User talk:Zakhalesh

Welcome to my talk page. New messages at the bottom, please.

Confirmed
No problem. Happy editing. BencherliteTalk 17:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I might as well give you a standard template so you've got the links for reference.

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!


 * Thank you! Zakhalesh (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

good catch!
Good catch on the Lawndale Art Center page. It looks like it has been a copyright violation from the start, tho I am unsure if we've ever had someone donate the content officially from their website. I didn't delete it outright, but blanked it and put up a copyright investigation notice so people can look at it in more detail. Syrthiss (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Glad to be of assistance! Zakhalesh (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait - don't delete!
I'm just writing the article now! April8 (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please take off the speedy deletion message from any forums etc.! April8 (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're talking about Atzmus, right? I'd recommend that you either create an article with some information in it without creating an empty draft in the article space, or draft it in your user space so you can work on it and preview it before moving it in the public. I'm not going to delete it, there are just so many new articles with nothing on them, it's hard to tell which ones are real and which ones are just tests. I'll put an under construction-tag in the article. It won't get deleted if people see you're still working hard on it. Best of luck! Zakhalesh (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I just spent 1 1/2 hours writing the article in this internet cafe, only to find I had lost it, as I tried to save it! (Don't press "keep me logged in" in internet cafe, so got logged out by accident, need to be logged in to create article, tried backtracking, and now beginning again! (I've done masses of wikipedia edits, but never really a new page before) April8 (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem! I hope it turns out good! Zakhalesh (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you help me please ?
Hello, Could you help me with the page I have created ? Telling me what is not so good and stuff? All the informations are correct (I work for Grameen Foundation australia), but I don't know if all of them are put in a way that satisfy Wikipedia ... I don't want it to be deleted! Please could you help me with your experience?

Maiinajou


 * Hello. Unfortunately, I don't know much about the subject of the article (Grameen Foundation Australia) but fortunately, the article seems to be pretty good and I wouldn't delete it myself. Sourcing properly is the key here - try to find websites, newspapers, books about the subject. However, remember to remain neutral, especially because you're affiliated with the subject of the article. Best of luck and happy editing! Zakhalesh (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for all those wise advices !
 * Best regards
 * Maiinajou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maiinajou (talk • contribs) 13:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian Christians
as you just witnessed, several IP numbers have been very active in wiki editing, often with severe POV and lack of civility. i started this page request, but so far, nothing has happened. some of the IPs have been banned, but only for a very short time (but they switch to another one anyway). any ideas of what to do? Soosim (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. We stick to the policies and guidelines, revert any edits that don't, and wait for the mediation to proceed. That's about the best we can do, I think. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Came up with the right dough? Bigger dick? I don't know, must have been the best flow.
Ghostface Killah is more important than your wikipædophilia, you child-shtupper. 85.107.209.89 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies
Looks like I somehow managed to revert an edit you made to WT:AIV. I didn't notice I had done that until today, and I literally have no idea how I managed to do it in the first place. It must have been a fat finger error, as there obviously was no reason to revert your comment. My apologies.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries mate. I thought you were doing it to keep the IP from going berserk at me. See you round! Zakhalesh (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Simutrans references
Hi, what kind of references do you want? We got one printed review... Here's an article with links: http://blog.simutrans.com/?p=323 VladimirSlavik (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks quite good, feel free to add it in the article! Zakhalesh (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Heckler & Koch HK21
This weapon is not, nor has never been used by Finnish Defence Forces. One website falsely claims otherwise and some users want to claim that this false claim is the truth. Obviously anyone can claim whatever from whatever, but isnt it claimers burden to proof without any doubt, that their claim is the truth? --91.153.26.148 (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've heard a lot of stuff about the truth. I, personally, have no expertise on which weapons the Finnish army does or doesn't use, so the best I can do is to stick to our guidelines. The information you removed was sourced, and your claims won't change it. On the other hand, since you probably know better than I do, I'm not going to argue about this. I'll mark the source as questionable so readers will know that the information may be false. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Israel Apartheid Week
having a running disagreement with an editor about whether the specific dates for all years need to be listed or if it is sufficient to say that the event is held annually. can you look [at this] and let me know what you think? thanks. Soosim (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, although I'm not too good at these things. I hope you reach a consensus. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Marilu Henner
Hi! I work for Marilu Henner and she asked me to edit her to update her Wikipedia page. All information about her has been approved by her and sources are her as well as imdb etc. I am new to Wikipedia - how do I ensure that this information is protected and unchanged?

Also, the picture was changed too and Angela George (who we do not know) keeps changing it back to a very unflattering photo, one that Marilu does not approve.

Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Thanks so much!

