Jump to content

User talk:EoRdE6/Archives/2015/March

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


S6 Edge

It seems as if the S6 Edge and S6 are the same, except for the curved screen. Much like iPhone 6, it would just be two articles of redundant information if they were to have separate articles. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: I am following past procedure like the Samsung Galaxy Note Edge which is simply a Galaxy Note 4 with a curved edge. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
That one was separately notable because it was the first of its kind, and had more of a distinct history (i.e. the Youm concepts). Galaxy S6 Edge is merely an evolution of the Note Edge concept, and making a second article would just lead to redundancy due to their shared history. Thus, it's not separately notable. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Well take it to AfD because I'm going to make it. I have posted on the Main S6 TP for others input. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a merge discussion. It doesn't go to AFD. Being bold doesn't always help. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Samsung

Hi EoRdE6, I was unaware the Samsung was gonna be launched today (Had I known I would've actually !voted Keep because what the hell's the point of deleting an article if it's gonna be launched so thus recreated tomorrow anyway?),
Anyway the only thing I can really suggest is go to DRV and get it restored,
Anyway Happy Editing :) –Davey2010Talk 01:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I think you forgot I was the one who nominated it. The article was crap, full of "confirmed specs" that were unrealistic. I'm going to redraft one tonight that isn't full of unconfirmed crap probably... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh shit you were sorry , Anyway good luck with it an happy editing :) –Davey2010Talk 01:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
And to your comment on the AfD @Davey2010:, I get 4.42 million hits for Samsung Galaxy S6 (in quotation marks), in Google News Search. "Apple iCar" on the other hand gets a significantly smaller 21 thousand hits on Google News. While obviously a few of these probably don't relate to the actually subject of the article, that is still 220 times more coverage. So yeah, I would say it has big enough coverage, from CNET, Gizmodo, Forbes, International Business Times, Gotta Be Mobile, Phone Arena, TechRadar, and many many more. Yes I know you struck the comment, but I still feel the need to correct this . EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Just to keep you updated, the article is back with actual specs that are very very different to what that other ones was trying to say (Samsung Galaxy S6), and now we are trying to decide whether Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge should remain an article. Your input is welcome. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Also @Davey2010: thanks to your userpage and much too long of my time I now have a display title on my pages, I should just leave my sandbox with your colours... .
Haha wow!, Have to say I'm rather impressed :) –Davey2010Talk 19:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lloviu virus

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lloviu virus. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Revert of City Hall/Thalian Hall

Hi --- not understanding the reversion of the links to the article City Hall/Thalian Hall on Wilmington,_North_Carolina#Antebellum_period. Just curious.--Pubdog (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pubdog: Hia Pubdog! I was going to leave you a message about this but it slipped my mind. Two reasons; primarily because on Wikipedia there is supposed to be one or two links to the same article or article. Read WP:OVERLINK for more on this. Second, at first I assumed this article didn't exist as it is against naming conventions to have a '/' in the article name as this usually implys it is a subpage of a main article (ie. User talk:EoRdE6/header). I may have removed the wrong link from the article bit remember the one link one article rule (excluding info boxes). Thanks for helping out (Wilmington related articles are in need ff maintenance) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and Draft done

Hi, thanks for your help so far! I'm done with the draft of my first entry. Can you please take a look at it when you get a chance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HealthTake (talk • contribs) 22:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done awhile ago, reviewed and moved to mainspace. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 06:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Apple Pay promotional hero.jpg

File:Apple Pay promotional hero.jpg: {{di-replaceable fair use|date=3 March 2015|1=Image is easily replaceable by by anyone who owns an iPhone 6}}

This rationale is incorrect because a screenshot taken of the app would still need to be uploaded as fair use since the software is copyrighted. As long as that's the case, might as well use the best possible representation of the subject. czar ⨹ 02:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Josh Lord

Further to my response on the article talk page I would like to clarify that my comment there was not an attack on you. I understand that editors at AfC work very hard but it's important that reviews of new articles which do not meet the standard of notability, especially when its a BLP, clearly point out any issues with the article. I gave the editor an offer of assistance on their talk page and I also made sure that my edit summaries clearly indicated the problems. I tagged it for BLP sources rather than nominating it for deletion to give a new editor a chance to learn even though it's my opinion the subject of the article isn't notable. I hope that clarifies my position. I would kindly ask though that you refrain from refactoring talk page comments made by other editors even if just to fix spelling errors or typos. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I tend to overreact to people sometimes, particularly when I'm tired and drowning in work. And about the comment refactor, I'm a bit of a grammar/spelling nazi... :) sorry for coming across a bit harsh. As I said, I'm a bit behind in work and am quite stressed atm. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Samsung Galaxy S6

Hello, EoRdE6! Please help me understand the history of this article Samsung Galaxy S6. I am very confused.

