User talk:Piguy101/Archive 6

Your request at WP:PERM/RV
Hello. Your account has been granted the "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:
 * Reviewing, 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 10:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Inform
Hi, This is just to inform you that Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. has been nominated by another editor for deletion. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont)  17:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Amir Segal
Hello Piguy101, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Amir Segal, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of notability, although the assertion(s) made may not be sufficient to pass the relevant notability guidelines (such a thing needs to be decided at WP:AFD). You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 12:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry this was not meant for you - you had just reverted the deletion of the template, but my script automatically detected this as if you were the one that added the tag in the first place. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 12:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Piguy101 (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Healthy for Life
Hello Piguy101. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Healthy for Life to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Passengerpigeon (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I feel as though there should be an adequate CSD criteria for the article, which definitely needs deleting, but PROD works as well. Looking at the log for the page shows that it was deleted yesterday for A1. Piguy101 (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion
Hello,

Please help me delete "Israel occupation forces," because the page is a slanderous and derogatory parody of the "Israel Defense forces" (the former page redirects to the latter). The Israel Occupation forces is a nonexistent entity and thus the page is inaccurate and does not belong on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.134.133 (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have requested deletion of Israel Occupation Forces for you. You are invited to comment at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_11 to state you opinions. The result of the discussion will appear in about a week when an administrator decides whether or not to keep the redirect. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

asking abt deleting the caracter I have added
I have added some articles that u have removed..... plz will u tell the story of birth of lord shiva...... Was the story I have added was wrong..... I request u to plz correct my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.185.225.20 (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry; I do a lot of editing, and I am not sure what article and action I took that you are talking about. Could you please elaborate and specify the exact article in concern? Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I believe that you are talking about my reversion on Shiva of 's edits. You can see what I edited here: . The reason I did so was because the edits added lots of information without any references, which is against Wikipedia policy. Please ask if you have any questions. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for guide
As I m the new user I was not knowing much about editing.Thanks for sharing link about tutorial... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshay B Deokar (talk • contribs) 16:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I 'mglad it helped. Feel free to message me here if you have any questions. Happy editing! Piguy101 (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Follow up on your reply
@Amrgalal: Nobody owns any Wikipedia pages. See WP:OWN. Having an account that seems to solely promote a company is criteria for blocking. See WP:BLOCK, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. Please do not bring content disputes to the help desk. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am aware nobody owns a Wikipedia page - at what point in my question did I insinuate this? The Medcan account is not solely promoting anything, its simply stating facts.  And the Danish meta study is not a fact.
 * Can you please let me know who I can speak to about content disputes? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrgalal (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You insinuated that you owned the page in your comment, "...we would like to edit our page..." It would have been better had it been worded "...we would like to edit the Medcan Clinic page..." Piguy101 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Certainly. First, you may want to read Dispute resolution for some background. Then, you may want to request a third opinion; read Third opinion to see how to put in a request. Ask if you have any questions. Piguy101 (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing a citation needed request? Really? For "not appearing constructive"?
Seriously? That's what you go around doing?

Not to mention that the entire section does not have a SINGLE citation. Not a one.

Please, do get a life. It is a very useful endeavor, causing much enjoyment to many people.--85.92.230.183 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the citation needed template because it looked like you were trying to discuss the article's subject in the article itself. Piguy101 (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to discuss the article's subject. I was explaining the reason for demanding the citation of that POV claim. The video mentioned in the article is not really available online for me to link to it, so I described it from memory in order to present a much likelier reason for its banning from TV. A fact that could prove valuable to the future editors of that completely unsourced and very POV section ripe with factual errors and omissions of facts.--85.92.230.183 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On a second look, I shouldn't have undone your edit. I apologize. Maybe the unsourced sentence needs removal altogether. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly, but then, the entire section is unsourced. And there is a possibility that there is SOME truth to the claim that the video was banned because of a reference to that scandal (Scandal was a big deal at the time and it had historical consequences for decades later.) though it is doubtful. I'm saying this on account that there are sources out there (I could probably dig up the link but it is most certainly not in English.) claiming that, quite surprisingly to most anyone, there was no censorship or filtering of the procedure regarding the Agrokomerc scandal in the media. IMHO, it is better to leave the sentence in, but with a "citation needed" tag marking it as questionable and providing an alternative explanation for the banning of the video. After all, I have no source either, and BOTH the rapey song and the contents of the video AND the possible (though unlikely) reference to a political scandal could be the cause for the banning. Maybe someone out there has a source for one, other or both.--85.92.230.183 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem quite passionate about the topic and knowledgeable. I do now agree that the citation tag is helpful. It may be helpful to copy this discussion and put it on the talkpage. I am going to add a few helpful links to your talkpage. I regret that our first meeting was an argument, but I hope to see you around. Happy editing! Piguy101 (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really passionate on my own behalf. Frankly, I have no dog in any fight regarding the topics, and I stumbled on that section link-jumping and looking for info on something so far removed that it can be considered unrelated - and that line just caught my eye. Thing is though, that issues regarding the persons involved and the political climate at the time reverberates through many issues (mostly political and nationalistic) even today. And it is more a question of "when" than "if" any of that information will be used by some extremist to "prove" some point or (conspiracy) theory. And there's plenty of incorrect or false information around already. As for the argument... well, it's my fault too. My initial thought was that it was some fanboy or someone with way too much emotional investment in some version of the whole history regarding the persons and topics mentioned. Not because the citation requested is really that important, but because it is so trivial. And good luck to you with your work too.--85.92.230.183 (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

will be hays to days to go ther head many main and maneuises tows egges with galaia
--178.215.221.49 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)YouTube Music Awards bay Bold text
 * What? π♂101 (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Bernie
This is a black comedy. As I wrote. 79.178.30.38 (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but you need a reference to insert that. Please see Burden. Thanks π♂101 (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness & blood transfusions
Hi, I love to use Wikipedia to look up everything. I am a Jehovah's Witness & i googled blood transfusions. As I was doing so I came across this subject on Wikipedia. Some of content on that page was not accurate. As a big fan of Wikipedia it was quite disappointing, because it makes me question the accuracy on other subjects I have read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qu3enT93 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to have disappointed you. I reverted your edits the first time because they were unsourced. Wikipedia requires all content to have verifable references supporting the content. See WP:BURDEN. I reverted your edits the second time because your edit summary said "fixed typo," which was utterly false when you modified content, not any typos. Thanks π♂101 (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism

