User talk:Smartse/archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Smartse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi! I've moved Paraponera clavata to Paraponera as you requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves. However, you could have performed the move yourself. Moves over a simple redirect (a redirect to the page you're moving, which has no page history) can be made by non-admins as well. (I'm not an admin either, btw.) For more information, see Help:Moving a page#Moving over a redirect. Jafeluv (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This PR agency account continues to spam even after you warned them against it. I've felt forced to put a spam-only block on them. Please take a look at their editing history and let me know whether I did the right thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea I agree with you - all their edits were promotional and the IP is clearly owned by a PR company. I'd been keeping an eye on their edits for a while and offered to help but to no avail. If they feel hard done by they can always appeal.... Smartse (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed some info regarding the "wall of life" as it was added by a PR company for the NHS Lawton communications. It might be worthy of inclusion but in light of the obvious conflict of interest I've removed it. Smartse (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The anonymous editor who made the earlier edits is indeed an employee of Five by Five Media, a division of Lawton Communications, which probably created the website. There have been a number of instances of editing which was or verged on advertising from the anonymous IP used, 81.171.236.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The person who made the edits has appealed to unblock-en-l. I am not going to unblock the IP address as I suspect several people from the firm are using the address, but will offer to create an account for the individual involved. I have counseled her regarding Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. I also found two reasonably good references and restored the information. Fred Talk 14:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, could you let me know what the user's account name is? I don't want to wikistalk them but they will probably need some help in ensuring that they comply with guidelines. I can't see any mention of them applying for their IP to be unblocked either - have I missed something? Smartse (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

They appealed on unblock-en-l Actually I cannot release the user name to you anymore than I could release the ip address of a user. Fred Talk 00:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for helping them - I guess if their edits still cause problems then I'll deduce who they are soon enough! Hopefully they'll take your advice on board. Smartse (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I had actually looked at the taxobox code for something like this, and not found it. Rich Farmbrough, 22:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

Only Aloes and Eugenica, some of which "needed" it. Since I am dong a lot of work in the area is seemed worthwhile trying to build it in. But I am skipping it for now though i am looking at the more complex cases. Rich Farmbrough, 00:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC).

All the subsp. var. etc titles are underway. I also found a bunch using css RealTitle elements which I fixed. These show there are a whole bunch more ending in (isopod) etc, but the difficulty is establishing which are scientific names. Any ideas? Rich Farmbrough, 15:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC).

Hi, I have restored the image since it got deleted from Commons (I think it is vastly superior to the one that is under discussion). However, this image now badly needs a Fair Use Rationale (I agree with the Commons discussion, this is not ok to license it under the Public Domain). Thanks for the notice! -- Luk ^talk 07:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any experience with non-free use rationales but do you think that "The image is being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic?" is a suitable rationale for this? That is a slightly edited version of a rationale on WP:RAT. Smartse (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the image is currently overused (the Bin Laden and AlQaeda article should be he only ones using it IMO), but your rationale is good. The Replaceability section made me laugh. -- Luk ^talk 07:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

See my commentshere Thanks --Sikh-History 10:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Breeding transgenesis cisgenesis.svg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Breeding transgenesis cisgenesis.svg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Breeding transgenesis cisgenesis.svg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Acanthoplus discoidalis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! orangefreak³³ 17:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The bracketed bit comes because I'm using {{subst:PAGENAME}} to fill in the name of the organism in question when the article's created. It should be a small matter, actually, to remove those bracketed bits with AWB, which I'll do in the next day or two. I've seen the {{italictitle}} template used a bit, but hadn't realized it was de rigeur. Though as it happens it's in the orchid articles I'm creating at the moment. As for the name parameter, it's there because it was there in the template I used as a model when I was starting. I'll go ahead and remove it from everything here on out.