@MelanieN: Wow I can see how that looks confusing from the outside. I'll try to make the explanation brief. The phone was officially unveiled on 1 March 2015, so obviously the article was way too soon and speculative in October. A few days before the reveal it was recreated, but again was based on false speculation. While I agreed at the time it needed an article soon, the article at the time was presenting rumours (now proved false) as facts which was misleading to readers. So I had it speedy deleted. When it was officially unveiled it was then time for an officially sourced article and one was quickly procured alongside the debated Galaxy S6 Edge article that no one can decide whether it should exist. In summary, no it doesn't need deleting anymore. Feel free to ask any other questions :) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, EoRdE6, I had a feeling you would be the person who would know! What called my attention to it was the second AfD, which is closed as "speedily deleted" but the article name is a bluelink. I saw that as I was patrolling AfD, and I wondered if maybe the admin had forgotten to delete it (it happens, I've done it myself) or just what was going on. Thanks for the very clear explanation. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Mount_Carbon_Derailment.jpg

Just letting you know, I substituted a public domain photograph taken by the U.S. Coast Guard for the copyright AP photograph you uploaded. File:Mount_Carbon_Derailment.jpg is now an orphan. You can, of course, dispute my action at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Mount_Carbon_Derailment.jpg. You have other options, including doing nothing, reversing the action, and tagging it yourself. If no one else does, I will eventually tag it {{Db-f7}}. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I've had it deleted. Thanks for your help! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 17:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Qutb Shah ‎

SOURCES ARE MENTIONED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE WITH REFERENCES YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE PAGES I MENTIONED EARLIER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101el capitan (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 March 2015‎

And now you're blocked. I gave you a friendly message, and you've had multiple other warnings, and I expected more from someone who was just blocked for the same thing. If you ever are able to return, try calming down and explaining, not spamming messages and edit warring. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Dusty the Klepto Kitty

Hi! I was just stopping by to tag the article for the Wiki Project Cats and I find your PROD tag. Since this article has been created since November 2011 and it has just received media attention, could you pleae place it at WP:AFD instead and let the community discuss and decide. With the tag it has now, no one will see it and we can't even be sure the original author will see your notice. They have not edited since 2011. Ironically the article has a new talk page tag for the Huffington Post media appearance, which is how I found it. Thanks and all the best. Fylbecatulous talk 12:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Fylbecatulous: Hey and thanks for your message. If you object to a Proposed Deletion (PROD), you can simply remove the tag from the top of the article, which I suggest you do here. This applies to all PROD's but never to Speedy Deletion and AfD. If you remove the PROD, I'll probably send it over to AfD for further review. I'll let you handle the tag removal however. Thanks for your message! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 17:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I have thusly removed your template with quite a lengthy edit summary of explanation. ツ Although there are a few feline articles I would weep over the loss of, I am not extremely invested in this one; just interested. So I will follow this one to the discussion if you set it up. Again, I wish you continued happy editing. Fylbecatulous talk 22:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Los Angeles Fire Department

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Los Angeles Fire Department. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hassan's Optical Co.

HaRRods (150px)
HaSSan's (190 px)

