User talk:MegaSloth/Archive 1

October 2009
Warning removed, sorry, my mistake. Best wishes, Jusda  fax  16:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
 RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 03:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Abelian (mathematics)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Abelian (mathematics), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.exampleproblems.com/wiki/index.php/Abelian. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * False positive when splitting page; due to unacknowledged copy of the unsplit Wikipedia article at the suggested link. --MegaSloth (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote on Abraham Lincoln
FYI, I left a comment on Talk:Abraham Lincoln asking for people's views of removing the hatnote pointing to Abe Lincoln (musician), which you added on December 4.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 06:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Avram

 * Hi MegaSloth,
 * Sorry about not following the splitting procedure. I'm not sure how to correct things now that the article has been split. I'm not an administrator, so I can't change the initial edit summary of either page. I can put the "copied" template on the talk pages, but that seems to be the least important part of the procedure, considering the guideline states that it "may also be helpful." I have added a sentence to the lede of either article which is similar to what initially existed on the Avram (name) article. Do you have any advice about how to procede?
 * Neelix (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for your query. To be honest, I was not certain of the "correct" way to fix the error. I was able to find this however which I hop will help you: Copying within Wikipedia. --MegaSloth (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot change edit summaries. Nobody can. Sorry.
 * See Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 9.
 * The histmerge request was: "* I split Avram (name) into Avram (given name) and Avram (surname) after participating in this RfD. I failed to explain this split in the edit summaries when I created the new articles and received this suggestion from another user. Any help would be much appreciated. Neelix (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)".
 * The article Avram (name) and Avram (given name) and Avram (surname) are all distinct articles, and none of them redirects to another of them, so I see no way to histmerge them. I have put explanatory ==History== sections in all their talk pages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't mean to cause any fuss; really all I expected was adding talk page comments and dummy edits per the recommendations of the first paragraph of Copying within Wikipedia. I assume the history merge request was because ideally this should have been done as a page move from Avram (name) to one of the new articles, followed by a split to the other. To do that utterly properly, all the changes would need to be reversed and reapplied. I accept that this is not necessary in this case. Thanks for your help. --MegaSloth (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for your interest in providing proper attribution. Those edit summaries look fine. The histories of Avram (disambiguation) and Avram (name) are a little confusing, but that is inconsequential. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reassurances about attribution. I now know no further action is required. Of course the atribution on Avram (disambiguation) is confusing, given it is complete nonsense, but I wonder why you say that on is? I tried to follow the instructions at Copying within Wikipedia. Is there anything I should do differently next time? --MegaSloth (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant the actual edits – expanding the redirect and redirecting the existing dab – rather than the edit summaries. What you wrote is fine. I try to include the permanent revision ID (oldid, example), but that's my personal style. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah I see I failed to notice the distinction in meaning between edit summaries and histories in your last comment, as I should have. Thanks for clarifying, and for the advice. --MegaSloth (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My edits to Glider (disambiguation)
Please accept my apologies if my edits were not constructive. I was surprised by the message and puzzled because you were not specific about why you think this. As I said on the talk page about the proposed move, I think all the content of the disambig page, should be moved to Glider. I thought I was in agreement with you about this. What my edits were trying to do was readying the page for its move. I had envisaged the new Glider page would list all the meanings of "glider". This list should include its most common aviation meaning, ie Glider (sailplane), which was curiously missing before. Having added that meaning, the first line was then superfluous. Furthermore the first line did not describe all the other memanings on that page and referred only to the aviation meanings.

The current proposal is 180 degrees from the situation about 15 months ago. Then a user typing the word "glider" was presented with an article on sailplanes with a note on the top that gave a link to all the other possible meanings. This link is the present disambig page. The logic being that the main meaning of the word was a sailplane.

