User talk:Seagull123/Archive 1

Hello
Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas309 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nurse (BBC TV Show) has been accepted
 Nurse (BBC TV Show), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Oo7565 (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Seagull123 help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Proposed deletion of UK Independence Party leadership election, 2015


The article UK Independence Party leadership election, 2015 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Nigel Farage rescinded his resignation promise; his party superiors rejected the resignation. Therefore, the election ain't happening. As for merger, the "Nigel Farage" article might be the likely target.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. George Ho (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of UK Independence Party leadership election, 2015 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UK Independence Party leadership election, 2015 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/UK Independence Party leadership election, 2015 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. George Ho (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Chinavision Song Contest
You asked about the Chinavision Song Contest article. That seems to be made-up, statements such as "Annually Hosted on the Internet since August 2016" pretty much give away that it doesn't (yet) exist, and I doubt it will exist in 2016. In fact, Baidu Tieba was where that Contest was said to have originated, so this looks the Chinese equivalent of an article on a Facebook group or forum thread. The article satisfies speedy deletion criteria A7 and likely A11; I'll thus delete it, and its talk page. Huon (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seagull123 (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

New page patrol

 * 1) When you tag a new page, whether for deletion or cleanup, please mark it as patrolled as well.
 * 2) If there's a notice that an article might be a copyright violation, investigate it. If it is, remove the copyright violation and/or tag it for speedy deletion. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @  22:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Building off of what IDoH said, I think it's unnecessary to add so many tags to an article that will likely be deleted in a few hours. → Σ σ  ς. (Sigma) 19:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for that. I'll bear that in mind in the future.  Seagull123  Φ  19:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Sussex
Hi - I haven't been much active on Wiki for several years now. I think all you have to do is add your name to WikiProject Sussex and get editing. Otherwise, contact User:Hassocks5489. Vox Humana 8' 12:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to help with the project but I'm rather busy with other matters at present.Mikeo1938 (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously
You can ban someone from your talk page. It would be taken badly if someone continued to use your talk page, against your request. This would be de facto harassment. On top of that it's pretty obvious that the IP was mine and was accidentally used on my own talk page.. This means I will have to request ur comment be redacted as its reveals a users IP. Not a very clever thing for you to do. A little bit of checking on your part would of been sufficient to identify that. Blethering  Scot  17:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know that that was you. But I'm not exactly sure how I was meant to identify that as you, the comment the IP left didn't really seem that it was from you from my point of view. I'm sorry for what has happened though, in the future I will try to be more cautious and careful before doing something like that. I hope you can forgive me.  Seagull123  Φ  17:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Given it was an ongoing discussion and then I edited the page shortly after on my own account, it was a pretty good bet. If someone other than me was banning someone from my talk page, then I would be warning them. No need for anyone else to warn them. Its best to be very careful when ur linking pages user pages like that. Blethering  Scot  17:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I will bear that in mind in the future.  Seagull123  Φ  17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. Im rattier than usual this evening. Blethering  Scot  18:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

lee Seung woo
I saw you are interesting at this article Lee Seung Woo but I just want to let you know it is probably going to be deleted according to this so if you don't agree with this vote there and let them know Adnan (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for July 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LawNearMe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Startup. 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) 09:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Proposed deletion of Jeff friedl
Just FYI. I've added Speedy Delete to Jeff friedl, because (1) it's a recreation of a page already deleted and (2) it's a duplicate of Jeff Friedl, with a capital "F". --Unready (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for telling me!  Seagull123  Φ  23:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Public Prep
Hi Seagull123. I can see that you are concerned about COI on this article, and thought it might help you when dealing with this COI to know that some of the edits you reverted where actually copied directly from Public Prep website. The similarity report is here. The copy and paste was flagged by a detection bot called User:EranBot, I was reviewing some of its logs. Widy9 (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for that! I probably should have checked to see if it was copied and pasted from the internet. Anyway, thanks again!  Seagull123  Φ  19:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Richmond Pharmacology COI
Hi Seagull123 - I apologize for the lack of communication, I have being trying to gain a clearer understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am the marketing manager for Richmond Pharmacology and our recent edits to the page created by JzG, were done in good faith. We felt the original content was intended to put the company in bad light following recent legal proceedings with the HRA. Our reasons for recent edits made are as follows:

1. The omission of academic research is unreasonable, as its factual and referenced. Therefore it is a removal of relevant and factual information presumably motivated by the malicious intent to smear the organisation.

2. The reference to Metro provided does not support that Richmond pays up to £2,000 therefore this a pure fabrication by the Wikipedia contributor. The article asks the question whether £2,000 are enough to be a guinea pig and Richmond Pharmacology is mentioned there.

3. The Dhaliwal case is misrepresented as the reference clearly states the borderline nature; a far cry from “won” which suggests that she was awarded damages. The case is irrelevant to the entry and not reflective of the organisation. It has presumably been added by JzG out of malicious intent to lower the reputation of the organisation and its officers.

All the text provided in our recent edits is factual and to the point and unlike previous editions are well referenced. We welcome new additions so long as they are balanced. We also welcome your recommendation on how to improve the content so that it is completely neutral and complies with your COI policy. Please kindly advise how we can resolve this amicably.

