User talk:Irn/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Horace Walpole

Hi, Irn, I'm really pleased to see your welcome note. I spend most of my waking hours working to keep a small charity afloat, and never have time to focus on being really useful to Wikipedia. I tend only to make small obvious corrections as I notice them. I wish I could do more.

I've just noticed something really weird on the page for Horace Walpole: there's an image of a (very poor) oil-painting said to be a painting of Walpole in 1755 (this is possible) by Anthony Van Dyck (this is impossible: Van Dyck had been dead over 70 years when Walpole was born). I can't identify the painting myself, I'm not aware that there's any other, eighteenth-century painter, also called van Dyck, and I can't work out what is the correct way of flagging any of this up for attention by an expert. Can you guide me?

The image is Horace_Walpole_Van_Dyck.jpg. Whoever uploaded it has given no explanation of where the original painting is, or how he came to think it was by Van Dyck, or anything else about it.MichaelHalls (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey there! That's a rather interesting problem. I would start by immediately removing the incorrect information (if your concern is that the painter is not Van Dyck, I would get rid of that part; if it's that the image is not Walpole, I would remove the image) from the article with an edit summary that directs other editors to the talk page where I would pose the same question. If this move seems slightly bold to you, there's a helpful little Wikipedia essay about that.

Also, I would consider contacting the uploader of the image. If you go to the image page, you can see that it was first uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (directly under the photo there is a little box noting that the file comes from Wikimedia Commons with a link to the image's page there). On the Wikimedia Commons page for the image, there is a link to the uploader's page (in the box under “File history” one of the columns is “User”) where you can ask the uploader.

On the Commons page, there is also a link to the image source (in the box directly under the photo). From that link, you can find the original post and see that the author of the blog made no comment about the painter, which leads me to believe that addressing the person who uploaded the image to Wikimedia Commons would be your best bet.

As far as experts, I don't know of anything, but if you find yourself having trouble, you can always turn to the WP:Help desk. One other thing: when posting on a Talk page, it's good to start a new header for every new topic. You can do this by either putting in the text yourself as I did above, or by simply clicking the "new section" button and putting in whatever subject line you want. Good luck. -- Irn (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sakharov prize 2001-2025

I used the method used in Nobel prize templates, so your moving of sakharov prize template is not consistent with that!--Maher27777 (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi,, I'm JenniferChicago, you left me a message, but I couldn't figure out how to respond on mytalk:( sorry

I am attempting to add references to information I cited at the end of each of the paragraphs on my page for "Dave Rajput", I am editing the reference section at bottom of page but keep getting errors, and I'm about to completely freak out, sorry-its a Chicago thing, please help me.