I would prefer this former arrangement but there was a long discussion this time last year, in which User:Wolfkeeper strenuously argued, and I really mean strenuously, the word 'glider' had a wider meaning in aviation. Eventually a compromise was reached with assistance from an arbitrator that the article on unpowered aircraft with an undercarriage should be called "glider (sailplane)" but this could also be reached by a redirect from Glider. The disambiguation page was a minor consideration at the time. There was also an agreement that the generic aviation meanings of glider should be in an article called Glider aircraft and there would be a further article called Unpowered aircraft that also covered kites and balloons.

I hope that puts the changes that I made in context, but I am happy to discuss this matter further. If you are planning to get back to the situation of 15 months ago, I think you can expect opposition from Wolfkeeper. JMcC (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I am still mystified why my edit required a warning on my user page about being counter-productive. To my mind this is a polite way of saying I am close to being a vandal. When I finished editing, there was a sentence: "Glider (sailplane), a recreational aircraft with an undercarriage that is primarily intended for unpowered flight and which is used in the sport of gliding". (There wasn't a sentence there before at all.) The only change in later edits is that it has been shortened to: "Glider (sailplane), a type of glider aircraft used in the sport of gliding". This does not seem to be a correction of a counter-productive edit. It is merely the shortening of a sentence that I added. Editing is what Wikipedia is all about. Granted it is shorter, but think the loss of a link from the word gliding is a pity and this has been re-instated. Some of the rest of my sentence was because the thing that distinguishes a sailplane from a hang-glider and a paraglider is its undercarriage. Definitions are how you separate the different items on a disambig page. I relaxed about dropping the words "that is primarily intended for unpowered flight and". Long-winded perhaps but hardly counter-productive. JMcC (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think your edits were close to vandalism. They were obviously good faith edits with the clear intention of improving Wikipedia. However they were in my opinion against disambiguation page guidelines making finding the correct article harder and thus in my opinion counterproductive. My message to you was intended to make you aware I had opened a discussion, which I decided to do on the disambiguation talk page since there were 3 editors involved.
 * If you wish to discuss details of your edits, please do so at the disussion already started at Talk:Glider (disambiguation). I have already explained there why I believe your edits did not improve the page, with some links to guidelines. --MegaSloth (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing
Dear MegaSloth,

Please review the guidelines at WP:Canvassing. Your posting to other editors, namely:

and
 * []
 * []

have been written to influence the outcome of the discussion on the separate article discussion pages. Such messages run against the WP:Canvassing guidelines.

When inviting other editors to the discussion, the guidelines specifically state that neutrally-worded notices are to be used.

Thank you for your attention to this.

Kind regards,

PolarYukon (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's best to post diffs when making such complaints/warnings. It helps to distinguish exactly what you are complaining about.
 * was in a discussion that had previously specifically discussed these pages and whether they should be reverted. It was intended to make editors aware of material relevant to the current discussion and previously not entirely clear to me (that the intent was to rewrite disambiguation guidelines). The reference to the discussion on other pages was entirely neutral.
 * was intended to be a "friendly notice" . I confess that my wording is less neutral than ideal, for which I apologise. I will try to pay more attention to that in future.
 * Neither was "written to influence the outcome", and I do not think it amounts to disruptive canvassing.
 * Thank you for your concern, --MegaSloth (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the diffs should have been posted. Thank you for reviewing this.  Cheers, PolarYukon (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Untitled comment from IP user
Hi MegaSloth - Why are you editing pages relating to Australasian policing? Can I inquire as to what expertise you might have in that area and why you would take it upon yourself as some sort of expert to do so? Amazing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.194.237 (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

jose mourinho quotes and more things...
why you like to remove the things that i put?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsferreira1982 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per my message on your talk page and the essay Quote, such a large section composed entirely of quotations is more suited to Wikiquote (see also the policy WP:NOTDIR). Also, you failed to provide any citations as required for quotations (WP:CITE). I inadvertently removed a little from the lead as well, which I reinstated. Please don't be offended, I know your quotations were intended to enhance Wikipedia. If they are not already on Wikiquote, you could possibly add them there. Please also do continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you. --MegaSloth (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

quotes...
can i put 5 quotes....?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsferreira1982 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please remember to sign contributions on talk pages. Also you can continue a discussion under the same header, not make a new header each time.