Regards Swelgemoed (talk), 09:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.106.121 (talk)


 * Thanks for that. It's good that you've been reading through the policies and guidelines we have here about conflicts of interest. And we all want to remain neutral when editing. I would advise that if you were going to make any major edits to the Richmond Pharmacology page that you first propose it on the talk page. Changing content to a purely good view of a company, isn't maintaining a neutral point of view. Please be aware though, that when you say  We welcome new additions so long as they are balanced , you don't actually own the article, any content you don't like, please again propose a change on the talk page, saying what you want changed and preferably with references. My talk page isn't the best place to propose changes to the article, although thank you for telling me about it. P.S. You have manually signed as User:Swelgemoed but you weren't signed in when you posted that message. That's why it says Preceding unsigned comment added by... after it.  Seagull123  Φ  18:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Seagull123, thanks for advising and for your helpful explanation - all understood. I have been asked by Jydog to put a strike through my message (as per his message on my talk page). I appreciate your help.Swelgemoed (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Black Country Accents
I am annoyed to see a member of the WikiProject Sussex questioning the authenticity of something they know nothing about, as someone who was born, lives in, and speaks Black Country - I am the source, i have already added information to the page, it being titled "commonly used words", i will be putting back the information and finishing it, and expect it to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.211.173 (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello I removed the content you added because there was no presence of a citation, have a look at this page about reliable sources and this page about citing sources for more information. Having been born in and currently living in the Black Country, I do believe that the information you provided was reliable, it is just that it is Wikipedia policy for all content to be attributable to a source; "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." Have a look at the this section of the Geordie article, especially the collapsible menu below, see how most of the words have inline citations next to them. If you can find references, please do add the text back in, if you need help finding references, visit the language section of the reference desk, ask a question there and other Wikipedia editors will try to help, it works like a library reference desk. If you need any further help, either visit the teahouse, or go to this page. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  13:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

again I am telling you to stop removing my information, the information I am uploading doesn't need sources as the sources are already on the page, if you continue to remove the information I will inform the wiki administration, as you are involving you self in something you know nothing about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.211.173 (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello again I have not removed any more content from the page in question. I only removed it once. Saying  the information I am uploading doesn't need sources as the sources are already on the page  is not totally true, you have been told twice on your own talk page that you need to add reliable sources. A reference sending people to your own Twitter account is not a reliable source. Please have a look at the links on your talk page about adding sources for more help. And threatening to report me to the administration, is not helpful, rather the opposite. Please be civil when interacting with other users. One more thing, you are close to being involved in an edit war, please be careful - this can get you blocked. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  13:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. nor is a source just stating who you are, as at this diff.  Seagull123  Φ  13:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes
The current information on the Naturopathy page is inaccurate. There are indeed sources attributed, but they are neither balanced nor peer rewied. For instance, the AAFP has an opinion on Naturopathic PCPs, and it is not fully or accurately expressed with that summarization, to which they are attributed as a source. The AAFP is an admirable organization and source, however, defining the qualifications for family physicians is not within their purview. It is the prerogative of individual state legislation and boards to lisences the actions of individual healthcare practioners. As such several states in the US have indeed lisensed Naturopaths to practice in the same scope as PCP alleopaths and osteopaths. An administrative board, also governmentally sanctioned, over sees the academic requirements, and multiple licensing boards which Naturopaths must pass to practice. The AAFP may hold an opinion, that's fine, however, simply paraphrasing a portion of that opinion and failing to also site other sources does not endevor to be balanced or informative.

The first section of this page is inaccurate, as it paraphrases, omits, and falsely characterizes a profession made up of individuals and organizations from around the globe. The failure to site any pertinent naturopathic sources, or philosophies that pertain to the understanding of Naturopathy is grossly negligent- a disservice to the reader and the Doctors of Naturopathic Medicine.

Now, you feel as if my addition of sited principles of Naturopathic treatment and philosophy to be "not constructive" - so I ask you what is going to change to promote the constructive flow of information currently impeded?

Veritas Logos (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! I reverted your edit because it seemed to remove content that could be construed as anti-naturopath and replaced it with, mostly, a quote from a naturopath's book. This isn't totally a reliable source. When you say the previous version had sources which weren't balanced nor peer rewied, please may I add that a book isn't either (peer reviewed that is). If you want to make any edit like this, which could either be likely to be reverted or to correct any allegedly inaccurate, as it paraphrases, omits, and falsely characterizes content, it would be best to first propose the change at the talk page, this way editors can reach a consensus over what changes to make to an article. The failure to site any pertinent naturopathic sources, or philosophies that pertain to the understanding of Naturopathy is grossly negligent -not totally true, obviously not citing naturopathy sources isn't too good as it doesn't present the subject matters view of the actual subject (in this case naturopathy), but just removing potentially anti naturopathy content (such as Naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices. to be replaced with Naturopathic philosophy is based on an understanding of the Laws of Nature. As Henry Lindlahr M.D. elaborated in his book, Nature Cure, "Nevertheless, these simple fundamental laws and principles really exist... ) isn't presenting the naturopath's views on their own practices, it is not holding a neutral point of view. Please see the policy there for more information about that. In summary, I would say that you should probably have a look at the links on the welcome template on your talk page and the links I've provided in this reply. Also, any major changes should be first proposed on the article's talk page first, allowing a consensus to be reached. Hopefully this helped. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  00:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Clifton Truman Daniel
Hello Seagull123. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3),or significance (CSD A7) moments after they are created. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for telling me. I'll make sure I'm more careful with the speedy delete templates in the future. I didn't know about that wait 10 minutes bit, but I'll remember it, thanks!  Seagull123  Φ  00:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Requires attention
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Requires attention, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Requires attention and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Requires attention during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)