Thanks for the tips - and you're welcome to the articles. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

To say the least. Anyhow - I'm out for a bit, but I hope to have that orchid list finished upon my return. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OK - I have a question for you. I looked at List of Tortricidae genera, and found the note which says, "This taxonomy does not take into account the subdivision of certain subfamilies into tribes, as the assignment of genera to tribes remains provisional". I'd still like to take a shot at AWBing them, to get rid of a huge list of redlinks. The way I've been doing them, you think there would be any problem? I've been doing very basic things that don't even involve tribes. But you're far more well-versed in science than I am, so I bow to your superior understanding of things. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Right - at some point soon I'll do that, then. Thanks. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I did what you said, but I couldn't get it to work, at least not in the article preview. Abyssal (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Abyssal (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the multi-revert there; I can't believe I didn't review the edit history after catching the first IP vandalism. I've done this enough that I should know by now! Good catch  :) Doc Tropics 20:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder on the prod template edit summary requirement. It looks like it survived intact and maybe that is for the best!Cptnono (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm facing exceptional opposition to the context added to Palestinian political violence. It seems people don't even care about the consensus reached at Talk:Zionist political violence. This is the whole reason for the detente which was reached some time ago. Perhaps you could help inject some reason into the Palestinian article as well. Otherwise, I respectfully request that both be reverted back to the rather asinine (but blandly neutral) "for political reasons". --65.127.188.10 (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you think you are Smart or does it mdean that you think you are a showoff (a merger of Smart arse)? Simply south (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither actually it's made from my real name! Smartse (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey there! Sorry about the late reply. Anyway, I'm no expert, but it seems like a semi-major TV provider. However, that's not why I declined the speedy; from what I determine, it asserts notability; it doesn't necessarily prove it. You're welcome to propose it for deletion if you feel necessary. Cheers, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Your request for bolstered references in the article have been fixed. Think you could take another look at it?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ne'er mind that nagging. Gatoclass just verified it. Thanks for the pointers, though!

Peter ^Isotalo 13:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never edited this page so I'm not sure why you've given me this! I did verify the hook but User:Billy Hathorn wrote the article. Smartse (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I really have no idea why this was; I thought I simply copy/pasted it over. Thanks for the alert though. NW (Talk) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted you on AFM instantly, thinking of vandalism, sorry. I have to run now and will try to think how to salvage that image - it is by all means valuable (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ibm_research_zurich/3839009929/ is even better), but it is a copyright violation and will probably be deleted. It is not free on flickr. Honestly, I have almost no experience with saving copyvio by non-free rationale. In fact, there are dozens of such images which I would be more than glad to have on WP. Materialscientist (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's an extremely cool picture, and there's nothing like it anywhere else, but that has nothing to do with whether it may be posted on Wikipedia. As the above poster noted, it certainly isn't free. (Your wording on the picture caption is now less combative, but no more pertinent.) -- Dan Griscom (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold on. After having had a look at the image page, I got tempted to remove your dispute tag. The image is non-free but unique, you accept that. The non-free rationale is present. What is your concern then? Your tags says "Poster clearly flaunting Wikipedia policies. Unless this concern is addressed by adding an appropriate non-free use rationale" which is at least uninformative. Materialscientist (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The original uploader, User:ObsessiveMathsFreak has removed the tag now. I'm fairly sure that the rationale for pentacene is sound. Number 8 - Images with iconic status or historical importance onWikipedia:Non-free_content#Images may do for it's use on AFM too IMO.

I disagree. There are plenty of free images that show pentacene in all its glory, diagrammatically. The only reason this image is being posted is that it's a very beautiful example of advanced imaging, which has nothing to do with pentacene per se. In addition, the rationale of Images with iconic status or historical significance is, to my mind, way overstating the image's value. But, as three other editors disagreeing with me, I won't push it any further. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Please understand the difference between a speculation (hand or computer-drawn diagram) and observation in science. The beauty of this image is by no means quality, but realism. Materialscientist (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I replied to your request on my talk page and passed the article. See my comments on the article's talk page. I also placed it in Law, Ethics in WP:GA, I hope that's ok as I couldn't think of a better place to put it. If you find a more appropriate spot then please move it. Cheers, H1nkles (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Is this where I respond to your invitation for a comment?

