User talk:UY Scuti: Difference between revisions

A dispute is getting into hot edit war. It seems the editor doen't wish to discuss at all. Please intervene or semi protect if you wish. M.srihari (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

I recently checked the page and came to notice that the use Nick Thorne has completely deleted a section "Proposed Supercarriers" after havinf discussions only with other user. The user was already warned for making changes in this section without discussion . It seems that it is a revenge edit as this section of supercarriers was the reason for our previous edit conflict. I request you to intervene and take a rightful decision.M.srihari (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

The dispute is getting troublesome again. Anothe uset BilCat with whom I had previous conflicts has come into play. This is getting into a Edit war between a group of users and I myself. I request you to please intervene.M.srihari (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

@M.srihari: As I said earlier do not simply revert the edits before getting consensus from other editors.. Please read WP:3RR. When you are not satisfied by other editors' opinions/consensus, please start a case at WP:DRN, where editors who are not involved in the dispute will/will try to resolve the issue by addressing both the party's concerns. Personally, I'd advise you to go easy on experienced editors, 'cause they are 'experienced' and are well aware of the policies here which you don't. So, wait for some more time to gain experience. And as you've been warring previously, editors won't even take your point into consideration, stamping your statements wrong even if you are right (that's nature). So, leave the issue and explore Wiki. There are a lot of other things to do here. Happy Editing, --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 18:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expressing your views. I agree about your views on experienced editors and I will see that I don't get into any conflict in future about any edits.M.srihari (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

I've declined your speedy on All Fall Down because A7 doesn't apply to books. I've wikilinked the author, but I'm not too sure about the article as it stands. Peridon (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peridon: Thanks for the info! Got a headache while reading the article.. .. --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 14:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you're not going to buy the book, then? Peridon (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peridon: LOL. Too much violence for me --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 14:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enough! All I did was restore the spelling in the 16th-century recipe to the original spelling as used in the source cited. Please make sure you know what you're talking about next time you accuse someone of vandalism! PepperBeast (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Pepperbeast:: Please calm down and do not continuously revert which will result in a block. A 16th century recipe doesn't mean the 16th century spellings should be used.. As an encyclopedia, everyone in the world should be able to read it. I've AGF reverted your edit and I'd recommend you to go to the talk page and get a consensus before making such edits which will otherwise be continuously reverted. Thanks for your cooperation. Regards. --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 20:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please actually look at the history of the article? The original spellings have been in place as a direct quote from a source along with a modern interpretation since the source was added to the article in 2007. There is no need to "modernise" the spelling, as a modern version has already been provided. PepperBeast (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pepperbeast: That's exactly why I requested you to go to the article's talk page. Regards--JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 20:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaaron, you are the person trying to change the article. I am the person trying to have it left alone unless another rationale appears. If you want to change the spelling to modern, then I suggest you take it to the talk page. PepperBeast (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pepperbeast: You sure about that? 'cause I can see JaconaFrere also has reverted your edit..! Regards. --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 21:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure. I am sure because I inserted the material myself in 2007 and have been monitoring the article since then. JaconaFrere got involved when an IP-user changed the spelling and removed a bit of vandalism to the article in the same edit. I reverted the spelling but failed to notice the vandalism, so reverted that as well. Then JaconaFrere reverted my revert, noticing the vandalism (but presumably unaware of the spelling issue). Finally (or, so I thought), I restored the original spelling. Then you got involved. If you had looked at older versions of the article, you would be aware of most of this. PepperBeast (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a bit of a mess, Pepper is in good faith; the situation is as pepper describes. Sorry if I contributed to any confusion. I appreciate both of your efforts, you are good editors! Jacona (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jacona. PepperBeast (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apologies Pepperbeast , and thanks for the information JaconaFrere. Cheers!--JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 06:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jaaron95,

Thank you for coming back to me, indicating suitable citations are needed for the edit I submitted about Andrew Tesoriere (which expands and updates the entry).

I have since added bona fide citations (sources) to reference the additions.

You will be able to view these, I believe, within the view history stub.

I hope you will be able to review the entire new entry and approve it for release.

