User talk:Compassionate727/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Compassionate727. 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.

Perhaps you are not aware that ANi authorized a specific IAR to use G6 Housekeeping on Neelix redirects. If you want to keep it state your case at RfD about to be filed. Legacypac (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. Thanks for explaining. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 18:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Jefferson Davis; Hawkeye7 on Australia's war in Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses British World War I conscription Timeline: This month in World War I

Please read the referring pages and other article mentioning the term first and then try to explain that ecological damage has nothing to do with environmental damage. -- Kku 13:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You win... ;)

Happy editing. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 13:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Compassionate727!

I am quite a new comer to Wikipedia, therefore, of course, there could be problems with my article Ērenpreiss Bicycles. My mistake - I did many small editing in one day, so it looked like I was chaotically writing. Did not know that it is important to make everything in one time, sorry about that. As one of my articles (G. Ērenpreis Bicycle Factory) about bicycle manufacturers in my country got through the Wikipedia criteria and the this new article had a connection with the previous, so I wanted to continue. I understand that it is about company that exists now and is quite new, as well as my country comparing to UK, USA etc. is very small, but there is a connection to historical manufacturer that was notable. Should I just add all the content to historical manufacturer? Please, give me an advice, so the article is not deleted. I have gathered notable reference from The Guardian, Monocle magazine and Forbes about this company, I hoped that this is notable. If not, then what is? For sure, no article in printed encyclopedias about this manufacturer can be found, since it is quite new. Will be looking forward for your answer. Thank you.

User:Ance P. 11:28, 28 January 2016

Yeah, the article is fine. CSD A7 works off of a standard dubbed significance. It is supposed to be a lower standard than notability. Something is established as passing A7 if it makes a claim as to why the topic is important. Notability, on the other hand, is established if the topic is discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. Once in a blue moon, an issue arises where an article appears to meet notability (or be close) without actually establishing significance. That article appeared to be one of them. But the admin disagreed with me, so you're fine. Happy editing. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 12:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

(CSD stalker, not talk page) - Just to chime in, WP:A7 clearly states that significance is "a lower standard than notability". Given this, it is quite clear that there should be no articles that are notable but not significant. You seem to be using "not significant" to mean that the subject simply doesn't merit an article, in which case AfD is the appropriate venue. A2soup (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are you asserting copyright in your signature? It runs contrary to the whole purpose of wikipedia. Bazj (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not. It's a joke, and its expected that it will be interpreted as such. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 12:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Technically... it is fully accurate. This is why cut and paste moves are prohibited, as we must preserve attribution. Edits you make are irrevocably released under a CC-BY-SA license, which means you actually retain the copyright – but more specifically, copyleft (simply a play on words). Anyone can redistribute and modify your work, but they must provide attribution and release it under a similar license, which is still a form of copyright. Redistributors of material taken from Wikipedia need only to state or imply what article it came from, as the rest is in the revision history. The same goes here – you can just put in your edit summary "this content was taken from this article".

That being said, the copyright notice in your signature is still misleading, and surely confusing to new users. I suggest changing it — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andrea Thome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pan-American. 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) 10:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Please explain your reversion of my nomination for this page to be deleted.

Please note that:

• There is another delete from several years ago outstanding on this by someone else but it has never been action.
• All articles on individual congregations were deleted as not noteworthy and this is no different.

Jgk168421 (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Try RfD. Perhaps I'm the only one, but WP:PROD didn't make sense to me. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 15:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Compassionate727, I noticed that you tagged my submission for quick deletion. Is there a way that I can fix it? The company is relevant in the software development industry and also in Europe. Do I need to add more company information? I think the references are sufficient, but I can add more if you think I need to. I didn't add all of them, because it was looking a bit cluttered. Thanks for going easy on the newcomer and thanks for your help. Sororke (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fine. I looked at it and saw a list of products. That usually fails A7 and G11. DGG looked at it and decided that the products had enough references to establish notability. So it requires nothing, though you could make it better by finding other information on the company, such as history. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 15:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

and anyone who disagrees that it is notable can list the article for a discussion at AfD. It might not hold up--the requirements for passing AfD are much more stringent than for passing speedy deletion. You will need better references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, understood. I'll look at adding the history of the company and more references to help add to the article. The problem is that most articles about the company are talking about one of their products, not the company itself. Thank you DGG and Compassionate727 for your help and feedback!Sororke (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Civil Defense Patrol (Guatemala), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Katie^talk 14:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you have validated a modification to the article posted by an IP user. Please note that the modification proposed is against consensus (please check the discussion in the talk page). All reliable English sources do not attach any nationality to Fausto Veranzio (Italian nor Croatian) hence the decision to remove any reference to the nationality in the Infobox and in the lead. Do you have any reliable source stating that he was Croatian? If you don't please leave the article as it is. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. As a pending changes patroller, I was simply making sure the edit didn't violate any of the core policies. Feel free to revert if consensus supports you.

Thank you for requiring a source for including The Knocks on the list of Braun's associated acts. The page is a magnet for unverified "information". In this case, I was able to find a source. Please see my edit summary here. David in DC (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, take care. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 17:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi,

Why?