In a complex series of tiring exchanges on the (endless) Sathya Sai Baba Discussion pages (14 Archives already), I have been trying to establish my right to be judged by what I publish on Wikipedia. On my User Page I choose voluntarily to offer my real name for anyone who wishes to check up on me. Please ask the complainant (who has recently retracted unfounded charges of vandalism against me) to show, coherently and specifically, which of my postings on this Wikipedia article show clear evidence of COI. Ombudswiki (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You kindly offered at [1] to look at articles I might be too close to. I wonder if you could look at Hare coursing in the particular context of [2] and [3]. Many thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike, it looks like things are under control but I'll keep an eye on the article for a while. I think it is quite clear that it is ok for you to challenge the removal of content without discussion. Smartse (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the pointers. You say "if you are patrolling new pages can you click on the small "mark this page as patrolled" button at the bottom right hand corner of the page to save other people's time." Sorry, but I cannot see this button, where is it? Or where can I find out about it? Thanks --Alchemist Jack (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, will do! Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a brand new project called the Wikipedia:Article Incubator. The idea is to take articles at risk of deletion out of articlespace to work on them to bring them up to scratch. Another suggested use for this project is to have a place to put article drafts which will let other editors find and work on them. I wondered if you'd be interested in moving User:Smartse/Protest in the United Kingdom into the Incubator? It's a brilliant idea for an article, and now I've put the outline in place it'd be a shame for it to not go to fruition. Fences&Windows 01:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Go for it, I don't feel confident enough to work on the article from scratch but the new project sounds like a great idea. Smartse (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. Fences&Windows 16:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I speak Yoruba and edited the text in Fin Tutuola the name of the premier referred to is Olofin not Odafin. How does this constitute vandalism?78.105.70.186 (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)78.105.70.186 (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 'Odafin' to the best of my knowledge is meaningless

Thanks for your message; I was going through Category:Grade II listed buildings in England by county and adding the educational category. The scheme of listed building categories doesn't seem to distinguish between current and former purposes; it was listed when it was a school, anyway. Anyway, I think either both categories (Grade II listed buildings in Somerset / Grade II listed educational buildings) should stay, or they both should go, and I don't mind which! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 13:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

2 items:

An editor has removed the following historical statement from [The Epstein School] page:

In 2006, The Epstein School was recognized by Senate Resolution 1205, introduced by Senators Hill of the 32nd district, Adelman of the 42nd district and Weber of the 40th district for dedication to scholastic excellence and for its many contributions to education in Georgia.

It was sourced with the resolution document itself on the Georgia State website as proof that the resolution was made:

http://wwww.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/pdf/sr1205.pdf

The document also sourced another statement that I have temporarily removed to remove the citation template, until further notice.

I continue to work diligently and would like some input and request that the coi template be removed. Please provide input/direction. Thanks.

As an editor with a COI, you should probably let some other editors work on the article. If this means that some parts of your work are removed then they obviously do not consider it worthy of inclusion. I'm afraid that there isn't a great deal you can do. The COI tag should probably be left for the moment, I removed it previously but doing so again may be inappropriate as other editors feel it is still necessary. As Chzz has said on you talkpage, if you want to add more information put it on the talk page and then someone else can add it. Let me know if you need any further advice. Thanks Smartse (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have hope - Wikipedia can be useful for the amateurs, but for the specialists too. I think it is good idea. Only full and true taxonomy must be on pages.It is the problem in the present time.Leonid 2 (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Cancellation_of_interwiki_links. --Ilario (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Globitermes sulphureus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The image you recently SVG-ized is blank. Emw (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a temporary issue: this shows the correct image. I've had a similar thing happen before but I think the servers just need to update themselves and it will be ok. If it still is appearing blank tomorrow I'll revert and try and work out what is wrong. Thanks for the note. Smartse (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I fixed the issue by removing a problematic 'image' tag in the SVG source code. Emw (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dr Prabhat Das Foundation, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Prabhat Das Foundation. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Atama頭 07:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Another contributor has opened a conversation about you at the administrators' noticeboard. You are, of course, welcome to participate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

indeed. --Rrburke^(talk) 16:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought that it didn't apply in cases of vandalism, which this is, essentially. -Reconsider the static (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The only difference between this and "blatant" vandalism is the fact that the editor has provided an excuse. "Read wiki guidelines". Is that all you have to do to get away with blanking sections? Make up some ridiculous explaination and suddenly its not 'vandalism' anymore. -Reconsider the static (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Reconsider the static seems to have reverted my edit for Vivek Kundra with an alleged "sockpuppet" as the ludicrous arbitrary reason. If anything, TruPrint appears to have been created yesterday with only one contribution to Kundra's page prior to Reconsider the static. There is a strident insistence to this that I do not like. I have asked to discuss this in the talk section prior to posting these in the article.--7oceans (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28medicine-related_articles%29#Diseases.2Fdisorders.2Fsyndromes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, lets work on that one together. I will translate the intro from German and update some inputs from the german review. We still need to work on the history section, summarize etc... what do you say? --hroest 12:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, I might not have a great deal of time to help but I'll do what I can. Smartse (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I am a non-native speaker, it would be great if you also could spot some bad grammar / weird formulations that were introduced into the article. I would appreciate it, thanks. --hroest 16:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Smartse (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the great help and sorry for the mistakes :-) I believe we already improved the article a great bit! --hroest 17:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just been looking at the WikiProject Fishes talk page, and I thought I'd give some input on pygmy seahorses. I started typing this at the WikiProject page, but moved it here:

