User talk:OnePt618/Archives/2020/February

Scam baiting
I made an edit to scam baiting and you removed it because it didn't seem neutral. But you restored the previous edit that mentioned Kitboga by name, which is actually less inclusive than my statement which was aimed to generalize the statement rather than mention people by name. There are plenty of other great scambaiters other than Kitboga. How ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyanghost (talk • contribs) 02:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, I restored your edit. I appreciate the heads up, and apologize for the confusion! &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6;   02:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Question about neutrality
Hi OnePt618, thanks for your message! It surprised me because I strongly support neutrality on wikipedia and always try to have a neutral pov in my edits. What was it that seemed less than neutral to you? I am relatively new to editing so it's entirely possible I've made a mistake. My goal in that particular edit was to better introduce the rest of the paragraph with the first sentence, showing what they believed, (rather than saying it was true or not, as per npov standards) and then to include the other periodicals as well, which seemed to me to be an oversight to not have them included in the first place, as the same requirements apply to all of them. Again, thank you for your message, I'm always willing to learn. Nablais (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Nablais! I really appreciate you responding. I read both the before and after diffs on that page, and while the before diff seemed pretty neutral, the sentence "Christian Scientists believe in the effectiveness of prayer." immediately before it changes the tone from neutral to positively biased, in my opinion. There's an implication that prayer is effective in that sentence, so I think this tips the needle a bit. Is there any way you can rephrase? e.g. "Christian Scientists believe that prayer is effective", for example. Also: a reference would help a lot. Thanks again for your contributions!! &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6;   03:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, interesting, thanks. Well, I'm definitely fine with that phrasing then. So I'll look for a reference and edit again if that's ok? Nablais (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6;   04:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Question about a reverted edit on the "time" article
Hi OnePt618, thank you for your message concerning your revert on my edit on the time article. The scientific interpretation of time, in the context of modern physics is a deep subject, and can be confusing for a layman such as me. However, I thought I was safe in adding the paragraph you removed, since I took it from a book by Italian theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, "The order of time", which I cited. Do you not consider this a "reliable source"? I see that this work is not scientific research per se, but science popularization written in a literary style. However, I'm not sure the facts are wrong. Best regards, Alan Islas (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that gravity affects spacetime. The citation you added, however, indicates that objects "fall down" because of a difference in time. I don't believe that stance is universally accepted, at least according to the commentary on this Quora page (https://www.quora.com/In-his-book-The-Order-of-Time-Carlo-Rovelli-writes-Things-fall-downward-because-time-is-slowed-by-the-Earth-I-have-never-seen-gravity-explained-before-by-way-of-time-Can-anyone-explain-this-clearly-for-a-layperson) -- but I'm more than happy to have the discussion. Why don't you start a subject about this on the Talk page of that article? It would be an interesting discussion. Thank you for your contribs! &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6;  06:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Bothell, Washington, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''Please mind MOS:DASH, especially for articles like Council–manager government. Articles about U.S. subjects should use U.S. date formatting (Month Day, Year). Wikilinks should not include the underscore, even if hidden by a pipe.''  Sounder Bruce  07:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You really improved that article with your fixes. Thank you!! &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6;   07:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive. Your instant vandalism reverts will not be tolerated. Although removing vandalism is encouraged, your ridiculously high speed constitutes a monopoly. The next time you remove vandalism from a page, you may be awarded a barnstar without further notice. -- Thanks.  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  02:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism?! What?!
My edit: was not vandalism. I did make a mistake with a double "the the", but I was trying to correct a grammatical error: "from the years 1961 to the 1975" is not English, it should read "from the years 1961 to 1975". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained (talk • contribs) 06:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is accusing you of being a vandal. I reverted the "the the" mistake and it looks like you've adjusted the article properly now, so it's all good. Thank you for your contributions! &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6;  06:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanking message!
Hi OnePt618 ! Thanks for welcoming me to this world of Wikipedia : ) Your hospitality is greatly appreciated with many thanks.

I have a question, I just created my very first article called "Draft:Roborobo_Co.,_Ltd.", and its under review now. How long does usually a review process take for my articles to be published? I have many more articles ranging from cultures, entities, and related matters to publish now and I wonder about this process...

Thank you for welcoming me again !

Mercy booku (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! And thanks for contributing an article. I don't know if you saw it on your page, but there are more than 4,000 articles waiting to be reviewed! So, you might have a wait. You should consider jumping in and editing other articles while you wait. The Teahouse WP:TEA is a nice place to learn more from other editors. Thanks again for your contribution! &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6;  06:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I will wait until other articles to be reviewed. In the meantime thanks for sharing about the TEA House ! It seems very interesting place to spend time and observe whats going on inside the world of Wikipedia! Mercy. Mercy booku (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

About the speedy delete of Astronomy group association
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (I have not done this work for the sake of the advertisement of a company/organization but was just trying to make people know about the astronomical society of nepal, i wrote it as NASO doesnt have a wikipedia page, i think this is important as many people get there information through wikipedia and, having this page on wikipedia will make people aware of the astronomical society of Nepal just like that of other countries like American Astronomical Society, Astronomical Society of India etc. I just wanted to share this information. AGAIN THIS WAS NOT FOR ADVERTISEMENT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakash977 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have replied on the Talk page. Let's continue discussion there.-- &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6;  05:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for development and improve Naghma Sahar article page
Dear, Sir The Naghma Sahar article page is notable people who is a television journalist and senior editor of NDTV India. Please discuss about this article and send me any faults of this article about reliable sources and kindly request you to improve this article for development or help for any faults in this article.And lastly request you to remove the deletion log of this article by add by you.I hope you will help me to this. Yours faithfully Sathraho (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gerard Mussies
Hello OnePt618. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gerard Mussies, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''previous deletion was speedy deletion, so not eligible for G4. This version claims his studies and theories made an impact in his field, so not eligible for A7. Use AFD instead.''' Thank you. So Why  09:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Declined A7 speedies
Hello OnePt618 -- I've declined a few of your A7s because there were major or minor claims present. Birna Arnbjörnsdóttir clearly passes A7 just based on all three of the claims in the lead; full professors are often kept at AfD, and there are multiple other clear claims in the body. Please be more careful in future. The others are a little less obvious -- Nicolas Jaoul has a couple of reviews in reputable newspapers; Azadeh Shahmiri has a play being performed internationally; Kaye Shimojima has several claims sourced to an academic book. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)