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Robman94 stated that the primary use for Furyo in English would be the band, as the film was only printed in another language. This would be a case of a primary use, which the redirect should point to, with a hatnote on Furyo (band) disambiguating to Furyo (film). -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 12:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You're joking me right? I've edited for over ten years and know full well about use of copyrighted material on Wikipedia and I get templated? Pffft. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to tell when you have three messages on your talk page concerning non-free images... -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 17:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It's also hard to tell when you just rv to a redirect without explaining what the copyrighted material is or simply removing it yourself. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for rubbing you wrong. People do a lot of things that common sense would seem to dictate are wrong. Particularly with copyvios, the issue is normally ignorance. That, along with the fact that I was trying to get through new articles quickly, was why that happened. Happy editing. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 18:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wkipedia says if one song : Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts it is a notable song. The page was reverted before, because it hadn't any source and I put them. I think this is enough to make this song a notable song. Your own criteria is not wikipedia criteria.--88marcus (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't finish the edit summary. That was my fault, I should've made a dummy edit to complete it. Anyway, I was trying to say that Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Songs states that just because a song charted doesn't necessarily mean that the song is notable. Notability is established by providing multiple independent, non-trivial sources: nothing more, nothing less. This is true for all articles. The sources themselves, which are all charts, are trivial. Furthermore, it says that, "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." The article, as it is, is a stub. Everything except the first section on the music video are lists, and the music video section is two sentences long. Can you add anything to this? A quick Google search shows nothing. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 01:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Charts is not trivial to a single article, since it is a basic criteria at the notability guidelines. Most songs that was released before the 2000s have nothing but charts in the Internet and are kept here. To erase an article that has the criteria needed, seem against the rules and the article can grow, it is one song that play in the radio and has a music video, the fans can contribute to make the article better, with more information.--88marcus (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Can they? If there's nothing on the Internet except charts, how can you expand it?

From magazines, newspapers... you can include information here in Wikipedia without link urls...--88marcus (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I know that. But how much of that stuff exists? Because the ultimate question is whether or not that article will ever be anything besides a stub. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 17:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Man, the article has enough sources to be maintained... Most singles here in wikipedia (especially the old singles) doesn't have nothing but charts. Information about the composition,making the video and other things must came from fans. When they will do that? I don't know. But this is not a reason to erase the article.--88marcus (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't care any more. Happy editing. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 00:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Recently you reverted my changes to the talk pages of Talk:Libyan Arab Republic and Talk:Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The edits I made look malicious, but are not, these pages have both just been created but still had residual talk redirects to the previous article from which they were both respectively taken. As not to engage in any sort of edit-war, I shan't revert your changes until we resolve it here. I'm very new to wikipedia, (my account is not), but I believe myself to be in the right, and that you merely misunderstood the reasoning behind my blanking of the talk pages. Keith User:Kaptinkeiff User talk:Kaptinkeiff - Keith 00:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. Blanking redirects is a common form of vandalism. I went ahead and tagged the pages. Next time, use your edit summary. And happy editing. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 14:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Compassionate727. I don't know if you're aware that IPs aren't able to create articles. They can create article talkpages, though (see WP:IP), and it looks like the IP 31.31.29.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) created Arshak Koryan on the article's talkpage, and then you moved it to article space a minute or two later.[1] Was there any special reason that came about? It worries me a little that the IP got to evade our rules. What happened? Did you see it on Recent changes? Bishonen | talk 23:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC).

Yes, I was monitoring the recent changes feed when I found it. The reason IPs aren't allowed to create articles is because of an incident in which an IP created a libelous article about someone, and nobody noticed it for six months. I did check to see that the article wasn't a hoax, then, satisfied that it was legitimate, moved it to the correct location. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 14:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. Bishonen | talk 15:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC).

Speedy deletion under the G3 vandalism criterion should probably not be used for articles created in the wrong namespace such as Wikipedia:Anna Frijters. I've changed the G3 tag that you placed on the article to G6 because G6 covers pages created unambiguously in the wrong namespace. Thanks for your work with speedy deletion! Appable (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, G3 does apply to page move vandalism, which is why I chose that one. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 21:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

To me at least it did not appear to be page move vandalism but instead a mistake. Appable (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Generally, creating an unneeded and unwanted page by moving a page there is considered page-move vandalism, at least as far as deleting unwanted pages is concerned, despite the fact that the act of moving the page almost never was intended to be vandalism. Or at least, that's my experience. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 12:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The speedy deletion tag you placed on Robert Rooney] was removed by another administrator. The article asserted that he ", the National Gallery of Victoria held a retrospective of Rooney's work," . That is very surely an indication of at least plausible importance . (and in fact it meets at least one of the criteria in WP:CREATIVE. DGG ( talk ) 13:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Compassionate, I would like to ask your advice please. I'm not very good with Wikidata. I created a Redirect page for CNCO in February. Yesterday I found that another user had added some unreferenced material to the page and it was then reviewed, as if it were an actual page. I received notification of the review.

