User talk:Valenciano

Sorry, it's a mistake. Thank you! Janetaste --Janetaste (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I thought it only right to inform you that I have mentioned you Thank you. --Rockysantos (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, it looks like LTblb is likely to be blocked for sockpuppetry. As my only real involvement with them comes from the Costa Del Sol stuff above, I'll wait for the outcome of the SPI before I comment. Valenciano (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of 1957 Valencia flood at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Crispulop (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that in the article you have some neighborhoods by their Valencian name rather than Castillian, while you have other names in Castillian. This is ofcourse no problem for DYK, I just noticed it while reading the article, being familiar with the city of Valencia myself. You might wish to pick on or the other for consistency. Like I said in the DYK nomination, good job on creating the article. It's nice to see that someone concerns himself with writing about Valencia.

Thanks for reviewing that, I've moved the cites as required. Regarding the district names, fair point. I worked in Marxalenes so was used to hearing/seeing both variants and that's slipped into the article. I'll tweak that a little later. Valenciano (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, thanks for noticing that, I fixed it. Orser67 (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add them when you have them.

Thanks in advance,

EdwardRech (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. That was a very depressing day out. Valenciano (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So as is usual with the boxing section of this site, some editor will go around adding Irish into as many boxers backgrounds as possible regardless of evidence or whatever. Recently an IP (70.120.95.221, which seems somehow familiar with another IP in the past) has been making such edits as VintageKits, Sweeney and River City Boy where/are fond of.

Most curious another IP seems to be tracking 70.120.95.221 and reverting them leaving this message on their talk page, a message that was removed by River City Boy - their first edit here since August. Most curious and possibly a return to old habit via this IP. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite possibly vk, but as the previous SPI came up inconclusive, I'm reluctant to file another without more evidence. Valenciano (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, however the sock-puppetry in this case may be River City Boy using that IP to circumvent the previous scrutiny that they have had in regards to the ethnicity issue. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than possible, but again, having filed an SPI once, I'm reluctant to do so again without strong evidence as it could be labelled as harassment otherwise. Valenciano (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note I filed an SPI on the IP and River City Boy. Doing a little digging and it would appear that River City Boy is quite similar to an older IP account which I've also cited in the SPI. Maybe or maybe not VK, but definitely a system of block scrutiny evasion in my view. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That definitely does look like a case of evasion. We'll see what the SPI comes up with. Valenciano (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Metzler at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please find me on the terms and conditions page where I couldn't right about the zodiac. And I never said that. I meant that i'd put it up for speedy deletion if........it's not good. So i'd be watching him to see if his edits and creations are duplicates or they are not historically, scientifically, and mathematically accurate. I never said i'd disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I never said those words. you assumed it. Assumption is makes an ass out of you and me. One of my favourite sayings

Yours Sinserly

Goldrawer7

samuel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldrawer7 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the article you created was based on a book which was not possible to be traced. That means that the book either doesn't exist or that it could be a small dubious source. Either way, you would need to find much better sources which make the same claims. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources makes it clear that articles must be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Wikipedia also doesn't give undue prominence to fringe theories (see WP:FRINGE) which your article did. Valenciano (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O'Hare's involvement in the case is in the book The Zodiac Murders-Solved. to find it. Go to Zodiackiller.com and click on it on the home page. The Richard Gaikowski's involvement in the case is on the one time tv show spinoff Richard Gaikowski-Zodiac Killer Murders Solved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldrawer7 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That website makes it clear that the book is a self published source. WP:SPS says "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. The TV show is a one off theory. Such ideas would need to have been given much greater prominence and coverage by experts on the subject in reliable sources before we could include them in the main Zodiac article, let alone spin them off into a separate article. I don't see that such coverage exists and therefore we shouldn't have it on here. Valenciano (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiackiller.com was started by a man. Who was the brother of Betty Lou Jensen. The second victim. And you say he isn't a realiable source, the book was written by a man who got contacted by the killer via post. They are both Zodiac Experts. They know what they're talking about. No one can change it. Sure people can write their own books on people who think they know who the killer is. The ones that get actually noticed are. In fact accurate. the tv show was made by Zodiac experts and the police. You call these unrealiable sources. If you can edit stuff on Zodiackiller.com. what about Wikipedia. This is why it's unpopular because anyone can edit it. IT IS UNACCURATE!