Erin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eringobrown (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You have several problems. First, you have a conflict of interest - your edits on Marilu Henner are very likely to be challenged as they aren't likely to be neutral, and if you pursue someone's private interests on an article, you'll most likely end up blocked. Protecting information and censoring images isn't an option, as no one, not even Marilu Henner herself, owns their Wikipedia article (see WP:OWN). Articles should only be built on reliable sources and consensus. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

== what can I say to convince you to change with the best intentions of the people, humanity, and the poor in mind; please read what I have to say and they support democracy, freedom, liberty, and most of all the democratic party ==

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.173.136 (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed your long soapboxing rant. It was too long and too out of topic to be of any interest to me. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

CITY MONTESSORI PUBLIC SCHOOL
I noticed you tagged the page as CSD:A7, schools are ineligible for that criteria. Thanks, ConconJondor (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting me! I was pretty sure that the WP:CSD page mentions schools under A7, and turns out I was right in that... except schools. Dang. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, I also did a bit of research (googled it) and found that there's an article for the school already, CSD:A10, so in the end we'll get the same result. ConconJondor (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Haminuhhumperdinkleboobityboo
Hi Zakhalesh. I had been watching that page since I tagged it as a hoax, and I have to say I applaud your effort to engage with the creator of that page in a helpful matter. Hopefully your helpful comments will guide him in the right direction. The only suggestion I can make is that in similar cases, you may consider engaging him on his own talk page, since if you engage on the article's talk page, your helpful words will get deleted along with the article in question. (Just in case he didn't get a chance to note your username before the page was wiped and he has additional questions or thanks to offer.) Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your friendly advice! I'll try to keep this in mind! Yours, Zakhalesh (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

re. Feliksas Baltušis-Žemaitis
Hi, Zakhalesh. I removed the category because collaborationism signifies working with the enemy against your own country.

Feliksas Baltušis-Žemaitis was an ethnic Lithuanian, but was never a Lithuanian citizen. He was a citizen of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. As a military officer, he served the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, so he could not have been collaborator.

Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. What do you think of moving the article to Felix Baltushis-Zhemaytis, a transliteration from the Russian that is likelier to occur in English-language sources than the Lithuanian Feliksas Baltušis-Žemaitis? His entire life was, after all, associated with service to Russia and the USSR, rather than the interwar Lithuanian republic, so I suppose that it makes sense to favor the phonetic Russian-style variant. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough about the subject to be of use, I'm afraid. I suppose you know better than I do. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Referring to vandalism
Editing of others' talk pages without due cause is considered vandalism. Further more I did not remove or at least not intentionally remove anyone elses talk page comments. I reverted the talk page from it's last edit to bring back discussions that the previous user had removed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This edit of yours is on an article talk page and I see no vandalism in the comment you removed. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

When I revised the talk page the topics, NPOV and what is this was missing from the bottom of the page. My only reason to revise it was to bring back the discussion. I never intended to remove any users contributions to that discussion only to insure that discussion was on the talk page. Be it user error on my part, browser error, formatting error on the other users part, or what ever else my attempts were merely to bring the discussion back to the talk page. The message with my revision should very well make that clear. Thank you for your assistance.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, happens to everyone I guess. See you round! Zakhalesh (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A7
Hi, on Samet Atasoy you have raised a CSD A7 but the text calls them a legendary figure rather than a 'real person' that the criteria of CSD A7 require. You might want to re-visit the article and choose another category. Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it seemed pretty much like a vanity article, and it's deleted already so the deleting admin must've agreed as well. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, though I would probably have thought it a hoax. Cheers Fæ (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, hoax would've been suitable as well. We don't have a CSD criterion for madeup stuff, do we? Zakhalesh (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is always a fine line to tread, I tend to apply hoax or personal attack where a description of a fictional character tends to these categories. Unfortunately if someone makes up a load of rubbish about a fictional character (or thing) the onus tends to fall on the person raising for deletion to find a way of demonstrating un-verifiability. There are some good examples of cryptids than on first glance look like something someone made up one day (which in essence they are) but have turned out to be discussed in reliable sources. Fæ (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, this was quite obviously a vanity article. In any case, your help is appreciated. See you round! Zakhalesh (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackstone Apartments
I've declined your speedy for spam as the article seems to be quite a historical account of the building, and possibly well-referenced. (As they are hard copy, I can't check them.) If you feel there's a lack of notability, feel free to prod or AfD it - or to argue with me if you think I'm wrong. Peridon (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think I overreacted a bit. I do think the article may be a bit slanted, and I'm not at all sure how notable can that apartment block be, but I'm not going to annoy the creator of the article with further persecution. Thanks for contacting me! Zakhalesh (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It stops talk pages becoming endangered... Keep up the good work but be careful. Peridon (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Katrina Patchett
Hi. Thanks for patrolling new pages. I have placed a WP:BLPPROD tag on  Katrina Patchett, which is all that is required for a totally unreferenced article of this kind, and if you use WP:Twinkle, the creator will be notified automatically. We are currently  on a drive to  improve the quality of New Page Patrolling  -  you  can help: Please review the criteria at WP:CSD, and check out WP:NPP for up to  date instructions on  page patrolling, and don't  hesitate to  ask  me for help  anytime if you  are still  not  sure about anything. --Kudpung (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I would've placed BLPPROD tag myself, but since the creator of the article stated that they'd be adding refs soon, I didn't bother. I'll review the article soon to see if there's been any improvement. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Zakhalesh. Totally unreferenced BLP can be tagged immediately with WP:BLPPROD, and preferably while there is a chance the creator is online. Most BLP are created by WP:SPA and they never come back when they have finished. Do visit those pages I provided the links for - we have included a lot of new information. Keep up the good work! --Kudpung (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know I could've tagged the page for being unreferenced, and I've been quite trigger happy with it at times. However, as I said, I don't think it would've helped anything as the user said they were already adding refs. Unless the user bails out now, all that the template would've done was being an ugly block on top of the page while the user works. Well, I won't blame anyone for adding BLPPROD as it's certainly justified, but I personally preferred to not use it for now. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPROD is quite different from a standard PROD. Unsourced articles get 10 days before they get procedurally deleted, while they only need the addition of just one proper, verifiable WP:RS to have the tag removed. The creator of a serious article will find that source in seconds flat - BLPPROD works wonders! --Kudpung (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know what BLPPROD is, and I've used it before. But as I said, I don't think it would've helped anything as the user said they were already adding sources. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Creators say a lot of things when they are determined to get a spammy article into the Wikipedia. BTW, you might just like to check out who you tagged for Puppy place, and the article history ;) --Kudpung (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed right after I nominated it, I restored the pre-vandalized version. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