I was helping another user with a Draft page for CNCO, Draft:CNCO to prepare their first band page, when and if CNCO is notable for WP purposes. I advised them that they should have kept the Draft in their Sandbox, after I located it on WP.

I now realize that my User name is attached to the CNCO page, albeit a Redirect (I reverted all the edits since yesterday.) How can the name of this page be used, when the Draft preparer is ready to upload their work - so they may receive proper credit for the page creation. I didn't realize that doing Redirects was so serious! Can we just delete the Redirect? Thank you!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

So, you are saying the person has a draft they want to move there? Then yes. Attach a {{Db-move}} template to the the page with the proper parameters filled out, and an admin will delete the redirect and move the page for you. 18:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, we'll do so when the Draft page is ready to go up. Thanks again.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If all submissions that restricts breathing is a "choke", the table is fine. But Josh is not choking Dean, he is pressing his own ribs into the belly of Dean, whilst pulling head/arm. The chest is compressed, therefor restricting airflow. A source for this... i dont know, ask anyone versed in Catch Wrestling or Combat Submission Wrestling (Erik Paulsons system, Josh`s main coach) Im having a hard time digging up a link that shows how this works. Its comparable to a body triangle from back mount, but that rarely submits anyone by itself. "Kesa Gatame chest compression" on Google/Youtube gives a ton of videos describing it, but a few needs to be watched to "get it" :) 90.149.215.243 (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s0VxxSNu-g Barnett himself calling it a choke, i proved you right :) ohwell :D90.149.215.243 (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for checking! That's why we use sources. XD -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 23:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Compassionate727, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

There is no such word as "Morecambrian". People from Morecambe are "Sand Grown 'Uns" Source of knowledge: being one. Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.9.164 (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no such word as "Morecambrian". People from Morecambe are "Sand Grown 'Uns" Source of knowledge: being one. Please correct it yourself, or allow me to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.9.164 (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia has a policy on this: original research, such as the experience you claim to have, is forbidden because it fails the Wikipedia:verifiability policy. If you can find a source stating this, then feel free to re-add the content along with the source, but otherwise you need to leave it as it is.

You reversion of my edit of MajorBBS was in error. Please undo your reversion as it was not vandalism nor was it spam. There is a concerted effort going on to restore and preserve many of the traditional MajorBBS modules and the edit was in direct reference to one of those major efforts and is of large consequence to the remainder of the MajorBBS community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.242.32 (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I do apologize. I thought you added an external link in the middle of the article, which almost always violates the external links policy. But you added it in the external links section, which is correct. Again, I apologize. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 14:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Good afternoon and thank you for reaching out to me about the biodynamic agriculture page.

I am a current Masters student at NYU studying alternative agriculture and food systems, and there are a few things about this page that are inaccurate that I would like to correct. Could you please let me know how I may be able to work with the site's authors to do so? The article generally is quite strong, but I'd like to strengthen it by correcting the bias in the opening statement, adding scientific studies on biodynamic agriculture and bringing statistics up to date (there are more recent statistics for how many farms are biodynamic certified than 2011). I had thought that these would be fairly uncontroversial but due to two reversions it seems that they are not. How can I collaborate with you to help strengthen this article?

Thanks so much, Snl223 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Samantha

What are you thinking of as biased? From my perspective, your edits made the tone of the article less encyclopediac, at least in the lead. I suppose the rest of it was okay though. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 21:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that you were mistaken. It says on the warriors wiki page http://warriors.wikia.com/wiki/Teller_of_the_Pointed_Stones_(Position) that the Teller of the Pointed Stones is also called Stoneteller.

Fair enough. I would like to point out that wikis fail WP:V because anyone can edit them, but this is rather basic information, and he is also called the Stoneteller further down in the article. Also, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing 4 tildes (~~~~). -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 13:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

True

I have letters belonging to my Grandfather stating that he was a member of Collins Squad. He was an Intelligence Officer. Noeleen Prendergast (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Noeleen Prendergast: Sorry, what are we talking about? -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 14:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I found it. The problem is that your letters aren't published: it's effectively original research. You can try and publish them or something (I don't know how that process works), but until then, it's really not useful. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 14:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you ask for seond time to speed deletion of WETSUS wikipedia. I try to improved the page by removing anything that can be seen as propaganda, or not neutral or not ethically correct. However, this speed deletion still persist with the argument that does not meet all the wikipedia requirements. I am working at WETSUS at this moment as researcher, but soon I will leave the entity to work for another research institution. Like many research institutions ([[2]], [Planck], etc...) WETSUS deserves to be known via wikipedia. Maybe it is not working in rocked science as NASA, but many researchers around the world or students are interested to know that there is a institution workingt on water technology. Please, could you removed the speed deletion and help me to improve the quality of the page. Rodenas84 (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It might, but article has problems. The external links in the middle of the article shouldn't be there per the external links policy. Phrases like "join to improve their know-how" are unprofessional in tone, and further contribute to the tone. In addition, a large part of the article is simply a list of all the specific subjects that they are researching, which seems like you are promoting a list of services. As a whole, I think you just need to start over. And remember, you need independent, reliable sources to establish notability. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 16:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)