I wonder if Harrods has seen the logo for Hassan's Optician Co.? Slight resemblance methinks , plus a lack of wp: Notability (Hassan not Harrods!) Nb. try 'dragging' Hassan's logo over Harrods, almost an exact fit! © 220 of Borg 03:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I'll be that's pretty damn impressive. I feel Harrods probably came first too... Yeah maybe AfD it? I only accepted it due to a personal request he sent me so I figured why not see where it goes, as it was passed CSD criteria... Yeah I never would have even noticed the resemblance there. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Krystel Espiritu: any comments on this? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• And on second look they do have a UK branch. They might get away with it as the Arabic script makes it look different, but if they used it without ... . ©®™! As for AfD, I probably would have speedy nominated it. I can't see notability. I've cleaned it up a bit more. here. The award from Italy may confer some extra 'interest'. 220 of Borg 05:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello @220 of Borg: and @EoRdE6:,
I concur that it does have a slight resemblance to ‘Harrods’ logo but not completely and their (Hassan's)logo was inspired by Harrods, it is the official logo of Hassan’s at present and the logo is very much known in Kuwait and has been for a long time now and I believe they are aware of this too. The logo is also registered in the Ministry of Kuwait and is also used in there other international branches as well. so to my knowledge this isn’t such a problem, right?
I’ve seen the page you’ve mentioned regarding notability and I think my article passed this as well I believe;
• It is a well known company in Kuwait
• It was the first optician store in Kuwait
• There are a lot of media coverage from reliable sources about the company
I thank you both again for bringing this to my attention but if my article needs more work I appreciate any help I can get.
Thank you, Krystel Espiritu (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Krystel Espiritu: See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which is the exact criteria, I think. If there is any more detail about the Italian award, that would be interesting. A quote about the reason for the award would be ideal. But I couldn't find that issue of the newspaper on-line. This doesn't stop anyone tagging the page for deletion. ₪ 220 of Borg 06:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@220 of Borg: I'll try looking more on the Italian award, it had a lot of coverage here in Kuwait but mostly in Arabic. I do have the hard copies of all the newspapers, online newspaper articles keep their archive from 2015 - 2013 but you can still see them on KUNA.com though you'd have to be registered. Thank you again and I'll keep working on it Krystel Espiritu (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for evaluating the situation and merging the two articles for Louise Odes Neaderland.

Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Dawww it's so cute! Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:AN3

Hello EoRdE6. Your new scheme for the block icons leaves no provision for indefinite blocks. They will still be shown with a clock symbol though they are not timed. As in {{AN3|blocked|indef}} which displays as Blocked indefinitely. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Well since I am using the scheme from the block templates, I guess the one to use would be {{Uw-blockindef}}. However, I'm honestly not quite sure how to implement this but I'll give it a shot in the sandbox. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Ok it took me awhile but now I know parser functions. heres the change. Blocked indefinitely
If you like what you see at Template:AN3/testcases feel free to copy Template:AN3/sandbox over to Template:AN3. If you think a different image would be better, thats now an easy switch to make, so just pop a suggestion here if you have one. Thanks for the assistance! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know I have made the requested change. Thanks for the idea! Once again if you have a better idea for any icons, feel free to let me know. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I still have mixed feelings about the results. Now we have an 'X' for 'Not blocked' as well as an 'X' for indef. With the old system, a check mark was a block. At least that was easy to follow. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah but I don't feel like a block is a reason for a check. Its not something to say yes about. The clock made sense because of the blocking templates, but I do agree this 'X' could be improved. I'll keep my eyes peeled for a better image. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Last thing for me tonight, what's your opinion of using the scheme on Template:AN3/testcases then? No violation
to replace  No violation to correct possible confusion between the multiple red X's? I'm not to sure about this one though. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The logic at AN3 is that the filer is (usually) requesting a block. A check mark means 'yes' the block is issued. An 'X' means no, it is not issued. So I still prefer the old symbols. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Unless your scheme receives support from other editors in the next two days, I recommend that you self-revert. The alternative would be to open an RfC. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I haven't had any other complaints that yours I'm afraid. From my side, I'll revert and discuss if some others come forward with issues (non-canvassed others), but right now it is you versus all the other editors who have seen and used the changed scheme with 0 objections. Things change sometimes, but I'm sure you can adapt. Using the system-wide block icon simplifies the system for all, and honestly how often do people really look at these icons anyway? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have confidence in the value of your improvement, the RfC is the way to go. "How often do people really look at these icons anyway?" Why change the appearance if you don't care about that? I see these all the time since as a 3RR-closing admin I'm one of the most frequent contributors to WP:AN3. In my opinion you are making the human interface worse in a desire for some kind of theoretical consistency. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Librivox

