User talk:Smaines

Merger Discussion
An article you created Three pillars of Sikhism has been proposed for merger Discussion. Tindy1986 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Nepalbhasha wikipedia
With the unified global account, it has become easier for the user to work "interwiki". While working between wikis is easier for the user, it becomes harder for a member of a specific community to communicate with the user when required. Users generally create a link to their mainpage when welcomed, making it easier for the community to communicate with the user.

Also,
 * new=Nepal Bhasa
 * ne =Nepali

Regards. --Eukesh (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ix (Dune)
Your comment ''You have miscited, by turns WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:OSE, WP:NOTINHERITED,WP:GNG. Please read them, rather that just choosing the most deletionist construction as absolute license is (1) quite irrelevant to the article in question (2) perilously close to being a personal attack (especially the word miscited''). Since you're so keen on telling people to read policies, let me in turn suggest that you direct your attention to the first two sentences of No personal attacks. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I note your reply. "Miscite" is a negative comment on my personal conduct - I reject it - you have not substantiated it.  We disagree about the application of policy.  The community will decide.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

How-to guide
Please read WP:NOTHOW. A section which simply lists unsourced Mnemonics is nothing more than a how-to study guide, and as it is unsourced there is no evidence that any mnemonic is "popular" as indicated by the lead text, nor that any Mnemonic is actually in use, or notable. This is also covered by WP:OR under publishing original thought. If there is any evidence that a reliable source talks about one of those mnemonics than there may be a case to keep that specific mnemonic in the article, but unless sources are provided the text is not inline with our current policies. As the person looking to restore the unsourced content, please see WP:BUREN as you're required to provide those sources.--Crossmr (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have reviewed (again) WP:NOTHOW, do not find that it applies, thought quite arguably other points do. I suggest we err on the side of more information until we come to consensus.


 * The relevant point is this: if the assertion, "Popular mnemonic devices for use in memorizing the elements of adverse possession include..." is true, then although there may be a sourcing issue, that the mnemonics are germane to topic is no longer in doubt. Some of these I believe may be clever, me-too, WP:OR, but since I have not encoutered the topic of adverse possession in course work, I really don't know which ones to snip.  Do you?


 * You see, I think it is extremely unlikely that there is no such mnemonic, or that there is such a mnemonic and it didn't make the list (despite it's undoubted popularity). In such a case of uncertainty, I'd say let it ride until I do know, by asking at, say, Project:Law, or emailing a few friends who went to law school, just to see whether it's as much a common place as, say, DR & MRS VAN DER TRAMP, which is unsourced, but also a commonplace to literally hundreds of millions of past students of French.  Should that be deleted as well? How about Every good boy does fine?


 * I reverted you only because&mdash; strong odds are&mdash; at least one of these was from someone who attended law school and passed it on. That's what the encyclopedia is about. I have as much a horror of cruft as anyone, but I am not so keen as to go after the van der Tramps with an axe. I'd just ask for a source or inquire as to whether it too might be a commonplace.


 * Do you have greater reason to be certain they are all OR? How much legitimate information are willing to delete from view to spare users from what is, at worst, a bit of me-too OR-foolery?  You rightly point out that the WP:BURDEN is with me, for having restored the content you deleted.  I will leave the matter with you, feel free to revert if you think this will make the encyclopedia better.


 * -SM 05:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It fails WP:NOTHOW because it's a how-to guide to study this topic. That is not relevant to an encyclopedia article on a subject. The information does not lead to a greater understanding of the subject. This much is extremely obvious
 * In addition there is obviously a sourcing issue. Not a single piece of text in that section is sourced. It was challenged, and you've twice restored it without properly sourcing it. You admit that you know that you have to source it, and yet have restored it anyway. That is bordering on disruptive editing.
 * Whether a mnemonic exists or not is irrelevant, what would be relevant would be whether or not mnemonics are ever significantly discussed in relation to the topic of adverse possession outside of "how to study the subject". If you had law journals, magazines, etc that were constantly bringing up a specific mnemonic when talking about this, because it was notable, then you might have a case for including it in the article, but you haven't demonstrated that at all.
 * Which ones to snip are extremely clear. Any that are unsourced and that would be all of them. The section itself is created with a biased, unsourced lead.
 * There is no evidence, and you're required to provide as you've twice restored it, that any of that is legitimate, or even true information. The fact that some law student might have come along and added it is certainly not what this encyclopedia is about, because wikipedia is not a primary source or a publisher of original thought. It's a tertiary source which draws it's information from reliable primary and secondary sources.
 * This is all quite clear, and I'm not quite sure where your disconnect is here. We have a short section which is written with a biased unsourced lead, it contains a random list of information that is also unsourced, the information itself has no actual relevance to understanding the subject, the information is nothing more than a study guide, and even then the information is little more than WP:TRIVIA. So all told we have WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:WEASEL, WP:TRIVIA, WP:NPOV (in terms of weight given to the aspect).