With best wishes,

Atesor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atesor (talk • contribs) 06:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments on the draft for 'Jo Loves', previously reviewed by Onel5969. You asked to "Please modify the fragrances heading such that, it doesn't include the products of the brand...". Do you mean removing this sentence: "Jo Loves launched with four debut fragrances, titled Pomelo, Gardenia, Green Orange & Coriander, and Orange Tulle[4]." or all text above the fragrances table? Thanks so much for clarifying, really appreciate it! Teriw (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ma pleasure Teriw! The subject is notable and I think removing the table with the individual products (fragrances) of the company will increase the chances of your article getting accepted.. You may include a sentence or two including 'what the company produces..' but not the info of individual products.. Thank you for your work. Wiki greatly appreciates it and Happy Editing! --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 14:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jaaron95! If we remove the table can we keep the following (slightly reworded): "The company produces 14 different fragrances,[9] as well as bath cologne, body crème, body lotion, bath & shower gel[10], and scented candles. The scent called 'Pomelo' was the first fragrance that Malone created after a five-year pause from creating fragrances[6]. Malone has explained that all of her products capture the things in life that inspire her[7], and many of the scents are influenced by Malone's interest in cooking.[8]" Thanks again for your advice!

(talk) 13:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Teriw: Yep! That should be Ok.. Regards --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 14:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaaron95: Thank you, this has been amended. If I resubmit will the next reviewer see that you helped here?

(talk) 15:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Teriw: In your userpage you have mentioned, you are an employee of Jo Loves... With that being there, I cannot guarantee your article getting accepted, and every line of your article will come under scrutiny.. Please read Wikipedia's policy on 'conflict of interest. I am sorry to say, but you have to remove all the possible promotional contents from the article (even the slightest one). You have a good article there and the subject is notable in particular. And I don't want to ruin your article's future by placing {{COI}} tag there (maybe someone else will). That's all I can tell now. You can get more help from here. Thank you. --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 15:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jaaron95, I just resubmited my article for Thierry Pauchant for publication. You rejected it last and hopefully, you can help me make sure this one works okay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thierry_Pauchant I've put a lot of references to his work, publications, articles on him and when he was on the news (mainly french). Can you please let me know what I'm missing if the article is still not good enough? Thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragriffin (talk • contribs) 19:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dragriffin thank you for your contributions here.. Please go through the links in the rejection note and the comment I've left in your draft to get a clear picture of what I'm talking about. Additionally, you can get some help from the help desk. Regards--JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 20:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If I could, I'd like to ask: Is that true Barbra Streisand has sold 245 million records worldwide? I'm asking cause in the 'best selling artist' article it is written she's sold 145 million units, but I'm afraid there is running sth like edit warring in the 'Barbra Streisand' detail article (various users keep adding 124 or 245 million figure in turns, regardless that cited in article source claims 145 million units figure), so I'm little confused and I'm really care which total sale's number is true (I don't wanna inflate nor understate it, I just wanna know the true). :) If you could in any way help me with that or at least try to check it, I'll be really grateful. Thank you in advance, sorry for interrupting (but I think you are reliable and knowledgeable person :) ) and greetings. PS. I've answered your comment on my talk page. 87.207.65.84 (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 87.207.65.84 thanks for taking time to write to me.. I'm not sure what copies you are talking about (I don't have sufficient knowledge on the person as I'm an Indian), but as a rule of thumbs, whenever you add a new content, make it a habit of citing a reliable source. In this way the contents of Wikipedia can be verifiable and true. But when writing/adding contents about a living person make it absolutely sure that a reliable source must be added to verify the information or else it'll be removed. See here. The addition to Barbra Streisand seems to add praise/promotion/puffery to the subject which was reverted by another editor and I've requested a page protection there which will help to avoid source-less claims. Thank you for understanding and happy editing! --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 04:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your answer, all You've done to reply me and for adding "welcome" on my talk. :) I understand, I just wanna mention that in the Barbra's article it is written she's sold 245 million records, but cited in the very same article source about O2 Arena concert claims 145 million figure (the same problem is concerning the 'Barbra Streisand's discography' article), so there is internal contradiction in 2 articles and I'm little confused which information I can use as correct. Thank You. 87.207.65.84 (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 87.207.65.84 if there prevails a contradiction among reliable sources, the appropriate thing to do is to start a topic in the article's talkpage about the problem and explain the problems in brief. Other editors who are regulars there, will address your concern. As the article is now semi protected, only auto confirmed editors will be able to edit the page, and you have no other option but to create a talk page discussion. If you are found correct in your point, auto confirmed editors will perform the edit on behalf of you.. Thanks and happy editing. --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 15:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.yahoo.com/katie-couric-interviews-barbra-streisand-about-partners-album-093204812.html Ironically, Streisand — the Oscar-winning, Emmy-winning, Grammy-winning and Tony-winning performer who has sold 245 million albums worldwide — claims she doesn't love to sing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/16/after-51-year-absence-barbra-streisand-takes-the-host-chair-at-the-tonight-show/

