hate talk now. We are all here to enrich the society than to dismantle it. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * AchaksurvisayaUdvejin I did contribute to the subject: I fixed the grammar across the page. I could not see anything of notability which I could add when I tried to expand the article. That is why I nominated it for deletion.
 * Also, at Wikipedia, we assume good faith. This means that we never accuse other users of "hate talk" or "verbal fight[ing]". I am committed to ensuring that this encyclopaedia is accurate. Part of that accuracy is reflecting the relative notability of article entries. If an article is not notable, it should not exist. None of my contributions are personally aimed at you or the subject of the article. Matt 190417 (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I have COI, i.e. DOI of scientific publication and also Harvard-ads feature of my article. Already, Cornell's arXiv repository features the article, we may improve the article that way. There appears so sudden reason for deletion. We may put the bitter talk aside and find out how to improve the article while relaxing the deletion. If that wouldn't satisfy notability criteria of academia, it will further be nominated and there is no escape. Hope, we work for good. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * AchaksurvisayaUdvejin You should not be editing this article. Please see WP:COI. If you have a conflict of interest (which you do, because the article is about you), you should not be going anywhere near it. Matt 190417 (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood COI. In scientific community, it is Certificate of Insurance i.e. DOI which validates each scientific publication. But as far as COI is concerned, one must not judge the page and now I have clearly disclosed the COI that it is about me, but I present solid confrontation with evidences about its notability. I really believe that you will understand the point. I hope for a pragmatic cooperation and not for a dispute. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, if you say I am producing my DOI, Harvard feature and other details related to subject, would you be editing it? I have no issue in case Conflict Of Interest is debated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * AchaksurvisayaUdvejin I am willing to edit the article if it is not deleted, as and when new sources about its subject become available. The article is already on my watchlist. That does not mean that I will retract my nomination for deletion. I still believe the article should be deleted because I still believes it fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NJOURNALIST. I will likely not edit the article further until the AfD is closed. Matt 190417 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere I am asking you to withdraw the nomination but that was somehow instant wish because earlier editors have approved it, including an administrator. But I strongly believe that nomination should be withdrawn because it is more likely a verbal spat, against it I have sources for bibliography. It rests upto you. Thank you. In case you really change your mind to improve the article, please do reach me at my email ID, otherwise I am fed up of this spat. Obliged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs) 16:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Pauline Pearce
-- Trevj (talk · contribs) 23:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)