User talk:Mr. Guye/Archive 5

Pieces Sum41
Hi, you undid my deletion of the section Reception on this article. The section was deleted because it contained no citation which substantiated it's claim. I've added a note and made reference to it on the talk page.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.136.254 (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Malice


A tag has been placed on Template:Malice requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Whom2/doc
Please explain your edit. They are not weasel words; "serious" is weasel or peacock, "legitimate" would be weasel, and "some" and "many" are just vague, but "historians" is just inappropriate, rather than being weasel or vague.

As you apparently don't read article talk pages, I'm asking here for your reasoning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * When the text claims that a group associated with credibility (say "scientists") said this or approves of that, but they don't specify whom or cite the source, that sounds like weasel-ing to me.


 * Example: Scientists now believe that the moon is made of cheese. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

But it's fine. I changed my mind anyways. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Journalism
I noticed your recent edits at this article. Clearly the article needs work. However, this is best aided by precise tags, or, better yet, contributions that improve the article. Edits to encyclopedia articles ought to either directly improve the user experience or help other editors make needed improvements. I have reverted your edits at Journalism because I thought them unhelpful. If you disagree, please discuss your views here or at Talk:Journalism. This article covers an important subject, but, as you can see, talk page activity is very stale. Please contribute your ideas there; perhaps that can encourage others to improve the article. - Neonorange (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I asked that you discuss your views here or at Talk:Journalism. I considered your tag and your content edit unhelpful. Articles in Wikipedia move forward through collaboration. And through consensus forming when differences develop. You made an edit that added the subsection 'Lippmann and Dewey'; I thought that edit did not improve that part of the article, so I reverted your edit. The cycle for progress is BRD; Boldly make an edit -> the edit is Reverted -> Discuss the differences. Why do you think the section is about 'Lippmann and Dewey'? It isn't. Lippmann and Dewey represented two views of the role of journalists; not the only views. The section needs expansion (Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair...), not just 'tagging' with an inappropriate subsection. The first step in making a content contribution to an article ought to be reading the article. At any rate, please remove your re-revert, and discuss. I've some ideas on material to add to Journalism; would you like to help? - Neonorange (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine. The discussion will occur at Talk:Journalism. However, at the moment of this response, it is not published yet. I'll be done soon. Thank you for being civil about this. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Your editing
Hi. I noticed that I'm not alone -- your talkpage history shows a number of editors concerned with your editing. I would hope you would take their input to heart, and you may find it useful to slow down a bit and make sure you understand the reasons that editors have challenged a number of your edits. From my perspective, your edits seem to be much more controversial than those of a typical editor -- not due to any POV, but largely due to the misapplication of tags and the like. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Here again. You did not improve the article. You did the opposite.  This is a list was correct.  This "documents" was misleading, at best. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Valvis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek (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) 08:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Some of your recent edits
Your edits at Template:Random page in category/doc",, Supreme Court of Hawaii, and others are a problem. I reverted these three because the edits damaged the articles or were otherwise unhelpful. You should not edit structural articles you evidently don't understand. You should not edit documentation for tools you don't understand. You should be particularly sensitive to variations in a language (English, in this case) where metaphors, word usage, and sentence structure have diverged (about English speakers, it has been said: We are divided by a common language), Don't rush in and edit an article in a context you don't grasp. So, will you at least self-revert your edit at Journalism to allow the BRD process to work? (And this goes for all of the reverts your edits are beginning to collect.) I'd like to see your enthusiasm build Wikipedia, But you really do need to change your behavior. Would you like to work wit another editor on a project? Perhaps you could begin to discuss article edits you wish to make on talk pages to build consensus first? - Neonorange (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Um...I self-reverted the Journalism edit when you asked me to the first time…Mr. Guye (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle
If you want more automation, the ability to perfectly introduce or nominate articles for deletion, afd, proposed deletion, or simply tag them. You can also report users to the appropriate noticeboards and even issue custom notices or request page protection. I only mention it because I saw you manually nominating an article for deletion. With Twinkle, it does all the dirty work for you. I highly recommend it. However, do note that you take responsbility for everything you do with it, so don't go nominating the main page for a speedy deletion. It can be enabled in your Preferences -> Gadgets panel. Tutelary (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith
Actually, I did assume good faith until the IP DUCK identified himself as being the same disruptive IP that has been harassing me all night. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