 * On Wikipedia, you should use quotations to support the encyclopedic content, not in a separate section. Thus in general, there should not be several quotations together in a list. I think WP:QUOTE gives a better view of the general view, although it is not an official guideline and so technically not consensus.


 * Generally, the quote should be in context; either the quote should be a comment on the topic under discussion in a particular paragraph, or a particular paragraph should be discussing the quotation.


 * Another thing you could do is look at some featured articles to get a feel of the consensus on how quotes ought to be used.


 * If you want to create a list of quotes, try Wikiquote, which is specifically intended for this type of thing. You can make appropriate links from articles, e.g. using wikiquote as directed.


 * --MegaSloth (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Betfair/exchange vandalism
Hi this [anon] user won't let up. Can you please consider a block? Hazir (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm not an administrator just an average user so there's no way I can block this nuisance editor. There is an established procedure for dealing with such editors; each time you have to revert an edit of his, put a warning on his talk page, as discussed at WP:WARN. I suggest (or whichever page he hits). Put the level one warning first, then level 2,3 then 4. Make sure he has had a chance to see each warning before giving another. If he does it again after 4 warnings, report him at WP:AIV. IPs must be recently active to be blocked. If you have done the process right, he should get a block. If he starts POV pushing on other IPs, you can request page semi-protection (protects against IPs and unconfirmed users) at Requests for page protection. Good luck. --MegaSloth (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I see the page has been semi-protected for two weeks already. The aboive should be useful in the future if he returns. --MegaSloth (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Greater Nashua Habitat for Humanity
Hello,

Thank you for your help and your message regarding the "Redirect" from Greater Nashua Habitat for Humanity to Habitat for Humanity International: as I posted on Ken Gallager's "Talk" page - the intent behind the page was never to create a biased, non-notable, etc. entry. We think it would be worth having a page for the organization but not if it will create a lot of editorial discord... and it was not done by someone as intimate to the organization as implied in some of the discourse on this page.

In any case, I appreciate you taking care of the redirect edit. It's a pity the page caused such disagreements; hopefully the history of the organization can be noted in the future.

WKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkstrategies (talk • contribs) 23:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. --MegaSloth (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

92.21.175.7
Maybe you want to take a look at other contributions by. My instinct is to revert all of them - I did one already - but would appreciate your insight. Bus/Train/Plane spotters need to be carefully moderated on WIkipedia IMHO, otherwise it just turns into long lists of trivia of interest only to other bus/plane/train spotters. --Simple Bob (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the other recent edits. They are nowhere near as detailed as the one I rolled back. Perhaps they need to be trimmed a little, for intermediate stops etc., but it seems to me that a short mention of the bus routes serving a small community is appropriate. What was inappropriate about the one I did roll back was that it read like a bus timetable. I decided to leave the other entries for other editors more familiar with the area of Wikipedia to trim as appropriate. Please feel free to do so. --MegaSloth (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Catcher
Hi Mega: Please look at my edit again, as well as the edit summary I supplied. Have you ever seen an article about a book that lists the author's dates of birth and death in the lede? Thanks, 99.137.209.58 (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for contacting me. You're right, I may have been a little over-enthusiastic. If you wish to reinstate the edit, I won't revert it again. --MegaSloth (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's cool. The contributor who added the dates has done so a half dozen times, give or take, despite numerous requests in the edit summaries for a rationale. It hasn't struck me as important enough to merit warning, but it doesn't appear to be a standard practice. Small stuff, for sure. Thanks, 99.137.209.58 (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages only
What do you mean? 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC) And why can't I find the proper place where to post the request? 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How should I proceed then? Which one is the right template? 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the template! Why didn't you give it? 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What you're suggesting is too complicated, isn't there any one simple template that calls up for attention and for a discussion of the discussion page, as it should be? 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It gives more trouble than what is worthy. Thanks anyway. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Horden Edit
You could also argue that as you don't know the Fraudster and Con-Man (oh an incidently a Cage Fighter) you are not in a position to question others who do are you?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.133.114 (talk • contribs)