 * In answer to your reply, the content is being hosted on a social media site/app, and has a huge amount of followers. The user has been challenged about the content but will block the users highlighting the plagiarism, or delete comments so her other users don't see. Most of her content is lifted from wikipedia or other websites, with no paraphrasing, or links to the original textGeorgieLover (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the site to Mirrors and forks/Ghi. Unfortunately, I do not believe that we can do much more about the copying once it has been reported. Happy editing! π♂101 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Russian Academy of Arts
Hello! A couple hours ago you canceled my edition, linking «good faith». Yesterday I have deleted redirection from Russian Academy of Arts to Imperial Academy of Arts because these are two absolutely separate subjects and more, as a structure complex, Russian Academy is a Head office in relation to Imperial one (though, the Imperial Academy, to put it more correctly, is historical phenomenon, many years ago it was turned to the exclusively educational institution named Repin Art Institute. Next. As «Russian Academy of Arts» is a  functional Institution of our time, it has all-Russia concern; so the «Imperial Academy» fulfills today a function of high-quality art Institute and, I'm afraid, its meaning has only regional level. There is in English Wiki only article on SPb Academy, information about last time is reduced there to very small section. At the same time, most significant reformations into Russian Academy of Arts took place for two last decades. May be until the section «Current situation» of «Imperial Academy» become full, unfolded article, it will be difficult to understand the construction of the entire Academic system in Russia now. I had wrote a stub-article «Russian Academy of Arts» and I think you will see it may add some clarity to understanding this theme. And I would be grateful for stylistic improving my text. Thank you Yuracei (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am a little bit confused, but I am willing to work with you. Where is the stub about Russian Academy of Arts that you have written? We could put it in place there. Sorry if I don't fully understand your response. Let's figure this out! π♂101 (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here, take a look. I installed the stub of Russian Academy of Arts in place for future full article. Please note: the link «Repin Institute of Arts» leads to all the same «Imperial Academy of Arts» (which, strictly speaking, has ceased to exist in 1918). It also must be improved, I think. Yuracei (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:Daniellagreen submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Piguy101 for Editor of the Week for their insightful, supportive, and helpful comments and actions regarding two articles that I recently created on Wikipedia. Both and Piguy101 are obviously familiar with policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and have reflected their knowledge of them in their communications and actions regarding a particular editor who has been making edits to the articles that I would consider unproductive. My aim is to be a contributor, and to learn about how I can improve, and implement those improvements. OccultZone and Piguy101 have both reflected to me that they are being objective, and that they are doing their best to redirect the other editor in a more positive manner. Therefore, I would like to recognize these editors for their helpful comments; I am definitely learning more about procedures as a result of their input.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! ```Buster Seven   Talk  17:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Thanks for helping support others in their content work and for doing your best in diffusing tense situations when edits are not productive.  It's not easy work.  Thanks,  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 02:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;&#125;&#125; to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, I appreciate it. π♂101 (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

United States Senate elections, 2016
You are right. In fact, that is the real reason I reverted the edit. Unfortunately, Huggle is missing a few categories of bad edits so I used a category that I hoped would send the message, figuring that if the edit was added again I would leave a specific message. I was a bit lazy. We are agreed that it was a bad edit in any event. Donner60 (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Message from Amitrajofficial
Hi Brother, It was a mistake. I've removed it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitrajofficial (talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. π♂101 (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize that article!
I was undoing vandalism by that IP!--QualityEncyclopedia (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note that it's best to check the page history first, you undid the last edit by the vandal, but really you needed to undo 3 edits. By just undoing the one edit you actually added vandalism back in. I wouldn't stress too much about it, it was done in good faith, and if I'm honest I've made that same mistake myself. — Strongjam (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for cleaning this up. π♂101 (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't add "derpyday", I think the IP did it, reverted it, but I accidentally reverted it back in. Thanks for cleaning it up!--QualityEncyclopedia (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Green, Ohio
See Sport of athletics and Athletics at the Summer Olympics. If he were in any other sport, he wouldn't be an athlete; he'd be a judoka, baseball player, swimmer, etc., but he wouldn't be an athlete. Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's fair. Thanks for the prompt explanation. π♂101 (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Message from
Israel DOES have an occupation force in Palestine. You are not the PC cops, stop acting like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dead Messiah (talk • contribs) 19:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about. I never undid any of your edits relating to that. π♂101 (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
You know why

 Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC) 

Hey thanks, I appreciate it. π♂101 (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sasha Grey
Please--this is straight-up vandalism, and it's the second time they did that on this article. Please see the WP:BLP. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I should have looked at the past edits, which would have made it obvious that it was pure vandalism, but I try to assume good faith in my warnings and just used the one about unsourced changes. Regards π♂101 (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure--but in this case, what kind of source could you have wanted? Drmies (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)