Yours Sinserly Goldrawer7

Samuel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldrawer7 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can write a letter to someone claiming to be the killer. Anyone can speculate about who the killer is. The point is that not enough people in other reliable sources have taken those claims seriously. If they're only made in that one self published source, they don't go in. Simple really. Valenciano (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for your comment on dawp regarding da:Ludwig Heidler. The Danish article looks very dubious indeed. Pugilist (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I can see that the hoax article has been deleted there and the offender blocked. Valenciano (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this series Thousand East of The Secrets that you revived is hoax that User talk:Maryank3 creating fake korean dramas which sorucs didn't exist by --Sunuraju (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you believe that it is a hoax, you shouldn't blank the page without explaining it in an edit summary, as that looks like you've vandalised. The correct procedure is to tag it as a hoax, as explained at Wikipedia:Hoaxes#Dealing_with_hoaxes. If the hoax was blatant (and as a non-Korean speaker, I can't verify that it is in this case) you could nominate for speedy deletion as explained at WP:G3. Alternatively you would nominate for deletion as expained at WP:AFD. If you need assistance doing that, let me know and I'll try to help. Valenciano (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Wiercinski 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. Macrakis (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, although I'm a little confused as to why I've been notified, as I've never edited that article. Valenciano (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Valenciano, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jesse rodriguez swimmer, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: gold medal in a national competion is an assertion of importance. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 08:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, based on my CSD log, I didn't tag that for speedy deletion. Most likely I restored a CSD tag which the page creator removed. As the page was deleted, I unfortunately can't view the page in question. Valenciano (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry the history gets complex, and I should have messaged someone else. You just reinstated an A7 tag and it has now been (in my view correctly) deleted G4. ϢereSpielChequers 15:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. I always do WP:BEFORE when adding A7 tags myself, but on this occasion, someone else had done it and a quick glance didn't suggest notability, so that is also my mistake. I'll watch out for that in future, thanks for pointing it out. Valenciano (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it is always worth remembering that a worrying proportion of speedy deletion tags are wrong, or cease to be correct as articles change. Happy editing. ϢereSpielChequers 15:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Valenciano. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kim Stricker, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claim on talk page that OTRS have been sent permission to use this content. I will send the article to AFD though as the subject doesn't appear to be notable. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, the claim was made on the talk page after I'd added the G12. The text is lifted verbatim from the subject's website by someone claiming to be his son and I couldn't find anything else to suggest he met WP:BIO. I'll have a look at the AFD. Valenciano (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

MSS Sajal 06:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rosemarie Hein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CDU (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frankfurt am Main I (electoral district), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Horn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted. Valenciano (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert! I'm using a new tool called Vada, and it lags sometimes so I revert the wrong person. -Newyorkadam (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

I was wondering about that. I'd gone to your talk page to post a warning but saw longer term productive edits, so assumed it was just an honest mistake, don't template the regulars and all that. Valenciano (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect St Basils School. Since you had some involvement with the St Basils School redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Herald talk with me 12:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In Germany nobody celebrates birthday of the SS or Gestapo. In Germany nobody respects Heinrich Himmler (including). You are moderator for new pages ONLY (and do not need play in the war edits also). We need wait the decision of authorized person (you has rights for new pages: it is the old page). Learn more about victims and compare with the Nazism - you can here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book_of_Communism (may be errors in the figures, but the overall is clear). Here we can understand that the Checa and NKVD are the "pioneers" for all bloody communist organizations in many countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Terminology :

"Communist regimes "Communist regimes" refers to those countries who declared themselves to be socialist states under the Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, or Maoist definition (in other words, "communist states") at some point in their history."

This is not original research, but only facts with the proofs (long time ago is known for specialists and not only). Biographies of living persons (if truth - everyone has right know). Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution here. The promotion of genocide in this case: happiness in the day of creation of the bloody organization for implement task, who has name the genocide vs millions of people in those terrible years, on the official level in our time. And the Cheka is "pioneer" (Marxism-Leninism - is the indicator). Thanks for the attention. - 128.73.196.40 (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I'm afraid you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. I am no moderator (Wikipedia doesn't have them.) I don't have any special rights for new pages and, conversely, I don't need any special rights to uphold Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons. I don't understand any of your points about Communism. Dmitry Medvedev, whose page you are adding Category:Human rights abuses to, is not a Marxist-Leninist, nor has he been convicted of any genocide or human rights abuses, so the addition of that category to his page is unacceptable per WP:NPOV and WP:BLPCAT. I suggest you use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes like that. Valenciano (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's rules, you may be blocked from editing. - Need1521 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]