Jennifer in Chicago — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenniferChicago (talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC) JenniferChicago (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Wikipedia can be pretty confusing when you start, which is the reason behind the welcome message. I'll take a look at the page right now. Cheers. -- Irn (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Thank you so much for helping me, I did try the page wizard thing to create a page for "Hot Mix Radio Network" which I cited on my 1st. wiki page and to provide some "notability" for my page, hopefully this will help. But the 2nd page for "Hot Mix.." is really short, maybe one sentence. I am waiting hear back from the 2 of 2 owners of the company I cited to insure that the information I give on the page is fine with him. Is this ok, will they delete my page while I wait for his answer? JenniferChicago (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can be much help in this regard. Regarding contacting the owners, Wikipedia is not censored; it doesn't matter to us (Wikipedia) if we have their permission to write about them. What matters is that it be notable and verifiable and from a neutral point of view. Check out those two links for more information on what exactly is meant by "notability" and "verifiability" within Wikipedia. Creating more Wikipedia articles won't add notability within Wikipedia. You'll notice on the "notability" page that there is a blue box with subject-specific guidelines. For "Hot Mix", I'd recommend you check out the one for organizations and corporations in terms of what the page will need to not get deleted. However, at this point, the article only exists within the "Articles for Creation" namespace, so you don't have to worry about it getting deleted quite yet because it hasn't really been created yet. But if your request gets denied, there should be a reason that could help you figure out how to move forward. And your article on Dave Rajput doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, but it could be nominated for deletion on grounds of insufficient notability. In that case, you (or any other editor who wanted to save the article) would have to prove why it does meet the notability guideline. I hope all of that makes sense and is helpful. Cheers. -- Irn (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, was off wiki for awhile, abt a day-were trying to install a suspended ceiling and its been taking more time than it should have-required 2 people that can do measurements and math, and we've only got one, and its not me:) thanks for clearing up the notability need, i understand, but what kind of info could i put on the Dave Rajput page that would show this, I did provide a source whose article was written by one of the 2 owners I mentioned(the other is Dave), he and Dave started the company-I'm not sure what would be needed. I have a large collection of the cd's that would have been sent to radio stations so they could play their radio show's mixes when the show wasn't on. the cd's have sleeves which have the name and Dave and Andrew's names on back. If I scanned the image, would this be a good way to provide more info or a way to back up what I wrote about the company. One other question_ the Hotmix 5 group of dj's who started the chicago house music genre here in chicago, most are still working here, and tonight(new year's eve) i saw in our newspaper that they are reuniting downtown for a special concert. Should I post a link to that concert now? thanks for the help, again. SWriting slower....broken my ring finger on left hand yesterday....editing the page will be a little slower-let me know if i messed up something on the page cause of this-I'm picking at keys to type (usually type reg way). Have a great new year's-Jennifer (Rob) from Chicago, IL (rob is Dave's brother:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenniferChicago (talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries about being away for a few days. Most Wikipedia editors have lives off the internet, so that's totally understandable. (: Anyway, regarding the notability concerns: notability is pretty much entirely dependent on outside sources. These sources should be secondary (i.e. newspaper articles, books, etc.) and independent of the subject. The CDs you have are neither secondary nor independent of the subject, so, unfortunately, that won't help. If you have any old newspaper clippings or anything else of that nature, *that* could help establish notability (or current ones, of course, but I don't see anything in Google). Of the three links that are on the page right now, there is one other problem: the sources ought to be reliable, that is, that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. As for the link to the concert, I see no reason why you can't necessarily include it, but where, and why? It depends on what you want to show by adding it, basically. If you wanted to add it as a source for the fact that they still perform together, I'd see no problem with that. Does all of this make sense? I know there are a lot of guidelines and policies to navigate, and it can be confusing and frustrating at times. But I hope you don't get discouraged! Best of luck! -- Irn (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks so much for the welcome! Joshua Mor (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit removed?

I made a perfectly objective edit earlier today and you removed it. Can you please detail why? I went to great lengths to make sure it was written in an objective way.Elg2001 (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and sorry it took me so long to get back to you (I was without internet for a week, and I've had a lot going on in meatspace). I see on your talk page that others have already addressed your edit, but I just wanted to point out a few things. Being objective is only one part of editing Wikipedia. Just because something is written in an objective way does not make it appropriate for Wikipedia. There are a number of policies and guidelines that determine what to include and what not to. For example, the section you added places undue weight on one incident. Additionally, the argument you make isn't made by the sources, but rather is your interpretation of the source material. I recommend you take a moment to read the pages I've linked to in this response to help you better understand what is and what is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Cheers. -- Irn (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment from QuintBy

"Irn", you threatened to ban me altogether because I was alleged involved in an edit war. First off, i think you need to provide more than your name in order to justify threats made on behalf of Wikipedia. Second of all, if you would have bothered to actually read my last edit instead of shooting off your mouth you would have seen that after I reversed the edit I modified the language of my previous edit in a manner that should have but apparently did not satisfy the objections of the other 'warring' party. QuintBy (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were so offended, but the fact is that you are, in fact, engaged in an edit war, and any user can be blocked for edit-warring. I was simply notifying you of this fact and advising you to use the talk page. Please also note that being blocked is not the same as being banned. -- Irn (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you were indeed sorry that you "so offended" me on my user talk page, this time on your page you would have made some effort to avoid acting offensively. Instead you chose to demonstrate that your original error was not inadvertent but deliberate, responding to my suggestion that you reconsider your original comment by throwing back a re-worded version of the original - and repeating your threat. Your first comment on my User page emphasized form over substance. This Irn-Reloaded comment on your User page now demonstrates an apparent personal bias that calls into question whether you are committed to impartiality and compromise or are simply pushing a personal agenda.

Twice now, you have mischaracterized my last edit as an act of edit warring solely because I made use of the reverse edit function as the first step of the new edit I ultimately published. An edit war exists, if it exixts at all, when editor A makes an edit, editor B merely reverses the edit, and editor A in turn simply returns the text back to his original edit. An edit war cannot be found to exist where, editor A's most recent edit does not merely return the text back to A's original edit but instead substantively alters A's original edit.