TB
Freelance-writer-editor (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

{Talkback|Freelance-writer-editor (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)}}

PROD Marriage in the world
Dear Zakhalesh,

I reverted the edit by user Alligator99 on the Marriage in the world article because the user hasn't provided a reason the remove the PROD template, as explained on their talk page. As you may have noticed, I did remove the vandalism notice on their talk page, which was placed automagically by Igloo.

Xionbox₪ 18:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Users may contest PROD without providing any reason, even article creators. See WP:PROD. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thank you for clearing this up for me. I'll be more cautious from now on. Xionbox₪ 19:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Happens to everyone :). Perhaps it would be better if some reason was needed, but on the other hand, AfD isn't much harder. The article'll be gone in a week, unless someone reworks it into something actually representing marriages around the world, not just a single POV. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland
I don't think the ethnic groups is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.230.182 (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Mention it in the edit summary, or even better, start a thread on the article's talk page. I've got no objections for removing the section if you've got a proper reason to do so - someone else might, though. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"NPA"
Hi, Zakhalesh. You caught me during my weekly look-in at this madhouse... There's a long, long story behind that edit-summary, involving that editor bullying, edit-warring and pushing his own bias & POV onto Wikipedia, all quite successfully, and all with the approval of the "community". (e.g., Though never contributing actual content, he is a rabid "Inclusionist" when it comes to any insignificant U.S. country-western song, but the harshest of "deletionists" when it comes to award-winning, nationally-released Japanese Pink cinema.) That edit-summary is just a little bit from one of many contributors who have been pushed over the edge of "civility", and driven off Wikipedia due to the biased actions of that editor (among other who behave similarly). His "civil" actions have cost Wikipedia the loss of a contributor of over 600 well-sourced articles on Korean, Japanese, & U.S. cinema (mainstream & not), etc. over 5 years/3 IDs. While my "incivil" comments do nothing but, hopefully, offend a bully. I'll leave now before I'm blocked... which I've come to enjoy ;) ... Dekkappai (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine, I don't want to get dragged into this. I hope you get this settled peacefully. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Possiable Confusion on Rothschild articles
I am deleting racist miteral on these articles, adn you are interfereing with my progress, please stop. --96.38.173.3 (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The "racist" material you're deleting doesn't appear racist to me, and unlike you've claimed, is sourced. You've gotten your final warning, so don't remove any material again. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have every right to delete racist miteral. You have no athourity over me, you are not an admin. Please stop interfering with my progress.--96.38.173.3 (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You have no right to remove sourced material and I never claimed to be an admin. Since your disruption continues, I have reported you for vandalism. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Your accusations are groundless, andracist, and your report will fail. i have noting ffurther to say to you.--96.38.173.3 (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, don't say anything to me, but please be kind and stop removing sourced information before getting blocked. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