speedy
None of the many deletion reasons you cave for Camp Kohler were valid; As reviewing administrator, I removed them all. The context was clear: it was an army base, so no-cotnext does not apply. The article was short, but still long enough to be meaningful, so it was not empty. Army bases indicate possible improtance, so A7 does not apply--it is any case is no tthe type of article to which A7 might apply. There's no reason it might appear to be a test page, tho it is incomplete. If any information was taken from a government source, it's Public Domain, not copy io. And I cannot see how promotionalism even vaguely applies.

Articles should not be nominated for deletion except in accordance with specific instructions at WP:Deletion policy, supplemented by the restrictions for speedy at WP:CSD. Even when something does need deletion, pick the oner or two appropriate reasons, not everything in the list.

And remeber that our general policy is to improve articles, not delete them, if improvement is possible.  DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

speedy2
I also removed the a7 tag from Aurelio F. Rodriguez. As the oner of what might be a notable venue, he has a claim to importance. Let the AfD decide.

I think I need to warn you that the recklessly incorrect use of speedy tags is not helpful. It doesn;t get articles deleted that need deletion, it just causes problems for well-meaning contributors and us overworked administrators. Please be more careful.  DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of my Article
Hello, you just proposed deletion of my article on Rob Kohler with the justification that there are no references, and yet I cited 8 sources, including two reputable publications and several well established musical institutions. Can you please explain your reasoning? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnzun (talk • contribs) 03:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * this would appear to me a very reasonable complaint. I'm seeing too much of this. Even for Muhammed Shaheen, where the article does indeed need to be speedy deleted, one reason is sufficient--in this case, no context is appropriate, because it does not actually say who the subject is; or a7, as there's not really a claim to importance even if he were identifiable. Adding 6 other reasons some  potentisally applicable, some not, does not help the matter, but just confuses everyone. This is especially true when there is already a valid speedy tag on the article.

Your addition of deletion tags is not being constructive. I formally warn you that if it continues you are likely to be blocked for unconstructive editing.''. To avoid confusion, the official warning template follows:  DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.  DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in any  form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Declined Speedy of highway
I removed your addition of speedy deletion tags in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Zealand_State_Highway_50&oldid=609361225 due them not applying. It doesn't appear to be pure vandalism, a test edit, has no context, it doesn't qualify under the strict rules of A7 as it is a location, nor is it patent nonsense. I've proposed it for deletion, instead. Note that this is not a slur against you, just the tags. I recommend you reread the criteria for speedy deletion and follow them to the letter. Else, the behavior may count as disruptive and aids the possibility of a block. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Surfing Goat Dairy
Hello Mr. Guye. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Surfing Goat Dairy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. kelapstick(bainuu) 20:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The time is fast approaching when you need to be blocked for the sake of the rest of the editors on this encyclopedia
Many editors have raised issues with you about your editing. Your latest "triumph" was to warn that his username was an advert for Kellogg's Frosties and so in breach of policy. As Tony has been a valued editor on this project for 8 years and has over one-third of a million edits (coming in at 26th place on the list of all-time most edits on Wikipedia) the chances that you are the very first person to spot a username policy violation by him are so vanishingly small that they can be discounted for all present purposes. Please stop this disruptive behaviour. Your edits are increasingly drawing complaints. I suggest you take a break from Wikipedia for a while. If you return, please take extreme care to edit in accordance with the site's expectations. Otherwise your ability to edit will be removed. Is this clear? BencherliteTalk 00:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)