 * Please sign contributions to talk pages. The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is WP:verifiability not truth; readers and other editors are in no position to assess the credibility of editors. --MegaSloth (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So you don't actually deal with the truth unless it's verifiable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.133.114 (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, please remember to sign your posts. Wikipedia explicitly does not deal in truth, no. If it's truth you want, I suggest you try elsewhere. --MegaSloth (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Good Grief! a user editable encyclopedia that doesn't deal in the truth!!!!!!(80.169.133.114 (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

Re. addition of copyrighted material to Cemetery Junction (film)
We are an agency working on behalf of Sony Pictures, we were requested by Sony to update the synopsis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.120.98 (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Islip, New York
Hi Mega. Thanks for letting me know your concerns about Islip. I think you are creating inaccuracies in a good faith attempt to repair disambiguations and I think that you may not understand the concept of towns as they apply to the Northeast/New England. Towns are a jurisdiction subset of a county and there can be cities/villages/unincorporated areas within a town. Towns are usually the dominant form of government in non-major city locations. Your changing Islip to an individual hamlet is thus inaccurate. When the author wrote the material they could be referring to anywhere within the broad town. This is particularly true on ownership of such major things as MacArthur Airport. If you were going to change it to the biggest common denominator it would be the town.Americasroof (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When I started making the changes, your surmise would have been accurate, however I have educated myself and am aware of everything you note above. I went back and rechecked my earlier changes. If I made errors, that is unfortunate, however throughout I have taken care to take into account the context and the type of place referred to in surrounding entries. For example, in the context of Macarthur Airport, I chose the town link. I believe my changes were accurate, however if you have concerns about individual changes, please feel free to correct them; if I believe a discussion is warranted I will contact you. --MegaSloth (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your good faith efforts. However I don't want to be put in the position of having to check all 250 entries (which were accurate before).  Again I do appreciate your efforts to educate yourself.Americasroof (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "With very few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous." (disambiguation guidelines). I saw no suitable exceptions. --MegaSloth (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think both of our points have been made. Nobody should write to a dismbig page but in the real world they do -- especially in articles about densely packed suburban towns of New York City.  Americasroof (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