Pygmy seahorse should probably be considered a term for small seahorses. The differences from other species could be mostly superficial: adaptations to a different way of life, and there is no definite proof for a close relation between the various species of pygmy seahorse. The study in Mol. Phylog. Evol. only included one species. I think the best course for now would probably be to add the information to Hippocampus (genus), and maybe chage pygmy to Bargibanti's seahorse, the name I see more often. While finding some info for this comment, I noticed adverts, vandalism, and nonsense on a lot of seahorse pages, which will take a while to clean up. innotata Talk Contribs 20:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually decided to add it to the Hippocampus (genus) article about a week ago as it had been sat in my userspace for ages. I'm glad that you agree with me. I'm still not sure to do about pygmy seahorse though. Smartse (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Silly of me to not notice that, eh? Anyhow, the pipefish in general need a lot of work. I'll do a little bit, but I have a number of other projects here that I only just started. Anyhow, I thought you might want to know that, among a good many other papers, the descriptions of some pygmy seahorses are available for free at the journal Zootaxa. I'm going to add a bunch of new pages on the more interesting vertebrates described there recently over the next few months. (Along the lines of this page I started: Stechlin cisco) As for your preformated message on my talk page, yes, I have already joined two WikiProjects, WP Fish and WP India, though my interests are much broader. innotata Talk Contribs 19:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me sir'. I am the user 110.55.187.227 (my IP address is constantly changing for a reason not fully understood). The 'recent edit' you attributed to me about the 'Kanagawa Prefecture' is not mine. I am an expert on Egyptian Mythology, not Japanese geography. I was the one adding the infobox for the Egyptian gods and goddesses. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.55.187.227 (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See Dynamic IP address, the warning given for editing Kanagawa Prefecture was obviously given to another person who was previously using the IP now given to you. Smartse (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey fellow wikipedian, can you clean up the reference list again on the Bog page, its getting kind of hairy and out of control, much obliged.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done some, but really you should work out how to do it as it makes referencing material a lot simpler. Take a look at the diff to see how. Basically convert the <ref> at the start to <ref name=example> and then you can replace duplicated references with <ref name=example/>. If you try and still can't do it drop me a line again. Smartse (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see it now, basically you just rename the citations to shorter simpler things so that they are easier to manage and don't repeat themselves in the list of references at the end of the article?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you meant to do this so I reverted it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This user is in university. This user is taking a wikibreak and may be away or inactive for varying periods of time. Although they may occasionally be able to do some editing, messages left for them may not be replied to for a while. They will be back on Wikipedia when university is over.

Email me if you have to. Smartse (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, fellow Hip Hop WikiProject members!

This message is being sent out to let all listed members of the project know to re-add your name to the members list, as all current names on the list have been erased in order to find out who is still active on the project. WikiGuy86 (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just wondered why you did this and created 2 new articles when the main article wasn't overly long. I assume you were being WP:BOLD by not templating the article first. Also I think you need to template the articles with these to say that they were split out of the main article. Smartse (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind adding templates, I just find that some of them are too boring and bureaucratic to add. I also find that demanding that the original contributor to an entry be the one who adds all the templates is somewhat counter-productive and un-Wikipedian, since it oftens de-motivates newbies and provokes people into leaving the encyclopedia project. See these recent press articles that talk about bureaucrats who tend to de-motivate bold contributors into slowing down the creation process. [4][5][6][7] ADM (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting reading, I only started editing for real in February this year though so hopefully there are some more people like me out there! I'm not overly worried about it, hopefully this coverage might encourage more editors to join especially as the number of page views continues to grow. It's also true that we don't really need more articles but we need the current ones to be improved. I'm not quite sure I agree with your points about the templates though, surely we should acknowledge the fact that the new articles have been written by editors of the main GMO article? I'm all for being bold but it is only fair to properly attribute people's work. Smartse (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good job on cleaning up the article, and for keeping an eye on it. Before you came along it was a long rambling page of biased text. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont think that it should be deleted, i have listed the following sources ...