My most recent and NEW edit reflects greater factual specificity. It references the specific page for a reference that is earlier used. It properly qualifies a sweepingly overbroad statement based upon that same reference but without specification of which of its 32 pages support that sweeping statement. Finally, while this will not likely sway a biased editor, it has the added advantage of actually constituting verifiable fact. QuintBy (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

In the notice that I left on your talk page, there are two links to the policy on edit-warring. If you read that page, you'll see that your understanding of edit-warring is simply mistaken. The policy refers specifically to "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part". In other words "change not just undo" (your characterization of your own edit) is not sufficient; it's still edit-warring. For a more complete understanding, you might want to take a look at the Administrators' noticeboard on edit warring where you can find more examples of edit-warring and how it's handled within Wikipedia.

Also, please remember to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Let's keep it civil. -- Irn (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I read the "Undoing.......in whole or in part" passage you cited before making my most change. I could not disagree with you more that the phrase Undoing.....in part is synonymous with changing. While it is always true that the undoing of another editor's work in whole or in part is changing it, the reverse is not. The changing of another editor's work does not always constitute the undoing of it. Moreover, in this particular instance the salient change which I had made was to my own prior edit not to the most recent undo by the other editor, which he had already been made by that same editor in identical form previously.

My reference to Carwil raises another point, namely that in this edit war which you alleged was in progress, the most recent undo that had been carried out when you issued your warning (apparently only to me) was not made by Carwil, the editor who had previously been reversing my edits. That undo was carried out by you! Given that Carwil had yet to jump in to undo my most recent edit, I think it is fair to conclude that the 'edit war' that you characterized as such had already reached its proper end or would have, had you not stepped into Carwil's shoes and resurrected it.

A caution may be in order when a dispassionate editor comes across two possibly warring editors, but it was disengenous of you to have carried on the war yourself while simultaneously imploring me to engage in a ceasefire lest I be silenced for continuing. In short, you had skin in this game from the start and any comment which you have made thusfar regarding my alleged continuing engagement in an editing war should at best be regarded as suspicious in their intention and more fairly simply disregarded. I intend to do the latter from here on.

An editor need only "assume good faith" in another editor where there is no reasonable evidence to infer bad faith. In my view, bad faith has been demonstrated here from the start. I fault myself for having been all too willing to assume good faith in this instance by not examining the history of People of Color more closely when you issued your initial warning. QuintBy (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A screenshot has been taken of the QuintBy portion of this User talk:Irn page QuintBy (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The type of edits you are making can, in fact, get you blocked for edit-warring. This is not a threat. I've seen it happen, and I invite you to check out the noticeboard I linked to above.

That said, you are continuing to change the same contentious portion of text without engaging in the discussion on the article talk page. Please use the article talk page.

With Wikipedia, there's no need for screenshots because all of the different versions of a page can be found through the history (barring a handful of rather extreme circumstances). -- Irn (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Irn, I'm being sincere when I say that I appreciate your having taken it down a notch. I may have started doing this around 2007 but 2007 was a year when I became very seriously ill and sustained brain injury due to hypoxic-ischemic causes. Consequently what I learn frequently does not "stick", or if it does a span of a few months can dislodge it from my memory. I don't doubt that you told me up "there" somewhere but the need to post to the talk page on "people of color" had eluded me until you mentioned it just now.

Having said that, as you know, new editors (a class in which I still place myself experience-wise if not chronologically) are encouraged to "be bold" and in particular not to be intimidated by "grumpy" editors. In all candor I fail to see how a spirited defense of an edit (and in this case of myself as an editor) would warrant my blocking as an editor. Not that I doubt that it could happen. I did deliberately make a request of a random administrator that would call their attention to what I had been doing on Wikipedia recently and 'she' did in fact express some concern about my efforts in 'people of color'. I take that as an indication that my wikicivility may not have been up to par with Wikipedia standards and if that is the case I regret doing so.

I do sincerely believe what I stated earlier in an admittedly hyperbolic manner: that an edit war cannot exist in a circumstance where it has been continued by a third editor who has picked up the flag dropped by one of the two original editors and run with it themself by undoing the edit of the remaining original editor. Wikipedia effectively states this in defining edit warring: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." Wikipedia rules refer to "good faith" but do not define "bad faith" except in the context of vandalism, as nearly as I can determine. I do not have the experience to determine whether the two are considered synonymous. I've already stated my opinion that a simultaneous undo and edit-war warning constitutes bad faith. I think an explanation from you is in order. I'm perfectly willing to perform a strikeout if there is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuintBy (talk • contribs) 18:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you take a look at WP:AAGF regarding your repeated suggestions that I should assume good faith on your part. There it states that such admonitions can be "hypocritically invoked as well, so think before reminding someone else of them. In these cases admonishing someone to "assume good faith" is in fact assuming that they are not assuming good faith - the admonisher is ironically violating the very principle he or she is purporting to uphold, and is being uncivil."