DARWEN - DARWEN REPORTER
Darwen Reporter is not an inappropriate link. This website is a non commercial website run for the benefit of the community by a qualified journalist. It is not a personal website and has contributions from local historians and writers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writersword (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be an appropriate link, a site must pass WP:ELYES. It may be considered under WP:ELMAYBE. Under the terms of WP:Verifiability and according to the information it presents it appears to be self-published, thus not demonstrably "neutral and accurate" on Wikipedia's terms (I do not mean to disparage the content; I am simply talking about Wikipedia's criteria). As a news site, its content is not "encyclopedic" per WP:NOTNEWS. It therefore does not appear to qualify under either WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. Even if it did, the link should be placed in an "external links" section and not inline to the text. As such, the link is not appropriate and repeated reinsertions – particularly into the body of the article (See WP:ELPOINTS) – qualify as spam and therefore vandalism. --MegaSloth (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Rover's Morning Glory: see reply here
Please follow this link. ReplyToMegaS (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Muscle page discussion
Hi. You posted some useful comments on the Talk:Muscle page. There is a (small) discussion currently under way about how to update the page. If you are still interested your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks! QuietJohn (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge of Abdul Halim and Abdul Halim (name)
I've replied on my talk page. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge of Gliders (Elfquest)
I've merged the article Gliders (Elfquest) into Elfquest and List_of_Elfquest_characters. Blackash  have a chat 14:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Avatar
Now that I can tell you, without the risk of canvassing, I reopened the discussion on whether or not the Avatar definition was the primary topic for the term. This time, people saw things our way. It is amazing what a little time can do. Figured I'd let you know. Oldag07 (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Abdul Khaliq (disambiguation)
Thanks for the detailed reasoning. However, I still disagree with your position: Abdul Khaliq is a disambiguation page, so it's appropriate to have a (disambiguation) title that redirects to it. You'll note that db-disambig is a G6 speedy deletion, for routine and uncontroversial cleanup: it's hardly appropriate for me to delete something as uncontroversial when I see such a deletion as contrary to policy. Moreover, I see the existence of such a redirect as helpful to the encyclopedia; I have no IAR reason to delete without regard to policy. If you believe that it's inappropriate to have a page entitled (disambiguation) redirecting to a disambiguation page, please take it to WP:RFD — any redirect can always go there. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact, Abdul Khaliq is emphatically not a disambiguation page; it is a name page. It has neither the form nor the purpose of a disambiguation page. However, since there is disagreement on this point, this page is clearly not a candidate for speedy deletion. I will raise it at WP:RFD. Many thanks again for your time, --MegaSloth (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Abdur Rahim (disambiguation)
You have made a lot of changes to Abdur Rahim (disambiguation) and Abdur Rahim. Could you explain, please? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see User talk:SamuelTheGhost, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 26. WP:D, WP:MOSDAB and WP:3D. Sorry to be short, but I feel this has all been discussed before, we will never agree but the consensus is as documented in these places and I believe supports the changes I made. If you don't like my changes for any reason, please start a discussion on the talk page. Since we will clearly never agree, I suggest you post links in suitable wikiprojects to get other interested editors and determine consensus. Thank you. --MegaSloth (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Many apologies. This was my error entirely. I believed I knew what edit I had made and did not. Thank you for reverting it. I have made the change I intended now, please feel free to discuss it if you have any issues. Thank you. --MegaSloth (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for re-redirecting those asteroid articles to the chart. It seems Wikipedia has some notablity standards after all! Chrisrus (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I stumbled across discussion of these cases; they seemed clear-cut and appropriate to do now that the astronomy notability guidelines have been agreed. I'm afraid I'm not going to be doing a large clean-up effort. That would need someone better acquainted with automated or semi-automated edits than me. I wouldn't even make a dent. --MegaSloth (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you ask at the talk page of those astronomy notablity guidelines how they are going to be implemented? I already posted there and they need to know I'm not the only one who has noticed or cares.  They should be the ones to figure out how to implement their own guidelines.  There are hundreds of thousands of these, and neither your nor I should have to clean it up. Chrisrus (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Complicated merge/cut-and-paste move issue
This regards the pages Adela, Adela (name) and Adela (disambiguation). I decided to make some edits to these pages, based on the observation that another editor had redirected Adela (name) to Adela effectively merging a name page and a disambiguation page, losing information and against WP:D (in my view). My edits were (a revert),  (a merge with a suitable edit history),  (the other half of the merge) and. then made these edits. These swapped Adela from being a DAB - which it had been since [creation] - to a name page with the content moved from Adela (name), without proper edit histories to preserve attribution. Adela (disambiguation) suddenly became the DAB page (it had always been a redirect) and Adela (name) became a redirect. Since three pages had effectively had their contents rotated, I saw this as a cut-and-paste move and reverted accordingly, warning the user. He disagrees and in reverting accused me of cut-and-paste moves(!) in an edit history.

I am happy to assume that JohnCengiz77 is acting in good faith. Something seems to have gone wrong however. I think I need an independent set of eyes for a dispassionate view before I proceed.

My questions are:


 * While I acted in good faith, I recognise I can make mistakes. Was I incorrect to characterise JohnCengiz77's edits as a cut-and-paste move?
 * Is JohnCengiz77 correct that my edits were actually a cut-and-paste move?
 * I don't wish to engage in edit warring, but from my point of view JohnCengiz77 is acting belligerently, for example throwing accusations about other pages in edit summaries rather than engaging in discussion on talk pages. I don't want to make things worse by saying (more?) wrong things. What kind of thing should I say and where should I say it?

I don't actually mind too much right now about which page is at Adela; if I think it's the wrong one at the end, WP:RM is the appropriate forum. I just want to understand what edits if any were incorrect so that I can act correctly in the future, and proceed appropriately now so that attibution is preserved.