i will remove sourced miteral when those sources are not reliable. It is done all the time on wikipedia. that is my final statement on this matter.--96.38.173.3 (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Discussion before deleting tons of sourced material would be appropriate. Also, your claim of "unreliable sources" is rather bad - you've removed a boatload of them, including for example The Times. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I made posts on the discussin area, but you arrogently deleted them. You are in the wrong here and i dont see productivity in talking to you.--96.38.173.3 (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not delete any of your discussion area posts. You, on the other hand, refactored other editors' comments, which is in itself grounds for a block. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I did post in the discussion area for the rothschild article. yo do not have a free hadn to makek up facts. I will say nothing further on this. htis nonsens should not be dignified with reponses.you are ot of line--96.38.173.3 (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not remove any talk page comments of yours, unless we count the misplaced comment on the AIV page which was where it did not belong. You're the one who's making up facts about the articles being racist and sources being unreliable. I also find it rather funny that this is the third time you said you have nothing more to say. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Myself
I am Anthony Bradbury, yes, and am the only one that I know. What you mean by the Anthony Bradbury is not quite clear to me. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I believe that you are thinking of Malcolm? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm fairly sure I've enjoyed some book of Anthony Bradbury, but then again, my brain could've just confused you with a ceratin other Bradbury. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK; but sadly, not me. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing posts on one's own talk page is not vandalism
I don't believe that your edit here is correct. 96.38.173.3's removal of material from User talk:96.38.173.3 is not vandalism. Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it. See Personal talk page cleanup at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Exerting dominance over an editor on their own talk page may have inflamed the situation. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are not correct, Uzma Gamal. In general, the talkpage of an IP is not usually considered the IP's own because of the shared nature of them.  In addition, it looked to me like the edit you cited is problematic in that the IP changed the message written by another user (I Dream of Horses) to significantly change the message. Syrthiss (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It wasn't vandalism for 96.38.173.3 to remove the prior post. It may have been better had you just remove "Thank you for your productive edits on he rothsschild aritcle. You are an asset to the wikipedia communtiy.I dream of horses." from the talk page. Your use of is offensive to me and violates Assume good faith. Instead of attacking anyone and everyone, you might want to take a Wikibreak from your current efforts. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * lol I was referring to myself as a talk page stalker. Your offense at me is offensive and I think you might want to take a wikibreak yourself!  or not!  nyahh! Syrthiss (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Refactoring other people's comments most clearly is vandalism and I'm very much aware that only certain things should be restored if deleted by page "owner" (DB templates, Shared IP notices, sock investigations etc). I assume you didn't notice the refactoring of comment - if it hadn't been for that, I would've most gladly let the IP remove anything, no matter how much I was annoyed at their outburst against me and refusal to "get it". Zakhalesh (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and yes - the talk page stalker template refers to the user of the template (as in "I'm not the person you sought but I'd like to comment a bit"). It is you who should assume good faith. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Revision history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valley_School_(Technology_College)&action=history

Please could you delete all the "revision" history by "wiryjames" on this page, as it is offensive towards staff, and people at this school, Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZookeyGuy (talk • contribs) 15:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you ask me, because I can't. Only administrators can delete revisions. You should ask for that on WP:AN (I think) or contact an administrator in person just like you've done, except try to land for an admin this time ;) happy editing! Zakhalesh (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And for the record, ZookeyGuy was indef blocked for being a vandalism-only account. Not so happy editing after all? Zakhalesh (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * He was probably happy until the time I blocked him. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, their spirits might've been a bit down after learning that I'm not the Anointed Janitor they assumed I was :). Zakhalesh (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian
User was warned but continually blocks all users who warn him. Need admin assistance. Vandalism of BLP would include blog sources and libelous material correct ? In the article the sources dont even support what he claims it does in the actual article. greenbay1313 (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC) My understanding of BLP for libel purposes is libelous material can be removed immediately but article is locked. greenbay1313 (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC) User is biased and states as such.


 * Read WP:VANDAL, it explains what is vandalism and what is not. Also, I see none of those warnings or blocks - could you provide me with diffs of these? Zakhalesh (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Have posted to various discussion boards and user continually discussed things I dont understand wikipedia terms. Am simply asking to review the page because of libel concerns regarding WIkipedia. The articles references dont state what the text does. --greenbay1313 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Because I don't know much about the subject, I'd appreciate the diffs that prove bad conduct on Ravpaka's part. Otherwise I'll just sit here fiddling my thumbs.Zakhalesh (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

He admiteed so on BLP page and if you read the Torossian page you will see multiple blog sources and inaccurate statements. Click on the sources and compare to what he states. greenbay1313 (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any signs of admitting being a vandal (why would they do that anyway) or any other blatantly bad editing - on the other hand, there've been a lot of SPAs roaming around the article pushing their POV. If you don't provide those diffs about their bad editing, I'm not going to care at all. Not that it matters, because all I can do is reason with them. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Greenbay has been forum and admin shopping this issue, and as a result there are a good number of complaints about this same issue in many places. Because the issue is mainly a BLP issue, I've been directing any discussion to BLPN. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 20:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I noticed that too. Funnily enough, they're the second person in a row that mistook me for an admin. Something you guys haven't told me? Zakhalesh (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It happens. Just an indication that you're a good editor, I suppose! – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 15:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, many new editors also seem to be unsure on what Special Powers admins have. Even handing out warning templates & tagging pages for speedy may seem adminish to some... Zakhalesh (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Help
Hi. Can you help me? I am being accused of vandalism without warrant. I have used reliable sources with my edits, and these complaints are ridiculous. I have also recently edited a paragraph on the Generation Y page to include various start dates. Please see my last few edits. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I'm rather busy right now, but I'll see if I have time. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's no problem. I appreciate any help. I added my own response with proof and invite administrators to look at my edits. This anonymous user has been warned by another editor for deleting my comments on another user's talk page, and has been spamming several talk pages with the same complaints and soliciting other editors. Thanks again. Have a great day. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a response on the complaint board. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Good. Let's continue the discussion there. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles copied from more than one source
Hi. Re that film article just now, where there is more than one source, you can actually put them both in the db tag, like this:. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I'll bear this is mind. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hillard
I tried to ask for help, but I was ignored. Is the only thing here that anyone knows the delete key?

