User talk:Oiyarbepsy/Archive 16

All posts on this page are permanently linked through User talk:Oiyarbepsy/2018A

page
Hello I’m not being a conflict of interest because I am not related to him or do I know him. I just created the user name like that (thought that would be obvious). If you really wanna know my real name it’s Cynthia. Mariebarreau23 (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Creating an additional account solely to remove the deletion tag is not a good way to earn trust. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

inre: Raj Bharat
No, living people are not covered by WP:FILM. See WP:FILM for future reference! Also, you can message other users about specific edits if you don't understand their justifications rather than jumping to reverting. Thanks! BOVINEBOY 2008 02:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's weird, but, okay. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

PC Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 13:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
 * Thanks,, I appreciate the vote of confidence. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Appreciation
That pre-archiving redirect thing is clever. Maybe you should make the note more how-to, like "To create a permanent link to a section on this page, use User talk:Oiyarbepsy/2018A" E to the Pi times i  ( talk  |  contribs ) 02:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:E to the Pi times i, Yup, it's a good idea, and one I shouldn't have to do myself. For a while I was creating a different page for each heading on my talk page, which is really how every talk page on Wikipedia should work (we do this with Articles for Deletion), but, alas, it was too much effort. BTW, I like the username. It's a good identity for you, ler. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Naphthalene locomotive
Thanks for the encouragement about Naphthalene locomotive. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey no problem. I always like seeing new articles about oddball topics like that. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

LR(*) parser
Oh my gosh! What do you know about LR parsers? You don't understand this. It's an algorithm that any computer science graduate student could think of. It's an explanation of how it works. It's actually being used by a branch of a huge government already. In the technical world many algorithms get invented every hour of the day. If someone wants to explain how it works, it's useful information. It's not necessarily unverified or original research. Some of your pages are 99% political propaganda and full of lies. At least you should accept a valid LR parsing algorithm. This will probably be my last contribution to Wikipedia. Too many hostile trolls are on Wikipedia. BTW, I have 40 years of experience with parsing algorithms. If you don't want any of my knowledge, I don't care. I make no money from this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbmann (talk • contribs) 01:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood you. I thought that you said that you invented this yourself, but apparently it is in common use based on this post. I've withdrawn my deletion request, and I apologize for the error (and I also apologize on behalf of the guy who made a horrible and obviously wrong speedy delete nomination). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is written in a promotional tone and because its unsourced it is considered as original research. Maybe I was too hasty in my nomination, but please understand me correctly, I did it because I follow policies (just like all of us here). Our policy states that (as of 2010) that our articles must be sourced, otherwise they will be nominated for deletion. Just a quick reminder, calling people trolls here is not civil. I personally care less if you have 40 years or 20 (I have none for example). Another thing, I am sorry if it makes you feel that, but we just follow our policies here. That's all. No personal feelings. :)--Biografer (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Deerfoot - Bad Meat
Hi

Thank you for reviewing my page. I was just wondering if it is still a candidate for "speedy deletion".

Rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock Tomahawk (talk • contribs) 14:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not anymore. When you contribute here, it's very important that everything you post is your own writing. Do not copy and paste things from other websites. We can't take other people's content here because that is a copyright violation, and one of the reasons we have to delete pages immediately. Thanks for our contributions, and I hope to see you writing more articles about First Nations peoples in the future. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018
Hello, I'm Jax 0677. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Talk:Rexha. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This here is a classic example of Don't template the regulars. Not only did you template an experienced editor who knows what he's doing, but you templated a warning message (for an action that was actually proper), and the warning message had literally no relevance whatsoever to what actually happened (including the blatantly wrong statement that the removed information has been restored, since it hasn't and since it didn't have any information in the first place). Maybe sometimes you need to consider actually writing a relevant message, no? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm SamHolt6. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Kathua Rape Case, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

SamHolt6 (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

PJ Masks/List of PJ Masks episodes
If you're going to restore an improperly-done page split, please make sure you follow WP:PROPERSPLIT carefully. Just so you know. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can do. And I know it wasn't you, but if the reason you're reverting a split is because someone didn't follow those guidelines, you should say so in the edit summary. Even better, WP:SOFIXIT. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You have to understand: a lot of these "splits" are more than just not properly following WP:CWW/WP:PROPERSPLIT – many/most of them are unjustified on WP:SIZESPLIT grounds, or are questionable on MOS:TV-type grounds. For example, I'm not sure I would have split-out List of PJ Masks episodes at this point, just part of the way through a second season. A lot of WP:TV regulars are sticklers on this point, and don't think that a List of Episodes should be split-out until a third season has started airing. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright. If the revert edit summary had said something like that, I would have just left it. But when the only reason for a revert is "didn't get consensus", you've violated WP:BOLD and I'm gonna revert it back. Oftentimes people revert only because of lack of consensus when it turns out that no one actually had a problem with the actual edit. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)