I also suggest that you reconsider your practice of simulating formal undos through the use of simple deletion. This obviously is intended to evade screening tools which examine the former but not the latter which, under circumstances where the editor is not simultaneously invoking edit war policies, would not be subject to questions regarding the assumption of good faith or of bad faith. QuintBy (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuintBy (talk • contribs) 20:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I only asked you once to assume good faith. I did so immediately after you accused me of insincerity, acting from a personal bias, and pushing a personal agenda -- in other words, acting in bad faith. Additionally, I would like to point out that accusing me of "simulating formal undos ... to evade screening tools" further represents a lack of assuming good faith.

Regarding how your actions could warrant a block: it's not the "spirited defense" of the edit that's the problem; it's that you repeatedly altered the same text without responding on the talk page.

As for me undoing your edit and placing the warning on your talk page. Having seen you twice alter the same text without responding on the talk page, I was encouraging you to rejoin the discussion on the talk page. I didn't need to warn Carwill because Carwil's been around for a long time and has made plenty of edits. You, on the other hand, have very few edits and it's only fair to warn you about the possible consequences of your actions.

When talking about me in the third person, why do you refer to me as "he"? -- Irn (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Where do I speak of you in the third person? QuintBy (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:History of Morocco

You recently commented on the layout of this template, there has been a recent edit war and I hope you have a moment to provide some input. Thanks Darkness Shines (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Note

Hello Irn, since the topic concerns you, I thought you may want to know about this thread on my talk page. Best. Acalamari 23:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll be watching your page, but at this moment, I don't think there's any need for me to join the discussion. -- Irn (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The request has been withdrawn from Acalamari for submittal elsewhere considering you were contacted more rapidly than I was about it. Since you asked me a question relevant to that request, let me ask you one in return. Is the topic that "concerns you" according to Acalamari related to user:quintby?QuintBy (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, I only let Irn know about the thread on my talk page about them because it is impolite to discuss someone without their knowledge, especially when the topic is a complaint about them. I responded to you first, QuintBy, before I posted here. Acalamari 10:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

hai this is saurabh , u left me a message so a reply

see plaese try to understand i know the terms of wikipedia and i am respected to you as you are my senior .. but in this thing i am sorry , u are not an indian , the page must consist of that topic because it made her popular and part of her biography. she has worked as a model so advertisement section must be there and i am [purely neutral in writing please consider my points and please re reverse it i hope u will understand regards and love saurabh kumar page link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanaya_Irani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabhkr wiki (talk • contribs) 03:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

a reply for your message and edition to page of sanaya irani

see plaese try to understand i know the terms of wikipedia and i am respected to you as you are my senior .. but in this thing i am sorry , u are not an indian , the page must consist of that topic because it made her popular and part of her biography. she has worked as a model so advertisement section must be there and i am [purely neutral in writing please consider my points and please re reverse it i hope u will understand regards and love saurabh kumar page link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanaya_Irani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabhkr wiki (talk • contribs) 03:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

false infomation on Sanaya Irani Wiki page.

Hi am new member of Wikepedia. I just wanted to let you know that the information on the Sanaya Irani wiki page is false. I am talking about the list of awards. Sanaya has not won any Galaxy awards. there are no such awards called galaxy awards, morover she has not won the Big entertainment awards. I know this becuase i know her personally. it will be better if you could remove the Glaxy awards thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmi123 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Your perspective would be valued

Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article, Muhammad, has changed in a significant way since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fropm Yankee Yiddel

YOu deleted an entry on the International SOlidarity Mvoement page I where I linked into StoptheISM.com . You claimed it was a "non-neutral" source yet the entire article is non=neutral, filled with lies and misinformation written by ISMers themselves. The Website I referred to only shows the other side and in fact shows the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YankeeYiddel (talk • contribs) 18:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hey Irn, thank you very much for creating my user-page :). I already started wondering how I could do thise, but I did not have the time to try it yet. So thank you :). Juliaguar Juliaguar (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Wallis

Thanks. Done. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hipster edit War

Your recent editing history at Hipster (contemporary subculture) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Irn (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of this "three edit rule" before. I only made one reversion on that page in January because another user vandalised the page by removing the gallery. I simply restored it to its original state and gave a short explanation: there were too many photos cluttering the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hipster_%28contemporary_subculture%29&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I figured you hadn't heard of the three revert rule, which is why I posted the message on your page - to let you know about it. Also, don't forget to sign any comments you make on talk pages (user talk, article talk, whatever) by including four tildes like so: ~~~~ Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Osama57 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Uploading photos

Hi Irn, I'm a Wiki newbie and have a question -- hope this is the right place. I have a few photos to upload to accompany pages I am editing. They are a mixture of screencaps from music videos I directed and press shots of me. I have the copyrights to all the materials. How do I go about uploading them in a legal and issue-free way? Thanks! NogaP (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey there. When I want to upload photos, I use the File Upload Wizard, which I find to be very easy. For your purposes, you'd want to mark the work as free, and then select that it is your own work and proceed from there. I hope this helps!