I asked where the information about the lawsuit should go, and was told Tolkien pages; the information was deleted from Trust and estate. I was told to put it under the author. I thanked the editor who told me to put it under the author's name, (but that thank you was overwritten by an edit. Gee, imagine that.It is a charming trait of Wikipedia gods to rewrite history)

So I put the author in as a stub as plainly as I could. So please, someone give me a place where I can get some feedback? Clearly no one is so dazzled about my interest in wikipedia as to mentor me, or but at least someone could explain what is so horrible about this author having a page talking about the legal issues raised by this book?

It is bizarre that Tolkien himself is sacred and is not allowed to be written as a character or that they would sue over the use of his name in a book. It may not be that significant a book, but why is Tolkien so sacred he cannot be used as a fictional character?

Or is it just that everything I touch has a target on it now? Why? When did the core of wikipedia turn despotic?

Surely there are published manuscripts where another author has gone on to extend the fictional worlds created by another author?

How many times have plays been rewritten (like the wiz) from alternative points of view and points in time, but how is Tolkien held sacred and apart from this? What is so bizarre about writing the author as a character and putting him into his own mythos? For G-ds sake, it is FICTION. No one is saying this was a true event-

WHat is the deal with all of these guardians (not Tolkien guardians, but Wikipedia guardians) who won't let a word be spoken about Tolkien when there are fictional treatments of real characters in all historical fiction and much contemporary fiction? Or did they just contribute a lot of money to wikipedia?

Not every work is archival, I am aware of that, but there is significance. Why are you sweeping under the rug a fight over the right of writers to use a historical figures in a piece of fiction? If it is just me, then rewrite it to your own taste, but at least stop unwriting news/history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelance-writer-editor (talk • contribs) 15:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've asked an article you created to be deleted because the subject didn't satisfy the notability guideline, that's all. I know nothing about the rest of the story, so I suggest you discuss it on Tolkien's talk page. If you have questions of a more general nature, I suggest you ask WP:HELPDESK. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to your suggestion
Posted a proposed Torossian article here for compromise. Welcome edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greenbay1313/Sandbox greenbay1313 (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It lacks the references. See WP:REFB for help with those. Zakhalesh (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All of the references can be added before the page goes live. Rest assured they are all valid and accurate. Thoughts on the rest ? greenbay1313 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The article won't go live without references, rest assured. That would contradict our policy on verifiability. Zakhalesh (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course I understand - So can you review it for concepts and then what you think is ok I can add references ? greenbay1313 (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't consider myself much of a reviewer apart from technical matters, but any issues can of course be fixed after publication. However, I advise you not to move your draft in the article until it has references and some consensus has been established on which facts from the old article should stay and which ones should go. Zakhalesh (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

OK so whats your feedback to it ? Thats why I did it ? easy to add referencesonce we agree on content ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbay1313 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Writing an article works best if you write using sources instead of writing without sources and then trying to find sources to back up the claims. I'm sorry, but I can't agree with unreferenced content. If you want an honest appraisal of your version, I suggest you ask on the noticeboard once you've added the references, but note that many people there are angry with your behaviour. I think everyone deserves a fair chance at proposing changes to the article, but since the article will be edited by other people as well it should be reviewed by people concerned by it's current state first. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As promised - Greatly appreciate commentary and feedback http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greenbay1313/Sandbox greenbay1313 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!
Thank you! Zakhalesh (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Casey Wescott
Hi Zakhalesh--just a note to let you know that I have made the article into a redirect to Fleet Foxes; I've explained why, at some length, in my edit summary. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Precisely the result I expected, although I guess I could've done the redirect myself as well. Zakhalesh (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: May I ask for reasoning?

 * Hi there Zakhalesh. Hmm, well, I thought the incident is not all that significant in the "big picture", just a relatively junior military officer indiscreetly mouthing off. Although it was covered by the media, there must be many hundreds, if not thousands of other newsworthy stories and incidents related to Halonen (she's been president for over ten years and prior to that, an MP and a minister), and to me, this incident doesn't seem be among the more important ones. As for other controversy, differences between her and the recent conservative governments should perhaps be pointed out. --KFP (contact | edits) 23:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Uh, did you read the other controversy item? It's about Tarja Halonen's (allegedly) aggressive personality, not about her political stance. I don't remember hearing anything about the first item but the senior lieutenant being a jerk has been publicized widely. However, I appreciate your feedback. Zakhalesh (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, The addition I put in the world music page was not copyrighted. I know the organisation Cultural Co-operation and I have written this addition to what I personally know. Please accept this addition. Thank you --User:panicfff —Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC).


