User talk:BubbleEngineer

Welcome!

Hello, BubbleEngineer, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Bjerknes force, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — IVORK _Discuss 23:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bjerknes force

The article Bjerknes force has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

In it's current form, article is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedic article

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — IVORK _Discuss 23:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, BubbleEngineer! Thank you for your contributions. I am ToBeFree and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've actually been making lots of random little edits in here on various IP addresses for several years now, so I'm not a completely new editor. I thought it'd be worth making an account as I wanted to get a bit more involved with actual article writing. BubbleEngineer (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! :) Sounds like a good decision. With an account, you can also create your own user page, track all your contributions you've made, and gain privileges that allow you to edit in protected articles where only trusted, experienced users can edit. The next thing that will probably happen is the so-called "automatic confirmation", awarded after about four days and allowing you to contribute to semi protected articles.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Chris William Martin (sociologist)

Hello BubbleEngineer, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Chris William Martin (sociologist), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being professor at a notable university or college indicates importance/significance (WP:CCSI#ACADEMIC). If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. So Why 14:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I felt in this case the term 'professor' was very oddly used, given the subject does not yet appear to even have a PhD? IIf they were indeed a full professor, I would agree with this statement, but in this case, as a PhD student myself with a handful of publications, I felt this person had no more claim to significance than me. BubbleEngineer (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The individual appears to be a Sessional lecturer, which is quite different to my idea of a Professor?BubbleEngineer (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, not a bad point, I would agree with you on that. However, releasing a book on Bloomsbury Publishing is also a sufficient claim of significance to pass A7 speedy deletion, so that does not change anything in the long run. Anyway, I tagged it for proposed deletion of biographies of living people which can only be challenged by adding a reliable source (and I don't think any such sources exist), so the article should be deleted anyway. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. As for the talk page business, if someone leaves you a message, you can use the template {{re}} to alert them to your reply (e. g. {{re|SoWhy}} in this case). Regards So Why 14:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, thanks! I'm still learning about all the bits of Wikipedia I never ventured into as an IP. BubbleEngineer (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Feel free to ask me anytime you have some questions. Regards So Why 16:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of External Link: Mezzanines

Hello, I'm BubbleEngineer. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Mezzanine have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. BubbleEngineer

I feel you have made a mistake here. I do not represent the source that was added in any way and I simply found it a great resource to learn more about mezzanines and what they are, as well as installing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.189.193.75 (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So presumably this Ryan Jones is in no way related to User:RyanJones1999, whose sole contribution to Wikipedia has been to place an advert for this company on the page? BubbleEngineer (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Ryan Jones is a common name. 85.189.193.75 (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I think the edit was very obviously there to promote the company's services rather than an objective source of additional information, and I'll remove it again if it gets put back. If you disagree, place a note on Talk:Mezzanine, or ask for a second opinion from experienced editors at WP:TEA. BubbleEngineer (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

qazvin

hello.what i change in qazvin page was completly true ,and i have many evidence or surce to proove that but i dont no how could i writes that on wiki. تاریخ ایران(پارسیان1) (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are the sources you got the information from? The information you replaced already had a citation, so you need to add a new (better) citation if you want to change that information. BubbleEngineer (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous account

Please declare all previous accounts you have edited under so that we can confirm that you are not a returning editor avoiding a block or sanctions. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand? BubbleEngineer (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've probably averaged about 10-20 edits a month on various IP addresses over the last 5 years, but I'm not going to try and list them all as they kept changing and there are literally hundreds of them. Plus I can't remember every edit I've ever made. Why, have I done something that concerns you? BubbleEngineer (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually come to think of it, I do remember making this at one point, as I thought you had to be registered to submit an ITN nom, but I stopped using it as I could do everything I wanted via an IP anyway. BubbleEngineer (talk)

Your level of experience is not consistent with your edits. What articles have you edited as an ip? Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably 90% of my previous edits were anti vandalism and general copyediting and adding refs etc to whichever articles I stumbled across in my normal browsing. Please can you elaborate about what exactly you think I've done wrong, ie, which edits indicate I am trying to evade a block, or which other users you think I'm a sockpuppet of? I feel I have provided an explanation, and I don't particularly like being accused of being a sockpuppet. I would appreciate if you provided more justification for why you're failing to assume good faith beyond the fact I simply having a good understanding of how Wikipedia works. BubbleEngineer (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AGF only goes so far. New editors who start editing AFDs with a knowledge of procedures and policies that is not commensurate with their experience often turn out to be sockpuppets or returning blocked users. Asking the question is therefore sensible. I'm sure you would accept yourself that registering an account and becoming active at AFD is a diversion from your usual behaviour and the alternative is turning a blind eye to banned users or sock accounts distorting the outcome of discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But again, if there are specific comments I'm making that make you think I'm trying to swing a discussion away from what is recommended by policy, due to some kind of bias you suspect me of having, please point them out so I can learn and improve. Given AFD templates pop up at in big red boxes at the top of every page being discussed, it's not entirely unreasonable that unregistered readers and editors will have encountered this process in the past. BubbleEngineer (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should volunteer to rewrite this page if you believe it to be inaccurate... BubbleEngineer (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lib Dems classical liberalism

Concerning previous edit, please see talk page of Liberal Democrats (UK). I have removed classical liberalism from the ideologies. Matt 190417 (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Watkin

You got many things wrong about what you did on the recent deaths page:

1)Use a simple cite. See how any other entry is presented on the page and use that standard format. This is a common error.

2)Twitter is not a reliable. See this. Does not matter if it is an official account, it is not just reliable and we should respect policy. I know some cases of people whose death has been announced by verified Twitter accounts, but I can not add the DoD as it is not reliable. This is policy and everyone here should follow it.

You are free to contribute, but respect guidelines and formats used for entries. Thanks. --Folengo (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really didn't mean to upset anyone with this, but I'm afraid I still don't quite understand what is unreliable about the information in the cite I gave. If information is from a reliable source, like a magazine or newspaper, why does it being posted on their (verified) Twitter account make it less reliable than if they posted it on their website, or in the magazine itself? The link you gave says Twitter can be used as a reliable source sometimes. The information I presented wasn't from some random account.

From WP:Twitter-EL: "As a reliable source: Sometimes. A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. Twitter incorporates a Verified Account mechanism to identify accounts of celebrities and other notable people; this should be considered in judging the reliability of Twitter messages"

Nowhere on that page does it prohibit the use of information from verified Twitter accounts linked to reliable sources. If this is incorrect please can you ensure this is made clearer on that page. BubbleEngineer (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, BubbleEngineer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]