(If you're not already familiar with it, you should probably also check out the guidelines on conflicts of interest because it sounds like that might apply to your editing.) Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Irn, thanks for the quick response! Another related question -- if I want to post pictures of known/famous person (properly cited from an article online) to add to their pages, what is the proper copyright choice for that? Thanks again! NogaP (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a little tricky. Since the photos aren't yours, you need to prove fair use, which can be complicated. Beyond that, according to the non-free content guideline, the photos also need to be "used for a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by free material". As far as I understand it, since all living persons can have their photos taken, and, as such, their photos could be provided freely, it'll be pretty hard for you to justify the use of non-free images. More generally, Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is an excellent place to go for photo-specific questions. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

RE: "Associated acts" guidelines

The "guideline" which I've indicated can be found in Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts. Thank you. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Irn (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: Real full name of Arundhati Roy in her article

This edit request has been pending on the article's talk page for almost an eternity now (in the meantime you seem to have answered many others, but for some reason you never even reply to this one). The real full name of Arundhati Roy is Suzanna Arundhati Roy. Even her Encyclopedia Britannica article uses this correct full name, but not so Wikipedia (which one thought was supposed to be more agile than good old Britannica, LOL). Even a trivial cursory google search will bear out that the subject is well known as Suzanna Arundhati Roy, which is her real full name. Hence, I have two requests: (1) change the name of the article from "Arundhati Roy" to "Suzanna Arundhati Roy", and (2) make the relevant edits (Arundhati Roy -> Suzanna Arundhati Roy) to the page. 180.149.53.194 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

south bronx birthplace of hip hop

www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-ghetto-brothers-pioneers-of-hip-hop-culture-get-album-reissue-20121120 because it says that that the sedgewick address is the birthplace of hip hop and its truly not. hip hop did not start from one house party, it started from the block party culture - when dj's didn't even use the turntables. please read the rolling stone article or atleast include the fact of the article to the true roots of hip hop thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiphopwikileaks (talk • contribs) 02:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Ft. Lean Edit

Why does my edit have to be constructive? The statement was factual (source, I was that Confidence man) I could provide many details about that night and exchange. This was in reguard to Fort Lean Frontman Keenan Mitchell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.39.136 (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Keep up the good editing work!

Limbojazz (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

small edit to hip hop page

Dear Irn, I just felt the main paragraph on the entry about hip hop culture involved a number of contested historical readings of the whole phenomenon. Claudioiglesias (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Claudioiglesias

No worries. I see that you've made that same change but using the edit summary this time, which is great. When people remove portions of text for no apparent reason (especially new and/or anonymous editors), it often looks like vandalism. Using the edit summary shows that you're making a good faith attempt at improving the encyclopedia, and it gives other editors the opportunity to see your reasoning. -- Irn (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Peter Allen's page

Hello lrn,

We've left you a message on our talk page. Please advise.

Best, Nellaretep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nellaretep (talk • contribs) 01:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Inittowin edits on Karen Stintz mayoral campaign, 2014

Maybe we should do a complete revert of the edits the user made. At least some of the edits clearly looks like a conflict of interest. Kingjeff (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It definitely looks like the user has a COI, but I'm personally not too worried about the rest of the edits. The ones you already reverted seemed to be pushing a POV, but the others didn't strike me as inappropriate. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Karen Stintz page.

Hi,

I am not working with Karen Stintz although I do support the policies she's launched. I came across this page when I was trying to find more information about her.

I have a few issues with the page because there are a few incorrect details:

1. The source you have for the statement "She was a key ally of Ford and stated that she would never run against him for mayor" is a statement from Doug Ford and not Karen. If Karen said it, it would be fair to use. Karen did not say that.

2. The second debate was at Ryerson University in which Karen attended.

3. In the 3rd debate at U of T, Sokancki's team was told that he was invited and then he was uninvited when the official list of participants was posted. According to the article sourced, the other participants pulled out because they were misled by the organizers.

4. As for the ice storm, Stintz did state that her lights came back on at the same time as others. Making an accusation like that is not fair when the facts are not known.

Those are my issues with the page.