Hi, I understand your in discussion with User:TimoleonWash about possibly doing some programming with this template. I just wanted to make sure we are doing the right thing in regards to this template. At the moment there are only 49 articles so it's hardly being used, but it could be used in thousands of articles. My plan was to eventually rewrite the template in WP:Lua, and according to TimoleonWash it needs (or will need) multiple parameters, at a minimum something like this: {{Librivox |author=H. G. Wells |title=The Time Machine}}. I hope that the template will specify the field names, and not just based on order eg {{Librivox |H. G. Wells |The Time Machine}}. Specifying field names will make the transition to Lua much easier, easier to error check, easier to add new features, and less error prone when users add the template. Also more standard. -- GreenC 13:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Never mind I went ahead and wrote a new template that has the features TimoleonWash requested. {{Librivox book}} -- GreenC 14:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@Green Cardamom: I noticed that, probably took a quarter the time I would have :p. Thanks! By the way I love your username, we have a joke in my family about cardamoms! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Tim here. This is great news, thanks User:Green Cardamom. I have a big concern. I am having a difficult time understanding everything from LibriVox's point of view. I have inspected the URL required for requesting a page from LibriVox with both author and title specified. I'm guessing you know all about the string LibriVox requires, with "search", question marks, "+" and so on. Also, I like that the order of parms doesn't matter, Oh where is my XML?!? :( Finally, does this mean I can begin using this new template on wikipedia book pages now? 68.101.206.143 (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Tim. It should be good to go. I added some new features stitle and dtitle which are needed in certain cases like The Federalist Papers. If you run into any other situations let me know. I'll probably keep tinkering over the next few days, but the core of it is working. -- GreenC 15:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 19 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have filed a false positive report about this. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I fixed the article. Your edit revealed another error in the citation. Not a false positive: a previous editor created the underlying erroneous condition, and the bot couldn't see it until after your fix was applied, so you got blamed. No good deed goes unpunished.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Encarnación Fuyola

Why did you place a {{Orphan}} tag on this article? Aymatth2 (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: AWB applied the tag during cleanup because the article only has two incoming links from articles, and I believe AWB is programmed to tag if there are less than 3 incoming. But in this case removal of the tag is ok. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @EoRdE6: You should be very cautious with using tools like this. The tag says "This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it", which is untrue and will be less true as more articles are added in this subject area. For a new editor, a hostile tag like this on a brand new article may turn them off Wikipedia altogether. We badly need new editors. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@Aymatth2: While I entirely agree, this might be something better taken up on the AWB talk page, as it doesn't provide (as far as I know) a setting for this option.,

Found it thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: Awesome! I have just turned on that setting. Thanks a bunch, this will help. I do attempt to be careful, and mostly I work on NPP and CHECKWIKI fixes with AWB. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent Sandbox edit

@EoRdE6: Hello, i'm Συντάκτης, I just want to let you know that you're recent edit to the Sandbox has been reverted. You can't put content in all Uppercase in the Wikipedia:Sandbox. Try to make useful edits in the future! Συντάκτης (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Συντάκτης: I am honestly hoping you're having a laugh here. Did you read the text? I am trying to explain how undo works to a user from WP:Teahouse and I was using the sandbox as a place to test it out for him. Also, Wikipedia:About the sandbox never says anything about this, so why can't I write in capitals? For those who are wondering. here's the diff. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@EoRdE6: Why? Because it looks kind of bad to others who use the sandbox. Συντάκτης (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Συντάκτης: There is no need to worry about what the Sandbox looks like. First it is used for testing, second, it is automatically bot wiped every few hours. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@EoRdE6: I understand, but as far as i understand you, despite doing test edits should keep the overall look of the Sandbox. Hey infact let's chat about this. Come on let's chat about this. Συντάκτης (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Συντάκτης (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Συντάκτης (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Συντάκτης: General consensus is it doesn't matter what mess the sandbox is, it will be wiped in a few hours anyway and replaced by more mess. No wikipedia readers see the sandbox, and few editors go there either after they figured it all out. Anything else? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@EoRdE6: Yes can we chat about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Συντάκτης (talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 March 2015‎
I was under the impression that is what we were doing, and if you want a policy change on the sandbox (frankly a ridiculous idea imo) then you should take it to a more centralized place. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Re:EWN

Regarding your new habit of commenting at practically anything I'm involved in at noticeboards, etc.: it's starting to look and feel like hounding. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Well for your reference and anyone else who is interested I have the edit-war noticeboard, User:Winkelvi, User talk:Winkelvi, and Bobbi Kristina Brown on my watchlist. About the comment at EWN, I comment on quite a few there, look through the history if you're bothered. I actually just modified the templates they use there and am monitoring the effects too. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

AWB

Hi. Please read the rules of use of AWB before you make any further edits with it. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Hi and thanks for your message! If you don't mind, what specifically are your reffering to? I have read the rules multiple times and try to follow them. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, reviewing my notifications I think I know what you're referring to. The Orphan tag issues has been fixed, see #Encarnación Fuyola above. Yes I do also know about the rule that states you should only save an edit if it makes a reader visible change, and I honestly have no idea what I was doing for those 5 edits (though reverting them doesn't really solve anything at all), its probably because I usually stick to CHECKWIKI fixes which always make small visual changes and I wasn't really thinking when I did that run of NPP. I'll be more careful next time, thanks for the message! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

May I ask a favor?