 * As far as Every Good Boy Does Fine (which is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), would imply that it's a rather notable mnemonic. On the other hand, ,  the rest are far too simply named to search like that. However, a cursory search does not turn up any results that would indicate these mnemonics have ever been significantly discussed or used, nor that they are "popular" not remotely relevant to an encyclopedic article on adverse possession. Heck even a normal google search tuns up this article as the first result for them, this is a clear indication they don't belong here.--Crossmr (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As offered, I will leave it with you. A few points in response to your comments:
 * Your notion that, "it fails WP:NOTHOW because it's a how-to guide to study this topic.", is a bit aggressive: that it vaguely resembles a how-to does not inherently make it deletable. WP:NOTHOW is not intended as a CSD, but a guide as to the aims and forms an article should avoid, it cannot be "failed", and it is not a licence simply to delete broadly).  Your use of biased/weasel makes little sense here, given the trivial, innocent nature of the (quite probable) assertion, these are some common mnemonics....  Again, are you really making the encyclopedia better here?
 * (I should add here that much of Passé composé is actually contrary to WP:NOTHOW, hence the appropriate {Copied to Wikibooks} tag. When that process is completed, much of the content will be gone, but the illustration La Maison and a bit on the van der Tramps will remain, as the simple notability makes them germane to the topic itself.)
 * Your google test on Google Scholar isn't useful as a WP:Notability test, though googling more broadly (like, on Google, shows several hits on law boards, with law students discussing having learned some of these in law school. How the topic is commonly taught is germane to the topic. Your notion that it is, not remotely relevant to an encyclopedic article on adverse possession, uses an extremely narrow construction of topic. Again, think Dr & Mrs Vandertramp.
 * "Heck even a normal google search tuns up this article as the first result for them, this is a clear indication they don't belong here.". This only shows that Wikipedia has good google placement, not that they don't belong.  It does illustrate the danger of OR getting indexed broadly (hence WP:CIRCULAR), and I do know the annoyance of checking out a dubious assertion on Wikipedia, only to be google-flooded for pages with the echo of it in every service downstream that picked up the content.
 * You are correct that there are (at the moment) no sources, but how useful is it to aggressively (i.e. immediately) delete anything only because it is unsourced? Why even ever use {Needsource}? Simple deleting this content immediately on the criteria you've posed is far more disruptive than my reverting you. Which is the disruption: that you were reverted, or that the content remained while we discussed the edit.  The former shouldn't matter to any of us (though I would be annoyed too =)).
 * As to EGBDF, the argument I made used it as an example of something that is a commonplace of the topic, not mearly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
 * To sum up, WP:V (so ask for sources), WP:NOT (you are misapplying WP:NOTHOW, this is most of the problem), WP:OR (you don't yet know which are OR, but are willing to cull the lot just in case), WP:WEASEL (you don't have reason to doubt it is a commonplace), WP:TRIVIA (is not intended as a CSD), WP:NPOV (this was just puzzling).
 * Finally, I think the conflict here (between us) is that you seem to argue immediately in terms of deprecating content and justifying deletion, rather than asking how it might in fact be sourceable and relevant. You misunderstand my comment on the contributions of passing law students:  often times the valuable info arrives before all the precise sourcing, or even before it finds its correct form and tenor. Overaggressive deletion (rather than just asking for sources, making it less HOWTO-ish, etc) undermines the coalescence that is a natural part of what Wikipedia is all about.  There ought to be a WP:LETITRIDE explaining how to avoid overaggressive pruning so as not to disrupt that coalescence where no harm is being done. -SM  08:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTHOW is policy, not a guideline. See the top of the page. This isn't a CSD issue, because I'm not deleting an article, I'm removing content from an article. The assertion was not that they are commonplace mnemonics. It clearly stated they were "popular" mnemonics. Even if the assertion was that they were "commonplace" it still hasn't been sourced. This is editor opinion and original research. And yes, to improve an encyclopedia, and articles content must be both added and removed. Not all content is appropriate for the encyclopedia it's why we have several policies and guidelines covering that very aspect.
 * WP:NOTABILITY refers to article level notability, in this case when i used the word notability I was refer more to WP:NPOV under "Undue weight". With not scholarly sources, or any reliable sources discussing these mnemonics our devoting an entire section to them is undue weight. Not that there was any evidence a single one of them was true to begin with.
 * After years of experience you start to get a sense for the kind of things that can be sourced and the kind of things that can't. These kinds of sections can rarely be sourced well, and I'm under no obligation to tag them. If you feel they should be there, then you can go out and find the sources, if they exist, to support the inclusion. That is policy. You've twice questioned whether or not you thought I was being helpful or improving the encyclopedia, and yet you've twice violated our policy that requires you as the restoring editor to find those sources. Even after you acknowledged that that was indeed the case. These mnemonics appearing on law forums is irrelevant because using that as a source would violate WP:OR, WP:RS. Forums are never a reliable source for anything, and trying to use multiple postings to claim that it was a correct and reliable piece of text would be synthesis.
 * WP:V under no obligation to ask for sources
 * WP:NOT it's a policy, and this is clearly a study guide, they're presented in no other context, and not presented in anyway that could further one's understanding of Adverse possession
 * WP:OR none are sourced, so for the time being they're all OR.
 * WP:WEASEL the word used was "popular" and I have no reason to believe they are popular, it's why I removed them.
 * WP:TRIVIA this isn't about CSD, CSD talks about article level things, trivia refers to these kinds of "Fact" lists in articles. Even if they were sourced as true, they would still be inappropriate for the article. As for the french article, look at how the reference to that mnemonic is actually organized. It's highlighted while presenting the actual information and then a single short statement is made about it. It's not sitting alone in a section unreferenced with a biased statement describing it.
 * And yes, a google scholarly search is a general indication of notability, as most of the sources on google scholars, and google news are reliable sources and thus would show coverage in reliable sources. A general google search is NOT an indication of notability because those sources could be anything. The individual sources need to be investigated, but with 401 results for EGBDF, it's quite likely that at least a few meet the criteria, and with no results for the others it's quite clear that it's unlikely that any reliable scholarly sources of note discuss any of these mnemonics.
 * So in fact we have multiple problems here:
 * 1 - Are any of these mnemonics in actual use according to a reliable source?
 * 2 - is there any evidence that any of them are in fact "popular"? A conclusion that would have to be drawn by a reliable source
 * 3 - How do these mnemonics help the reader better understand the concept of Adverse possession? And "being able to remember it" certainly isn't a sufficient answer. The content fails all of those 3 things miserably, especially point 3. That is why I removed it.--Crossmr (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe you are sincerely trying to make the encyclopedia better, but I don't think you are quite succeeding as well as you might do.