I will continue correcting the page because I find that the concerns listed above important details that need to be addressed.

Responded to on the user_talk: page, and moved to article_talk: page. -- Irn (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

vandalism?

Hello,

You sent me a message saying that my correction was a vandalism. However, it was not. The definition of vandalism according to Wikipedia itself is : "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism." My change doesn't fit with this definition at all. I saw today in a shortcut in the Manual of Style of Wikipedia that : "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." Link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity However, this is not an absolute rule, as most of rules on this manual. We can even edit them ourselves. You can also see this link, when they say that if a rule prevents we from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, we must ignore it : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules To refer a trans person as "she" when this person is biologically "he" is not neutral, because it implies the acceptation of the hypothesis that the gender can be different from the biological sex. And that is only a hypothesis, by the way highly contested. To be neutral, it is therefore better to refer to the biological sex of the person, regardless what the gender is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.197.163 (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message! I apologize for labeling your good faith efforts vandalism. That said, blatant transphobia that goes against policy is never welcome on Wikipedia, and I do see it as vandalism. If you think that Wikipedia needs to change how we deal with trans people, you're more than welcome to take that up over at WP:MOSIDENTITY, but those sorts of changes to the biographies of living people without the consensus behind you will continue to be seen as vandalism and, consequently, reverted. -- Irn (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf edits reverted

I was just wondering was the reason for reverting the updates I made to the Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf page was for? Was it because the content was taken verbatim from the source? If so, would it be more appropriate to rephrase in my own words while mentioning the original source?

Let me know. Thanks.

AlBaraa (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the question! In my edit summary, I cited WP:PEACOCK. In my opinion, the wording strayed from a neutral point of view and was too laudatory. I actually hadn't realized that the information was taken verbatim from the source; that is also problem. The information itself seemed okay, so if you want to try to just re-word it in a more neutral tone (or maybe even put some of it in quotations where appropriate), I think it should be okay. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Lili Elbe

The changes I made on the Lili Elbe page were not intended as vandalism. I merely wanted to correct a number of historical inaccuracies: The name she was given at birth is Einar Magnus Andreas Wegener. The name she chose for herself in November 1930 is Lili Ilse Elvenes, despite the fact that she is know as Lili Elbe today. She died on September 12th, 1931. She had four, not five surgeries. Warnekros never attempted a uterus implant. That is a myth. Her last surgery was a vaginoplasty. Also the marriage to Gerda Wegener was resolved in court and not by the Danish king. I would kindly ask you to withdraw your veto on my changes and allow for her to be represented in a historically accurate way. Thank you. 78.52.10.31 (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I moved your comment to the article's talk page and answered there. Cheers! -- Irn (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sofia Carson Early life

I feel uncomfortable writing info sourced in a language I am not fluent in as auto translate misses a lot but the reference you provided seems to have a good amount of info to populate an "Early life" section in the article. It would be great if you could update the article to include more from that reference. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do that. There's a little bit on her family, but, honestly, it's not that much. But I'll see what I can do right now. -- Irn (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Thanks so much for the friendly welcome! Are you Wiki Staff? --DoctorWhoLover11 (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kitten, and I'm glad you appreciate the welcome! I'm not staff at all; I've just found that Wikipedia can be a bit overwhelming and confusing when people begin and don't know what's going on, so I like to give welcome messages to provide new users with links to discover for themselves and to let them know that there are plenty of people (myself included) willing to help if they need it. -- Irn (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

SO CUTE

a cute cat

DoctorWhoLover11 (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Dissolution of the Soviet Union

Hello!

The Soviet Union collapsed in December 26, 1991 by the Declaration № 142-Н of the Soviet of Nationalities. Also, about 26.12.1991 is written in the template:

{{Age in years, months, weeks and days|month1=3|day1=11|year1=1985|month2=12|day2=26|year2=1991}}

Please, return my version of this article.

Have a nice day!

You're right. My apologies. -- Irn (talk) 15:13, 1 October 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) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nawal El-Sadawwi

Nawal El-Sadawwi divorced her last husband but the wikipedia says she is still married to him.

Thanks for the note! I just saw you deleting information without explaining why, and I thought it was vandalism. I found a source for the divorce and added that to the article. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Nymphomaniac (film)#Spoiler: Rape Allegation. Original Research?