• Arabbuilder.com
• Emporis.com
• Skyscraperpage.com
• Skyscrapercity.com

are they not enough to proof its presence ??? i know that its status is currently Approves as stated in Emporis, so i will change its status from under construction to Approved. There are alot of articles of skyscrapers on wikipedia, in which there status is written as under construction but they are really not so !

it is reasonabale that Marina 106 will be constructed in future, but it doesnt mean that it will not be built at all, or you delete its article..... if you wanna delete its article so plz take a look for the number of articles of skyscrapers which are outdated,

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

see 151 Incheon Tower its status is written as under construciton but, a number of sources are showing its status as On-hold or Proposed or Approved, so go and tag its article for deletion. the ground for incheon towers was broken in 2000, so then wht happens nothing the building was put on hold. so it doesnt mean that you will delete its article. In wikipedia there are a number of articles of skyscrapers whose status is Prposed which are expected to be completed in future. so tag all those articles deletion as well. hope you got my point

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

you are confused here, construction has not been started on it, only ground was broken for marina 106.........and thats it.i have provided another source of marina 106.We will have to wait until any update of marina 106 realeases, because not current update is there on any website. but this is for sure that ground has been broken for marina 106, and construction will start if there are no issues of lack of finances..the article shouldnt be delete before any construction update of Marina 106...

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the sources are enough to pass.....

Arabbuilder.com Ggicouae.com Emporis.com Skyscraperpage.com Skyscrapercity.com

just visit these sources, there is no question of deleting this article. Have a look at the following skyscrapers,

• 200 Greenwich Street
• 150 Greenwich Street
• 175 Greenwich Street
• World Trade Center Tower 5

these four towers are also currently approved or proposed but these towers got popularity just because of freedom tower, which is the only building which is currently under construciton there thats why they have alot of sources and external links. afew months before there was news that these all towers were under construciton. but there construciton has been halted.As you can see the delays in the construcrion of freedom tower, so who can say that these four towers will be built or not ????? So they also do not pass WP:V.so delete all these articles because USA is more badly affected by global downturn than Dubai.If you know the construction of Chicago spire has already been halted. So we may also consider it in the above mentioned four towers.may be they will be built in 2015 or may not be built at all !!!

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the cutting and pasting. It's been a while since I've done major edits on Wikipedia. I'll be more cautious in future. Thanks for the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmckeon ie (talk • contribs) 18:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Why have you removed the link I added in the external links section of Photography ? I think it's valuable and contain enough information to join the Wikipedia Encyclopedia... Tell me more please ! Jrpac (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I removed your link because I consider it to be inappropriate per no4 of Links normally to be avoided - "Links mainly intended to promote a website". Your username and userpage suggest that you own/maintain this website and so you have a conflict of interest when you add it to to the photography article. If it is an important enough link then someone other than you will add it to the article eventually. If you're unhappy about me removing it and after reading the "Links normally to be avoided" section you still disagree then please post of talk:photography to see if others think it should be included. Cheers Smartse (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand about the conflict of interest but this is because Internet is huge web that I am not sure anyone else will add this link. Nevermind ! Whatever, thank you for your kind response. Jrpac (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Execuse me sir, I don't understand, what exactly is the problem in the article Shesh Paul Vaid, I mean if some time is spared it could very much be expanded. Why ton Earth is it defamed by the marking it as COI as done by User:Shem1805? The creator would provide the references regarding any new information added in the article. Please help.117.198.131.59 (talk)

I removed the COI yesterday myself and explained why, I've left another note on the talk page to explain why I don't think that it is necessary for the article as it stands. If you have any references that might help to show that they meet WP:BIO then please add them to the article. Cheers Smartse (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Surely sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.131.59 (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Smartse. You have new messages at Talk:Shesh Paul Vaid.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Smartse. You have new messages at Talk:Shesh Paul Vaid.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You may be interested in the nomination for deletion of Shesh Paul Vaid. Shem (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Smartse. Thank you very much for explaining me the reason why you marked my article P2ware Planner to be deleted. I did quick Internet search and provided information on a talk page of the article. The software is widely used in Polish project management community, also as I learned some used in UK, Australia, Benelux. Please take a look a the page. Could you remove the marker that the article is to be deleted. I wouldn't like my work to be deleted:) Thanks. Pm expert (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I removed the "dated prod" template. Added explanation to the article discussion. Again, thank your for explaining me some Wikipedia rules. Pm expert (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

) thanks for fixing the header. I didn't know how to correct.