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/barbra-streisand-tonight-show-all-733023 The singer-actress-director has sold more than 245 million albums worldwide and is one of only 16 people to have earned all four of the U.S.' major entertainment awards: Emmy, Grammy, Oscar and Tony (her Tony was an honorary award). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.62.57.212 (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 183.62.57.212 all the above information are supposed to go to the article's talk page and not on my talk page. Thank you for understanding! Regards --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 05:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REPLACE THIS TEXT WITH YOUR MESSAGE Asifiqbalkambo (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dont change Gujranwala medical College Content

Boht shugal ho gya hai

REPLACE THIS TEXT WITH YOUR MESSAGE 188.69.192.70 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear my friend, please add new meaning of a word 'tabloid'. It can be ussed as a synonym with word 'tablet' (pc) nowadays it is more popular to say tabloid than tablet. Thank you so much. have a good time.

@188.69.192.70: Hello, and thanks for your contributions here.. I don't think Tabloid computer is renowned/standard English word and hence I removed that... And you linked to a non-existing page, well that page is a disambiguation page and has to link to another article... Meanings normally go into Wiktionary.. Regards --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 15:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jaaron,

I also updated the section. There is a big difference between assault and sexual assault or rape. Rather than adding back "rape", I updated to "sexual assault". This term was also used in the media coverage and trust you are ok with the edit now.

Kind regards, Keira — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keira A (talk • contribs) 15:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Trentaaronsilver (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kendall Almerico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello jaaron95. I am a novice at this and trying to lear to do this correctly. I have submitted this article (Kendall Almerico) a few times and made the edits suggested, but it keeps getting rejected. Last time, I specifically asked Joseph (who did the last edit) what to edit and did (I thought) exactly what he said to do, and yet it got rejected again.I really am trying to do this right, and I thought last time I made the article exactly what he asked for. Maybe you can help and point out what parts of it you feel are inappropriate and I will try again. Thank you. I truly appreciate the help and the learning experience. Trentaaronsilver (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Trentaaronsilver thanks for taking time to write to me and Appreciate your work here! I wanted to accept the article but something held me back. The thing was, the article only emphasizes on the subject's career and has trivial info on other aspects. I'd like to see more information for example, on his personal life, his achievements (as a separate topic) etc something like that. I'd direct you to other biographic articles in Wiki, how it's written, the style. For e.g., this one A. P. J. Abdul Kalam. And don't worry, I'm not asking an article that long but, expand upon the existing details and give due importance to other aspects of his life.. Thanks and happy editing! --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 03:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaaron95,

Recently you rejected the ADA MILLENNIUM page.

Could you expand further on lack of suitable references? There are a number of independent sources referenced.

Thanks,

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesCurtis1990 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JamesCurtis1990 thanks for your contributions here. Sorry I rejected your article, but you can work on it to point out the subject's notability. (P.S. Read all the links given below and you'll get to know what I'm saying) There are references to the article most of which are the company's website itself and the only independent reliable source I could find is this one. The submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. You can add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. Regards --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 04:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted an article for RadioMD. I understand that it needs more sources to show notability. I was wondering what types of sources would be best to show that it's a notable enough subject for Wikipedia. Also, do you have any other suggestions for edits to get it approved? Lfarabough (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lfarabough, thanks for your contributions and co-operation here in Wikipedia. Please read 'What are reliable sources?' to get an idea on what is a reliable source.. Your article will get accepted if you establish notability of the subject via citing reliable sources (Please read the comment, the reason for decline on the draft page, and also go through the linked pages)... Regards--JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 15:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your message regarding the God Made Me Funky wikipedia page. Apologies if I lack the technical know how regarding your above requirements. I have made attempted to make some edits to the God made Me Funky page because there is currently a trademark dispute in process with a former member who is trying to do harm to our reputation including, performing events under our name, using our image/likeness. My personal image appears in many of the photos on the page and I am not comfortable with that especially if the website and social media point anywhere else except the correct channels. This ex member has locked us out of a few of our social media accounts forcing us to create new ones and this should be updated on Wikipedia. If you are able to check the history you will see that www.godmademefunky.com has always been the url associated with the band "God Made Me Funky" from Toronto, Canada.

I find wikipedia incredibly overwhelming to navigate and to try get any action taken (I feel like I need a degree in coding). The member that is causing all of these headaches is one member out of 8 band members the rest of whom stand united. We are currently in launching legal proceedings against this individual.

Please help us right this situation.

Yours truly,

Arthur