Many thanks,

--MegaSloth (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not so cut and dried - he obviously regards your edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adela&action=historysubmit&diff=466380664&oldid=460173665 as a cut and paste, and objects to it. It is a cut and paste as that's the only way to do it. Personally I would have proposed the splitting off with proper proposed merge templates and gained consensus first - this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adela&oldid=460173665) wasn't really that long, to 'have' to be split up - that's only my personal view. Having consensus before any move always helps to prevent later objections. I'll leave up the helpme, maybe others will have a different view.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If he had simply reverted my edits, I wouldn't be asking these questions; WP:BRD is very clear. But he didn't. He rotated the contents of three articles. In doing so, he broke attribution with a cut-and-paste move (I was careful to provide edit summaries per WP:MERGE for my merge). Personally, I'm not sure he objects to my merge; after all he kept the articles separate - he seems to object more to where the pages ended up (c.f the edit summary "not needed, most common use is the name" and "most common use is the name"). These edit summaries seem to acknowledge this as effectively being a page move, which in my view would be more appropriately dealt with at WP:RM.


 * He seems to have conceded the above issue now, but is now engaging in other unusual edits with odd summaries, so the question appears largely moot. Thank you for your help. --MegaSloth (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the typo fixes in Fluorine
Thank you for the typo fixes in Fluorine. I am putting new content in there and know I am introducing new errors, but it will be all for the good when we are done!

TCO (Reviews needed) 00:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Suckering, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. AKS (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This Vandalism was reported erroneously by user Arunsingh16 and changes have been reverted. Regards AKS (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding copyright problems
Thanks for the information. But I am not able to get as why this information was given to me? Kindly let me know the reference. Thanks --Abhijeet Safai 05:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet Safai (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, sorry I forgot to add the page name. It was regarding the page you created, Concept note, and your message on its talk page. Please see Talk:Concept note for more details. Thanks, --MegaSloth (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You mean to say that copyright issues belong to contents of concept note section? --Abhijeet Safai 03:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet Safai (talk • contribs)


 * It looks very much like you copied the whole article from the Word document at http://proposalisfcameroun.wikispaces.com/CONCEPT+NOTE. As explained in Talk:Concept note, that page appears to be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 License. Such content must be attributed if copied. I see no sign of such attribution. This means that the copyright of the author has probably been violated. You state "I found this article on wiki", so clearly you are not the copyright holder yourself. You should determine if the license permits you to copy the document to Wikipedia. If it does not, you should delete the content first, then seek permission to use it from the copyright holder (you must comply with any conditions they place, and ensure such conditions are compatible with the Wikipedia license). If the license does permit you to copy here, but applies conditions such as attribution, you must comply with them. If you do not do this quickly, it is likely the article will be deleted for copyright violation.


 * I'm afraid I'm not really able to give you more detailed or step-by-step help. If you need more help, please try one of the suggestions at WP:Help. --MegaSloth (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. :) I will see to it. Thanks --Abhijeet Safai 12:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet Safai (talk • contribs)

Dunkerque class battleship
You are entirely right, in your 2011.12.31 edit, I am French...Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So you are! Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your edits. Please don't be worried if you make a few mistakes in your English; this isn't a major problem and others can help to fix any issues. It's much better to have good content that needs a little copyediting than to not have that content. I added the copyedit tag to let other editors who enjoy copyediting know that there was some to be done here. You could even add the tag yourself in future if you think some changes are likely to be needed. I hope you feel welcome and continue to contribute here for a long time. --MegaSloth (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops I misread your earliest edit date; you've been here for over a year, not 2 months! I hope you accept my comments above in the spirit they were intended. --MegaSloth (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Tae-ji Choi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jung-gu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Eidos RfC
Hello, there is an RfC concerning the Eidos page in which you have shown interest in the past. This is a small notification in case you may wish to take part in the discussion.  Salvidrim!   20:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI:
For Your Information (no action required, but you may choose to participate):

Requests for comment/Wtshymanski

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

LOWERN
An editor has removed your proposed deletion apparently in good faith; I would move it to AfD but I'm lazy. If you start one, I would likely be in favor of deletion. (No, this is not WP:CANVASSing.) ⁓ Hello  71  01:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits on Banishing Racer, but now i have some questions
To the question of unreliable sources. The article citation directly references an objective fact that the game in question was released for the system mentioned. GameFaqs objectively states this information and is the best source for it. How could I make this more reliable?