 * I found it on the Internet, and even if not copyrighted, it should at least be rewritten. Also, if you're affiliated with the organization, you should read about conflicts of interest. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Extermination Camps
I wish that before you did this you had taken the trouble to see that you were changing a title that had existed as a consensus for years to a version that was being requested by an editor who was making multiple tendentious edits along the same lines for which he had no consensus and have now all been reverted, all that is except the page move you undertook without consensus. It will now require the intervention of an administrator to clean up the mess you made. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Terribly sorry, if it's of any interest to you I did the move at another editor's request which was, as far as I know, based on that 1. the article is only about German extermination camps and 2. it would follow the naming scheme of Nazi concentration camp. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, first of all, apologies for the snark. Second, I was wrong; I was able to move it back without administrator help. I knew this was done at another user's request, but it might have been better to look into the history a little more closely. The current title of the article has been stable for years which is usually considered an indication of consensus. Also, the requesting editor had been going through a number of articles changing "Nazi" to "Nazi-German" in what appeared to be some kind of tendentious campaign. I don't know if it had happened yet when you made the move, but all those edits have been undone, which is a strong indication that there was no consensus for those changes. Once again, I apologize profoundly for my intemperate reaction. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's ok :) I'm going to be more careful in the future. Thanks for your advice! Zakhalesh (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Should i go to bed barefoot or with socks on?
Some of my friends were saying its strange to go to bed barefoot but i think its wierd with socks so which do you do??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesley1997 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm a compromise person, I sleep with one sock on. However, let's not get too chatty and concentrate on the encyclopedia, ok? Zakhalesh (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

hello
There is no consensus, because I dont consent. I have repeatedly made use of other evidence and strong logical points to explain my argument -thus i am doing nothing wrong. I strongly recommend that you please go read the latest sentences i added to the talk page - you people have no basis for an argument here, and your "arguments" are not substantiated. I will now, as soon as I have free time, go take this matter to an admin, to push one thoery, as though it was a proven fact, and ignoring other theories (and I must add-more obvious ones) is an outrage, i will not lett this pass on as though it is nothing. You people just ignore my points and refuse to even think about them - whose fault is that?

Regards Smart Nomad (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Consensus doesn't mean that everyone must consent. It's a consensus of arguments - your claims of "common sense" are opposed by credible researchers. Do not take this to an admin. Admins are for cleaning up bad articles and blocking disruptors, not for deciding content issues. You'll just end up embarrassing yourself. As I said, continue pushing your original research in the article and you're likely to be blocked for edit warring. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition, since Wikipedia's verifiability policy is based on community consensus, yes, there is a consensus forcing us and you to stick to sources. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything that you say and rever is against the wiki rule of: ignore all rules. I will not end up embarrasing myself, trust me, since I have developed a strong argument, based on reason and logic, and have shown the weakness of the other theory. I have also made use of other evidence and have explained my points in a clear, understandable manner; so I dont think I will be embarresed. What - are you scared of an admin intervening on this matter (because my only requests are: leave the section saying that it is possible that they were another ethnicity due to their features and leave the sentence that says they were linguistically Turkic, so that other possibilities are left open and so that nothing is pushed as fact (because nothing is proven) (and they are linguistically Turkic also, which isnt wrong) - those two things are a fair request and not too much to ask, neither has it changed the article in a drastic way. I have added more to the Cuman talk page.


 * Can't say I didn't warn you. I've reported your edit warring. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Politics of Virtual thing
They did a c&p into userspace, so I moved that that to a new title (added a 2 on the end - how original...), and then moved the article itself to their title to preserve the history. When they're ready, I'll delete their c&p one. I've explained this to the two IPs who helped the newbie (and will probably turn out to be socks of someone absolutely dire, knowing my luck). Peridon (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for helping them. Zakhalesh (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

about: Meskhetian Turks
I wrote:

added detail --- wikipedia patrollers must be neutral in every aspect *AND* in every article related to any ethnicity and religion, they do not have the luxury of denoting events they want as they wish.

you responded:

The source only states forced deportation, which, while cruel and in this case very much lethal, doesn't equal genocide.

Now:

There are tens of examples in which forced deportations have been claimed to be genocides. Many of them have been alleged as such just because national assemblies of some countries or some NGO's claim they are genocides, not because they are proven or universally accepted as such. Those articles credit sources of obviously subjective and unverifiable nature, some of them even being just newspaper articles. So, in your regard, they cannot be denoted as genocides, whereas in Wikipedia, all of them are claimed to be so.

