User talk:Temeku

Underachiever
I made that edit because Bart Simpson is one of the best known underachievers in recent popular culture and sparked a series of T-shirts reading "underachiever and proud of it." However, I agree that the edit was at least somewhat unencyclopediatic. You may want to look over |this edit I made as well. --BenStein69 (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Physical (Olivia Newton-John song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Wave. 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, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from using unreliable sources in Wikipedia. In particular, the source you used is a self-published advocacy website. You should use a more reliable source if you want to make such an extraordinary claim. 183.171.164.29 (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-Formal Apology
This is just an apology for failure to confirm the validity of a source and a message of thanks for your subsequent correction of an edit I made using information from said source. I am of course referring to several of the titles of songs featured in the album entitled "Koyaanisqatsi: Original Motion Picture Score" on the Wikipedia page dedicated to the film. -Sapient Vulpine (talk • contribs) 22:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Cite template
Please use cite template instead of bare URLs. You can also use User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill. 115.164.86.171 (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Albums/SOURCE
Read WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE. 115.164.86.171 (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Jevons paradox/1
None of the required steps were taken before listing the article: no small errors were fixed, only one tag was added, WikiProject Economics was not notified, none of the contributors were notified (User:Lawrencekhoo at a minimum), and most of the issues given were not covered by the good article criteria. Examples:
 * "Incosistency: "100 percent" and "100%"." is a small error which should have been fixed before submission.
 * "Citations in the lead are unecessary per WP:LEADCITE" -- of course, they are explicitly permitted by those guidelines, and recommended when the claims are likely to be challenged (LK says that they have been, and I see no reason to doubt this).
 * "Energy Conservation Policy section is larger than all other sections" is not a WIAGA error.
 * "Several paragraphs lack citations" is not a WIAGA error, and doesn't even appear to be true.
 * "Several Unreliable sources" is a WIAGA error, but it's not actionable until it's made more specific. Which sources are unreliable, and why? Remember, the purpose of a GA review is to fix the article, not to delist it. Personally, I did not see any unreliable sources on a quick scan of the references section.

I did find one of your criticisms apt, and I made an edit to the article to correct it:.

I encourage you to re-submit the reassessment once you have followed the guidelines. Please be as specific as possible when pointing out errors and failings -- it's important to make your criticisms constructive so that they can be addressed.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The problems listed above were all submitted by User:Tomandjerry211 (except for the Energy Conservation Policy being too large problem, which I did submit). I did not notice problems with the citations, sources or inconsistency either. User:Lawrencekhoo has made significant corrections to the article since I listed the article for re-evalution, and I now find the article at least somewhat satisfactory. Still not confident in the Good Article status, but I will leave it at that for now. Temeku (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for understanding. If you choose not to re-list it, feel free to leave any remaining criticisms on Talk:Jevons paradox so they can be addressed. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:08, 5 June 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) 13:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

February 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. R2 (bleep) 18:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

R2 (bleep) 18:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Assad page
I thought I would respond to your edit summary on the Assad page: "Why leave Russia's response out? It's in the source and especially relevant here". I was the one who undid your edit originally, which I explained in my edit summary. To elaborate, the referenced CNN article was from October 2017 and was talking about a newly released report. The article says When the OPCW made a statement about its findings in June, Syrian ally Russia slammed that news as politically motivated and based on "doubtful data." The statement on the Assad page – United Nations and international chemical weapons inspectors found the attack was the work of the Assad regime – is referring to the October report, not the June statement. The CNN article does not support your text that Russia criticized the findings as being politically motivated and based on "doubtful data" considering that it was a response from June, several months before the report was released. CowHouse (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Marib Map
Hi, I removed your previous map because it was based on an unknown and unverified Twitter account. I am sorry for that. Thankfully, You came with a new map based on your own work. I really appreciate your hard work. But I want to know what are the sources you used to make that map. OKMG-1200 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is okay, my map was indeed heavily influenced by the SuriyakMap from before - I had assumed this was acceptable as it had been done by other contributors on other Yemen (and some Syria) battle map pages on Wikipedia, where they specifically mentioned SuriyakMaps in the description as the influence for the map (examples here, here, and here). Other Twitter accounts that I have not yet checked are mentioned in the influence/credit for other, similar maps as well. Their maps are much prettier than mine as I am fairly new to the Paint.net software. OpenStreetMap is good for obtaining the map templates of cities and regions as well. Even my map from 25 April is already out-of-date - in just the past 24 hours, Houthis captured Talat al-Hamra and Toumah Sulfah areas, now only 4 km from Marib city. As for SuriyakMaps' sources of information, he clarifies them via his Twitter (AFP, Reuters as more official sources, while also taking into account pro-Hadi and Houthi sources only which post video evidence of advances, attacks and captured points (rather than just unfounded claims) with the help of geolocating accounts). If this isn't acceptable for Wikipedia, then I apologize. I had gone under the assumption that this was acceptable as others have been actively using SuriyakMaps (and other map creators) as they have had a reputation for quite reliable and precise maps of conflict areas, usually updated on a daily basis. Temeku (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What about your new map? what are the sources you used for it? OKMG-1200 (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are a number of them reaffirming both recent Houthi advances and pro-Hadi counterattacks (and subsequent withdrawals): [Al Jazeera ] [Daily Sabah ] Middle East Eye The Defense Post - And those are just as of April 25. Sources already used in the reference section confirm other positions held in the area. Aside from those sources, front lines were largely influenced by the SuriyakMap. Temeku (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But I think there is a great mistake in your map. Your map shows Marib dam under Houthis control. However, all source you have used didn't say that Houthis have captured the dam. I checked other international media reporters during 24,25, and 26 of April, and I didn't find any thing saying Houthis Have taken control of the dam. OKMG-1200 (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I showed the Marib Dam being under Hadi control, it is on the northern side of the lake. You can see here. Houthis have gotten close but not been able to capture it yet, no reports of them attempting to in recent weeks either. Temeku (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry. I miss understood it. anyway, thank you for your great job. If I find anything else, I will tell you. bye.OKMG-1200 (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's alright. Hopefully the next map I provide will look better, I'll try and make the colors stand out a bit more (colors are too pale for my liking in my current version). I appreciate your input. Temeku (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for jumping in here out of the blue, just wanted to comment that Suriyak has indeed been accepted in the past on Wikipedia as a reliable source of territorial changes in various conflicts, including Syria and Yemen. Regardless if they are posting their updates on Twitter, although its their official Twitter account and not an unknown/unverified Twitter account. I think can also confirm this. And even if you cann't use their Twitter posts (which we have in the past) you still have their main (non-Twitter) online maps  which have also been heavily used by both Wikipedia as well as other mapping sites. In any case, great work on the map Temeku. Keep up the good work and best regards! EkoGraf (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2021 (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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)