As to the question of notability. I see numerous other games listed on List_of_games_for_the_original_Game_Boy that use the same sources. What do those articles have that Banishing Racer does not to make them notable? Tfinc (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks


 * The video games wikiproject specifically lists GameFaqs as an unreliable source at WikiProject Video games/Sources. You can't "make" an unreliable source reliable; you need to find and cite a better source.
 * With regard to notability, each article must be considered on its own merits. The fact that this article is about a Game Boy game and other articles for Game Boy games currently exist on Wikipedia is not generally an argument for notability (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). It could well be that some Game Boy games are notable and others are not. In fact it seems to me this is quite likely. Further, the fact an article exists is not an indication it is on a notable subject (WP:INN). Any article can be deleted if there is a consensus for it at WP:AfD (this has happened for example for various individual Pokemon - see WP:POKEMON). Nomination and subsequent deletion are both more likely if an article lacks references that establish its notability beyond doubt. I tagged this article as being of questionable notability as it lacks references and seemed to be a minor independent game with limited release and limited appeal. There may not be sufficient material in reliable sources to make a decent, properly verifiable article. It is up to people who want to keep an article to demonstrate this material exists. This may seem harsh, but the only practical alternative is to allow any and all edits to stand, whether or not they are verifiable, which would eventually destroy the encyclopedia. --MegaSloth (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to explain this. I really appreciate it. Tfinc (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --MegaSloth (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

John Smith (Cavalier)
I reverted this edit to John Smith (Cavalier), for two reasons.
 * The "]]" next to "Leicestershire]]" were left fluff, because originally I put in a link to Queeniborough, Leicestershire, but it proved to be false what it actually is is Queniborough (Queeniborough is archaic). As Queniborough is a blue link Leicestershire is not needed under the principles laid out in WP:OVERLINK. A reader can follow the link from Queniborough to Leicestershire if they are curious as to what Leicestershire (and then on up wards to the universe and beyond).
 * The template reflist should be in the "Notes section" and not the "References section". At the moment you move works because the bold line Attribution acts as a subheading. But as soon as another general reference is added to the references section we would have footnotes and bullet points mixed in the same area. In the Notes section I have deliberately user group=lower-alpha to distinguish notes from citations that use numerals so there would be no confusion over what was what. --PBS (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever. That page had malformed wikitext before I edited. It didn't afterwards and my changes all conformed to Wikipedia guidelines. Wikilinking town and county is common practice, not on its own a clear violation of WP:OVERLINK, and there was no way for me to divine your intentions from your malformed edit. The page still has no malformed wikitext after your subsequent edit so was not a reversion of my fix. I'll leave it to other editors to argue whether mixing footnotes and citations in the "Notes" section and having "References" blank is either a good idea or within Wikipedia guidelines. I think the answer is clear but insufficiently pressing to argue with someone who clearly has very strong views. --MegaSloth (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes your edit did highlight mistakes in the page, and article is better for your edit. My posing here was to explain why I altered that edit, because at first sight it might have looked as if I had reverted the edit without giving it the appropriate thought -- something that I am aware some people who are the prominent contributors to a page may do, or may be perceived as doing. I guessed that yours was a passing edit and it was unlikely that you have the page on your watch list and so I thought posting my reasons there might not be seen by you. No offence was intend by my post and I hope none was taken. -- PBS (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK no problem thanks for clarifying. --MegaSloth (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest
I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 03:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Light bulb (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Light bulb (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 "Click here to 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. Widefox ; talk 09:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)