So:

I hereby call upon Wikipedia officials to be neutral and objective.

And I let this unfair treatment of yours remain as something to bother yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.30.111.117 (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not an "official" and you're being treated as well as everyone else. Now, about neutrality and objectivity, the best way to ensure that is by not mixing our own opinions in but sticking to the sources, which I have done. The source mentions nothing of genocide, so it's the wording we should use. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mila Jovovich - Anti-communist?
The woman had implied that her family was represed by the cummunist regime and that that's why they left SSSR in 1980 and the source that supports it is her speech at Gorbachov's birthday celebration.BHillbillies (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why are you contacting me instead of the article's talk page? I've left an explanation there why sources are necessary - in a nutshell, WP:BLP and WP:OR. Please respond there. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Policewives.org
I have tried to make a Wikipedia page for Policewives.org a couple of times. I am a moderator on that site and was asked to do so by the owner of the site. Every time I try to it gets deleted for plagerism. I'm not plagerizing, I'm representing the site.

Policewives (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Jessica Policewives.org Moderator


 * I was about to reply but I see you've been given the user name block already and you've been warned about WP:COI, WP:NPOV et cetera, so you should be fine now. Sorry for the late reply though. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Michelle Renee Fuller
I don't see why you deleted the information i stated that it was my girlfriend and someone i knew and that it had no details in it that offended anyone. Joephiss (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Joseph Stafford http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joephiss


 * I'm not an administrator and I can't delete articles or read articles that were deleted. However, Wikipedia has a strict policy on content about living people which I and everyone else should adhere to - if it's unsourced, it's usually gone. Negative content (both blatant and subtle) and violations of privacy (outing of religion, sexual preferences, political stance) are often the first unsourced things to go. However, the reason the page itself was deleted was the lack of notability. As I said, I can't read deleted pages so I can't go back and see what I actually deleted, but courtesy deletion I've made in the past has been because of privacy concerns or unsourced information that could have negative effects on the person's image. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, seeing that you were warned by several editors about attacking, I'm fairly sure that it's what you actually did. Wikipedia does not host attacks against people, or unverifiable negative content. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Testing the template on myself
Hello Zakhalesh and welcome to Wikipedia. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections.

Zakhalesh (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hipster (Modern Usage)
I'm new to Wiki and I tried to add a minor and acccurate historical record to the entry on Hipster (Modern Usage). The edit read as follows: "As early as 1994 and 1995, the Hare Krishna devotees used the term to refer to a class of cool, laid back friendly Indie-loving kids who came to Lollapalooza (and other) concerts and who were predictably receptive to the books the Hare Krishna's would sell as concert-goers arrived in their cars. It was not uncommon for devotees to say "Oh there's a group a hipsters, I got them!."

The source for the accuracy of this edit was me. I was a Hare Krishna at the time and I was using the term in this way during this time. The most vivid memory I have of using the term in this way was during a Lollapallooza concert at Deer Creek amphitheatre Trip108 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Trip108


 * Hello. Since you're a quite new user, you probably were unaware of our policy on original research (WP:OR) and verifiability (WP:V). In short, you should find a reliable source to back up this claim. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving
hello,

to answer your question you raised on my talk page: Good question, but I think it is impossible, see also Help:Move, where it says, that it creates a redirect automatically. However, it is possible to CSD-tag them (that's why R2 and R3) existing. Regards. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's good that you noticed it because I might've missed it. Thanks! See you round. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