 * While I am not suggesting that we WP:ignore all rules, I am suggesting that their letter is getting in the way of your understanding their intent. For example, by reverting you, I did not violate WP:BURDEN, or anything else: I declined to meet the burden just then simply on the balance of rational probabilities that the mnemonics and their assertion (of popularity) was correct, useful and sourceable, leaving you with a judgement call on whether to rerevert rather than ask for sources.  Reverting you was all I had time to do just then, and in my judgement it made the encyclopedia better in the interim than letting your deletion stand until sourced.  This was in part informed by my understanding of the topic area and its cultural context.


 * Similarly, I did not think of you as somehow in violation of WP:BURDEN or good practice where, "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself." WP:TRIVIA has explicit language that speaks against simply deleting trivia sections, but it did not occur to me that you were somehow violating WP:Trivia, so much as simply not applying it as well as you might have.  This notion of in violation is far too aggressive to toss around here, and borders on a failure to WP:AGF.  I'm not bothered, but it is something to thing about.


 * Your understanding of WP:NOT (and especially WP:NOTHOW) as something which somehow obliges or permits deletion because it is policy and therefore non-optional is overbroad. Worse, it fails to consider the topic in its context.  When you say, WP:NOT: it's a policy, and this is clearly a study guide, they're presented in no other context, and not presented in anyway that could further one's understanding of Adverse possession, you are in fact bringing some very narrow, subjective assumptions under cover of sound policy. The section of mnemonics is in part a cultural note: because Wikipedia must contain articles that are notable, they do somehow already sit in a culture context, references to which are more likely than not to enhance understanding of them by tying us back to those contexts (this tying back is often why an article is consulted in the first place). In this sense, I believe you are grossly misapplying "undue weight".  This is also why your google scholar test is less appropriate here. Again, van der Tramps.


 * -SM 20:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Section sign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IBus (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) 09:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=616347191 your edit] to Neapolitan language may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * **Ic. Abruzzese adriatico Southern province of Pescara: (Penne, Francavilla al Mare), province of Chieti
 * ! English Catholic

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lenora Fulani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fred Newman. 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) 10:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ansible (software), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page INI ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ansible_%28software%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ansible_%28software%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Guy Ritchie's The Covenant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Technicals.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @DPL bot Just fixed, thank you. -SM 06:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

IP block exempt
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking&#32;for a period of 3 months. If you still need an IP block exemption after it expires please file a new request. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. DatGuyTalkContribs 19:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)