Aahaas (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm replying to you here because Atama hinted that the COIN discussion was no longer relevant due to the AfDs. I'm generally very leery about letting articles created through paid editing stay on Wikipedia because I feel they were created through an abuse of our policy and ethos and that retaining the articles gives paid editors incentive to continue with their practice. Then again, if they are about a clearly notable subject they would be welcome, but only after a complete top-to-bottom rewrite without any hint of a promotional nature.

I notice the Playgen article did not survive AfD. I wouldn't be opposed to starting it up again as a merge location because it no longer has a promotional history. The two games/simulations can then be mentioned in within the context of that article. ThemFromSpace 11:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Rees11 (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Xikuangshan mine at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Smartse: On looking through the talk pages this has been discussed to death. I don't even think that the first sentence has any notability in the life to Kundra. That has also been deemed controversial. You are more than welcome to create Acar's page. WP is not a news outlet and this feels like a political attack trying desperately to insinuate "guilt by association" which is clearly against WP policies. In fact removal of controversial matter does not even qualify for the 3RR. If you have any questions please talk to Horologium(administrator). -- Mary Gracee (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussions decided that the previous information definitely belonged in the article. Now that a new source has appeared a new discussion looks like it needs to take place as to whether or not it should be included. I generally err on the side of keeping sourced information in an article unless there is a good reason not to. Note that being from the UK, I am neutral in my views of American politics and am in no way making a political attack. It has been reported by an RS and as I said it is linked to the previous sentence and actually lets the reader know what the problems were. I'll start a discussion on the talk page about this as that is where it belongs, please join in. Smartse (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was a compromise to limit the scope not to expand on it. There were some editors who argued against its inclusion for this very reason. The sentence you are trying to add is not appropriate in this article for the following reasons:

-It violates WP:BLP with respect to WP:HARM#TEST because you are trying to use guilt-by-association as Kundra was never a target of the investigation.

-It violates WP:WEIGHT or WP:UNDUE because it suggests an increase of scrutiny over Kundra. The consensus was to limit scope not expand it. The whole paragraph should not be included at all.

-It violates WP:NPOV because this is a conflation that introduces a negative point-of-view, even if that is not your intention.

-It violates WP:RECENT because it draws attention to recent news events, and has no longevity in a biography of Kundra's entire life. -- Mary Gracee (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wish to understand what's wrong with my last update...

The reverted information about Grupo Modelo is wrong: there are not any Cisneros nor gomez in Grupo Modelo's history. Thats the only change I made in the last update, in fact, I've maked some reference to other wiki article to bring a reliable source, as you can find in the article of María Asunción Arambuluzabala (Grand daughter of Felix aramburuzabala, one of Grupo Modelo's founders)

I understand that Wikipedia is not intended to promote our brands but I think that is really important ensure that the information is accurate and true.

If you know the reliable source of that information about Cisneros and Gómez, please tell me how to find it in order to make the corrections.

Greetings from Grupo Modelo México —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCI 2010 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for being a little slow to reply, I didn't revert your last edit but admit I should have checked to make sure that was sourced. Since you alerted me to it I've removed details of the founders and the Mitchell group. Generally people here are pretty wary of people making edits saying that they are a company (as you learnt before you changed your username) and therefore it is reasonable to revert edits. If you wish to make new changes to the article, please ensure they are backed up by reliable sources. The company website may be suitable for some information such as the history of the company, but you'd be better of using google news to find sources to use. Most importantly, whatever you write must be neutral toned. Language like "León has become a new favorite of young people who are looking for a dark beer with a great taste." in this version you added yesterday will not be tolerated. Per our conflict of interest guideline, please place a proposed edit on the talk page and add {{request edit}} above it and then another person can add it. One final note, only one person should use your account, (see WP:SHARE) if more than one person will be editing please create another account. Smartse (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi again!!

I'll be making some changes but I promise to be neutral and I'm going to follow all the guidelines (at least I'll try because there too many of them).

Best regards and happy Xmas! --DCI 2010 (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The taxobox at this page isn't showing. Can you fix this? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Done - diff - it was missing a couple of ]] after Linnaeus. Smartse (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)