I didn't bring this up earlier because there was absolutely no question that this was a good-faith edit, but a non-policy-related edit in my user space struck me as odd. Would not the proper course in such a situation be to open a discussion on the user's talk page? Nevertheless, I appreciate the input. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 09:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@ATinySliver: I guess in technicalities you're correct but I was thinking A. Minor grammar change, B. Kinda a bold edit, and you could revert of you disagreed, and C. I figured it was improving the Wiki so... In the future I will ask first if I think there should be an edit to one of your user space drafts. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Much obliged. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 21:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Cerro de Gorría

I noticed you tagged as orphan Cerro de Gorría. The article is linked by Sierra de Ávila and Sistema Central, so I removed the tag. Have a nice weekend, --Pampuco (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pampuco: I have fixed this issue. Previously I had AWB set to tag all articles under 3 incoming links, I have now changed this to only tag if there are 0 incoming links. Thanks for the message! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! --Pampuco (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This is what I get for fixing unbalanced brackets then... An angry bot attack . Note to self, if you fix a template, bots will get mad at you for breaking it... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 17:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Mrigangka Ghosh

I noticed you removed my speedy deletion template on Mrigangka Ghosh. I marked the article as a hoax, because the matches that they allegedly played in don't exist. The matches not on Cricinfo, which lists every match, therefore the article seems to be a hoax. I was wondering why you deleted the {{db-hoax}} template? It's possible it could have been an edit conflict, in which case that's fine. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: It was indeed an edit conflict, but iwas just restoring the BLP PROD left by another editor and removed by the creator. Feel free to restore. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Mrigangka Ghosh

No reason to put a prod up when I already have had one up-I reverted back as the guy keeps on removing it (a spi is up for him too) Wgolf (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that now but I saw an non-prodded article because somebody keeps messing it up. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep might as well as remove it from your prod log also...I did put the guy up on vandalism report and a RPP as well.

Here check this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrigangka Wgolf (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually

There was a date edit.

But I ended up adding to the lead too while I was at it. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The majority of your edit had nothing to do with dates so it was an inaccurate summary. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Oisin Tymon

The article Oisin Tymon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:BLP1E applies. Contrary to the claim in the first sentence, the individual is not "best known for his role in producing Top Gear (2002 TV series)". He is best known for being punched by Jeremy Clarkson and it was only this incident that resulted in him being found to be a producer of Top Gear. Prior to this he was not listed as a producer of the series, this was only added to Top Gear (2002 TV series) well after the event.[1]

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. AussieLegend (✉) 15:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Oisin Tymon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oisin Tymon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oisin Tymon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Davey2010Talk 15:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Oisin Tymon BLP

BLPs require strong references and IMDB is not a strong source. It's not even reliable in most cases. All content in the article is biographical and covered by WP:BLP, which was why {{BLP IMDB refimprove}} was added. Removing it was inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You adding a few billion tags and being so WP:POINTy is inappropriate. You think the article should be deleted, you have voted delete, and that is fine, but there is no need to try to make it seem like a bad article by WP:TAGBOMBing it. That tag was designed for a page like Charlie Rowe, whose biographical data is sourced to IMDb. Now if you would please lay off the article with your tags, and either improve it, or let the AfD run's its course and it be deleted. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Instead of attacking other editors for simply following policy and guidelines, please ensure that you don't violate those policies and guidelines in the future. Any tags that have been added to the article have been appropriate. You may not like it but that's just something all editors have to live with. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

IM THE SIX MONTHS DUDE

Hi! I saw your message about the article just now. It's a little late now but could you call it "G.Mo and Lee"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavenglok (talk • contribs) 03:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Pss... Pss...

Ping only works in a post in which you signed. So replying to somebody at the Teahouse for example without a ping thing, then going back and pinging them won't work. "Note that the post containing a link to a user page must be signed; if the edit does not add a new signature to the page, no notification will be sent." :) DangerousJXD (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: I delete my signature and resign it if I forget, and hope that works... As it was the same timestamp I guess it would appear as though I didn't. Who knows, pings are rather touchy anyway... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For working with a paid editor in a very helpful and professional manner. They greatly appreciated your help and I was very impressed by your conduct. Just one of many instances where I see you around, offering sound input and positive influence in the community. Keep up the good work! Swarm we ♥ our hive 02:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch Swarm its good to know people appreciate my work 😊. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EoRdE6/Archives/2015/March&oldid=1084111780"