AIV
Just to let you know, t'was a good report, and UAA wouldn't have been the right place anyway. :P Blocked. =) -- slakr \ talk / 10:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I thought so too, username seems to be a rather mild issue for someone who keep creating blatant vandalism. Thanks! Zakhalesh (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right though; the report was acted upon before I could comment "You are right" :P  Yes Michael? •Talk 10:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Zakhalesh (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Freddie and the Dreamers
My attention has been brought to some recent edits on the Discussion page by user Quinn2go, the user is impersonating me and trying to discredit the page for reasons i know not, I would be greatful if you could posssibly trace the IP numbers I no longer visit this page as the content is a disgrace and & insult to the memory of my Friend Freddie Garrity, If I post to the page I always log in. You can contact me via email if this mis representation of myself & website persits info@quinntastic.co.uk I have a good idea who is behind the baby house rubbish published on the discussion board Peronally I would shut the site down for editing Regards Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikequinn10 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Mike. I'm sorry, but I'm not a Wikipedia official or administrator of any sorts and I can't trace their IP or be of any assistance beyond removing any offensive or unconstructive editing. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Are there any wiki official you know of who I can contact and make a complaint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.104.154 (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Eh, hold on, I'll look around and see. Meanwhile, I'd suggest you to read WP:BLP (biographies on living persons) which may contain something useful in this case - or maybe not, but it's worth a shot. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, by the way, Quinn2go is probably going to get blocked for persistent misconduct. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet another attempt of somone trying to impersonate me "Quinntastic" user is not me, I guess its another attempt from the previous poster. this s beyond the joke now, By the way the Kasuals link on the article page has no reference or relavence to Freddie and the Dreamers, I believe its the same person sock puppeting.and needs removing from the page,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikequinn10 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. As far as I can see, Quinntastic is likely to be a block-evading sock so I'm asking an investigation about it. However, I can't ask for them to be blocked simply because their name cotnains "Quinn", I'm afraid. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * But as you can appriciate my web site is Quinntastic & doesnt bode well for onlookers thinking I might be behind all the chilish behavior on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikequinn10 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, Quinntastic is blocked as well as a result of a severe case of sock puppetry. By the way, you should sign your posts with four tildes ~ - it automatically turns into a signature with a timestamp like mine. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for thatMikequinn10 (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't mention it! If you see more socks (you can use the duck test to identify them), drop a mention either to me or WP:ANI. The latter may respond quicker and attract more eyes to the issue with the talk page soapboxer. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Norton
This page has been cleaned up with references given. What more is needed to help this page? It seemed you mentioned that there should be no self-promotion, yet on several biographies, that's all I see. With few references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittieskarma (talk • contribs) 10:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked the page and removed the unreferencedBLP tag (and replaced with refimprove because there's still work to be done) and removed the COI tag (because I don't think it's necessary to have it de-decorate the page when the issue is being settled). The article has peacocky stuff which needs to be replaced or sourced - for example, the very lead states that the artist's style is "innovative" and "creative". Zakhalesh (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I will replace the words "innovative" and "creative" with "amazing" and "fabulous" with references from LA Record live review - February 9, 2011; American Pancake Website review - February 2, 2011; and Channel Surfing Lucinda Williams review - March 15, 2011 (Kittieskarma (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC) )

WP:ATA addition
It's nothing personal but there are examples where this is justified. A large example is documented here. Take particular note of the AN/I discussion. This is just one of many such examples. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Understood - however, I personally think that the nominator's faith is irrelevant. Good articles (ones that are about notable subjects and whose problems can be solved without deletion) should be kept and bad articles deleted, regardless of the nominator's motive. However, I guess this is just my opinion, so I won't be reinstating my edit. Zakhalesh (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Slow down
Hi, I can see you are doing a lot of work on WP, however, you are tagged Pacome Assi for speedy deletion. The article's timeline says it is no older than 15 minutes. 15 minutes is the maximum time limit for new articles to be tagged for deletion since some editors do not add all the content at once or before posting it. Please do well to edit the pages from down up. I made the same mistake and was blocked sometime ago. -- CrossTempleJay    talk 12:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that 15 minutes is the minimum? Special:NewPages mentions only A1 and A3. Criteria for speedy deletion says that there's a consensus for 10-minute wait for A3, but says nothing about other templates. Zakhalesh (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X-Men: Misfits
In regard to this AfD, do you believe the article should be deleted? Saying that the page is not eligible for A7 speedy deletion is not the same thing as asserting that the subject is non-notable. I couldn't tell whether you were calling for deletion of the article or just doing a procedural nomination. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a procedural nomination, as the one who tagged it for speedy didn't seem to think that it's notable. I don't know whether the subject is notable, and the fact that the article is one sentence only doesn't really make it any easier to me to find out. I usually stick to being neutral when nominating procedurally - however, in its current state I find the article to be near useless. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hadn't been sure whether you were neutral or not on this one. But as it turns out, after posting my comment above, I found that there is already another Wikipedia article about this same comic book. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed. Great work! Zakhalesh (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of X-Men: Misfits
Okay Zakhalesh, I was never aware that another article of the same name was created, I will now go to the Del Rey Manga article, remove the link to my version of the article, and replace it with the original, better version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webslingspiderswing (talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually you can request it to be speedy deleted either as overlap or author-requested. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

How exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webslingspiderswing (talk • contribs) 21:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on dashes
Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, with discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not write anything on anywhere so what the heck are you on about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.154.31 (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

N9
I meant that it's just been introduced - not available for purchase. At least if saying that it's "upcoming" is incorrect I feel it should still be stated some other way that you can't get this thing anywhere yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diblidabliduu (talk • contribs) 17:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I think you're right. Maybe the best way would be adding something in the lead about when it's expected to hit the shelves. I've heard rumours they'd be available as soon as in July, I'll check Google if I can find anything to source that with. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It already states "Development status  To be released (Q3 2011)" in the lower right corner. You should probably add that to the top so that you don't have to first revert my change and _then_ add it yourself --Diblidabliduu (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC).

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 17:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:40, 4 September 2012 (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) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi
Hi there.

I have nominated Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi to be one of the 10,000 Vital Topics on Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded#Scientists.2C_inventors_and_mathematicians

The list currently contains names of 20+ mathematicians but not Khwarizmi!

Please support if you find it justified. -  Arman  ( Talk ) 09:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)