Hiya Irn, I can't agree with Your Edit. and have started a thread under BRD. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S No need to "Talkback" I have placed both you & the Article on my watchlist Bosley John Bosley (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message alerting to me the conversation. I've responded there. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - Natalia Starr

I was unsuccessfully looking for a SFW source and after giving up would've used this one now: NSFW - http://www.girlsofpb.com/natalia-starr.html Cheers, 91.16.109.90 (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I just Googled it quickly, and that's what I found. It is strange to link to a porn site as a reference. For what it's worth, you might want to be a bit more careful about how you insert things going forward - the way you did it there, it made it look like the source at the end of that sentence supported your claim, which the other editor didn't think was the case. If you'd put it as its own sentence, it might have gotten a "citation needed" tag, but probably wouldn't have been removed outright. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. The other IP wasn't me though. But I'll keep your advice in mind. CU, 91.16.109.90 (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - Andy

Thanks for the greeting Irn! Pretty exited about this, though I don't really know how to use much of these functions. Btw what is the "sandbox"? I don't have one and it would probably help if i knew what it was for. Thanks :) --AndreCharles (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem! The sandbox is a place for you to experiment with editing. There's a general sandbox for anyone to use, and then every user has their own as well. Cheers! -- Irn (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I get it now. Thanks for the info! --AndreCharles (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Please

Stop undoing my edits you really think the creator of one of the biggest shoes ever to grace TV . Paul Daniels and slylia Anderson who starred in well known shows fail a fame test. I am getting tired of your constant moaning and groaning and deleting of my edits . it's people like you who piss people off by constantly enforcing this rule but in reality when someone does create a page on a foreign wiki people like you delete it saying there not famous wahhhh. Silent mocker (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey there! I'm really sorry that my edits bother you so much and that you feel so frustrated by Wikipedia. As you note, those are the rules. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you have to abide by the community's consensus. If you think that consensus is wrong, there are measures you can take to address that. However, getting into edit wars over your preferred version of an article isn't going to do anything other than frustrate everyone involved and could easily get you blocked and potentially even banned. -- Irn (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikitree

Whoa! Who put that in there? Why is it part of my email? I am not Silent Mocker and I do not wish to be confused with that editor above. KinCityKitty (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Hi Irn, I am so sorry I created problems this morning with the WikiTree link. I was so excited when I read this Genealogist2Genealogist message on WikiTree, I thought it was ok to add: http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/236796/template-to-link-back-to-wikitree-from-wikipedia?show=236944#c236944

I am not sure why you want this wonderful addition deleted from the Wikipedia articles or what WP:ELNO actually means. I looked through the list of Links Normally to be Avoided and I think WikiTree is not a conflict to any of the items, 1 through 19.

1 Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. The unique resource is the individual's twig on the worldwide WikiTree.

2 Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. No, not WikiTree.

3 Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States. Suspected malware sites can be reported by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. No, not WikiTree.

4 Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming. No, not WikiTree.

5 Individual web pages[6] that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services. No, not WikiTree.

6 Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation.[5] See § Sites requiring registration. No, not WikiTree. WikiTree is FREE.

7 Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that work only with a specific browser or in a specific country. No, not WikiTree. WikiTree is a one, worldwide family tree.

8 Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See § Rich media for more details. No, not WikiTree.

9 Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds. WikiTree is not at search engine. It is a family tree.

10 Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists. No, not WikiTree.

11 Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) No, not WikiTree.

12 Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked. Our tree includes 11,043,210 profiles edited by 317,151 genealogists from around the world.

13 Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked. The template links are directly to the individual's WikiTree profile page.

14 Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers. WikiTree has none of these.

15 Sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools.[5] For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates. No, not WikiTree.

16 Sites that are not reliably functional and/or not likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time. The WikiTree website has been operational since 2008.

17 Affiliate, tracking or referral links, i.e., links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful, use a neutral link without the tracking information. No, not WikiTree.

18 External links on Wikipedia navigation templates or navigation pages such as disambiguation, redirect and category pages. No, not WikiTree.

19 Websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.[5][7] No, not WikiTree.

I hope this answers your questions and that you will accept the links to WikiTree pages. Thanks for your consideration. Kitty Cooper-1 Smith KinCityKitty (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! No worries about causing any problems. You were just doing what you thought was best, and I don't agree, so I undid it. It looks to me like Wikitree violates ELNO because it's an open wiki. But maybe it does have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", making it acceptable. However, for me ELNO was just the most obvious policy the template violated, but I think it's inappropriate for other reasons, too (which I discuss more here).

And just to be clear, I've nominated the template for deletion, but I don't have any sort of additional power on Wikipedia. (Anyone can nominate a template for deletion, just like anyone can create a template.) I'd encourage you check out the deletion discussion over at Templates for discussion and give your opinion there if you want. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

1997

Hey, you recently told me that I had made a change to the 1997 page, what exactly did I do? I can't recall trying to change anything on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.244.94.21 (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you're editing anonymously from an IP address, it's possible that someone else made the edit. Anyway, this is the edit I was referring to. You can see a list of all the edits made from your IP address here. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello!

I appreciate your concern for Wikipedia, but most of the editing I do is just a spelling or grammar mistake that I find in an article. If you have any objections to my edits, please contact me and I will be more than happy to discuss it. Bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karimaz33 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

CE edit alerts

Thanks for helping. I enabled Twinkle by mistake. Had not checked the site preferences until recently and looks like I set Twinkle on when I did. Twinkle is now off and will re-check preferences I set, intentional or otherwise. Thanks again. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hope Solo pictures edits

Hello Irn,

I already explained why those 2 photos should not be deleted, i am obviously new to editing. A more detailed explanation as to why/how i can fix the photos issues would be much appreciated.

1st photo: Solo 100 (AP credited photo -- non-commercial) 2nd photo: Photo done by and posted by ussoccer_wnt as stated... why remove it? credit was given. Thank you, --MelM0105 (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

In reply to the thing you posted on my page:

How is reverting ?? I clearly stated the sources from the beginning and it is super clear that i don't own any of the images. Also vandalism?? credit was given: especially for the AP photo, on their website it says for "editorial use only" , i assume that a wikipedia page is only for editing... Not one person is getting money from including that picture on that page, if anything it enhances the written paragraph.

If i am still missing out on a point, please state it clearly, you're a human being, i asked you 2 questions you failed to answer. Instead of just deleting editorial errors, help out and state way to fix them.

PS: thank you for the minor edit tip, will keep it in mind from now on... --MelM0105 (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, there! Thanks for the messages! Unfortunately, giving credit is not enough for the photos. If you go to the photo pages, you'll see that you have marked the photos as your own. (Under "Licensing" it says "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:" This is because of a box you checked when you uploaded the photo.) This is only acceptable if you yourself took the photo or created the image. This is obviously not the case. Since it's not the case, the images need to be explicitly labeled as free to reuse, in accordance with the Wikimedia Commons licensing policy. The AP copyrights their photos (for "editorial use only" is not sufficient), so this doesn't apply to the AP photo. However, I don't know under what license the USWNT publishes their images. It could be freely available, but you would have to prove that.

All of that is to say, what you need to do is find the licensing under which the USWNT published the image. If it's a free license, as recognized by Wikimedia Commons (see the previous link), change the information on the page to reflect its status, and you'll be fine.

If it's not (and for the AP photo), there is one more thing you can do: you can contact the person who owns the copyright and ask them to change the license so that it can be freely reproduced by Wikimedia Commons.

In general, for photos, I highly recommend familiarizing yourself with the Wikimedia Commons licensing policy. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello again! Thank you loads for the tips, it's Sunday so I'll put all my effort on getting the license of the USWNT image! As for the AP one, I fully understand. Once I get the USWNT approval, where do I go to "un-delete" it?! Much appreciated, --MelM0105 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the process of undeletion on Commons, but here's the relevant link: Commons:Undeletion requests. Although it might be easier to simply re-upload the image. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent pita bread change

You've taken the wrong tack with reversing the change. My correction is correct because it's my language so I know what pita is called. Your reference is incorrect, and the Arabic version of Wikipedia does not use the phrase pita at all, since it's a Turkish word it'd be rare and a bit strange to call it pita. Leaving s correct change and putting citation needed is better than reverting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.95.122 (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

New Usercheck

Hello: if you are receiving this, you have transcluded Example (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks ^confirmed_suspected | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE), I have created a Usercheck with more content, that I plan to update with more when I come across it, as of right now Usercheck-Super has only three more things than Usercheck-full, but as mentioned, I plan to update it, the three things I mentioned are pending changes log, giving all of the revisions you have accepted or rejected, Abuse filter, which gives you the ability to examine your edits, and get many details about an edit, along with Articles created, which links to a page which gives a breakdown of all the pages you have made. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The term terrorism is completely acceptable to be used in this article.

It is an antiterrorism assistance program. The units are part of the democratic security policy (an integrated counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency campaign). One of the missions of the Colombian army and Government forces is the fight against terrorism regardless of where comes the threat of terrorism. The term terrorism is completely acceptable to be used in this article.--ControlCorV (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Diosdado is a drug dealer

Did you know Diosdado Cabello is a drug dealer being investigated by the DEA?

Are you receiving payments from this drug kingpin to keep his Wikipedia page impollute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.218.1.151 (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Irn. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)