User talk:DatGuy/Archives/2016/September

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jona Laks (September 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Abdullah Alam was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jona Laks and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Abdullah Alam (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello! DatGuy, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Abdullah Alam (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Drawn Together movie

The edit I made isn't vandalism. Look it over yourself. I'm reverting it.

Stop reverting things that you don't read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.10.19 (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@184.96.10.19: How is [1] unsourced? It gives an example right after it. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

There are two negative reviews cited (one from a media content watchdog, not an actual critic), one positive review cited, and nothing cited about the opinions of "viewers". We can leave the CSM review, but it needs to be changed to reflect the actual review, which spent paragraphs and paragraphs criticizing the film for its extreme content.

So what the fuck is your problem here? I'm certainly not vandalizing, even if you don't agree with my edits. Keep it up and I'm gonna report you.

@Demoniiic: Thanks for your kind words. Example 1, example 2, + the Commonsensemedia. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

No tomato-meter available. 50% liked it. Plus ONE critical review? That's not what it says on the article, which states that multiple critics and fans in general criticized it for very specific reasons. I'm removing it. Rewrite it if you like to reflect the content of the actual sources. Demoniiic (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Demoniic: See? That's better instead of being uncivil. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Doctor Who series 9

okay, sorry about the first edit - but the point I made in the second edit still stands. the wording "return of" is wrong, because multi-parters never went away. there was one in the finale of series 8. you can put that there were more than series 8 if you want, but do't stick back in a word which isn;' true.2.124.85.120 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@2.124.85.120: I reverted the edit since that was the one I first saw. The edit in which you removed the ( thing was after I clicked "revert." Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Jimmy Martin (American football) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jimmy Martin (American football). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jimmy Martin (American football) has been accepted

Jimmy Martin (American football), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't really have discretion. I would have preferred a longer article, but he has ipso facto notability now that he plays in a fully professional league. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For putting out the trash with such efficiency- It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it Muffled Pocketed 09:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit on Firefighter's helmet

You deleted my part in the chapter helmet colors where I described the situation in Germany. Your reason was that I did not provide a reliable source. You are absolutely right I did not provide any source but on the other hand I can find not a single source on the whole chapter helmet colors. Maybe you deleted it so fast cause I created a new account on Wikipedia, which does not mean that I am new, I just forgot my password for my old account. I try to find a reliable source; meanwhile I will restore the part. --Burnd-2 (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Burnd-2: No, I did not remove it because you have a new account (I don't even check that). Please add {{cn}} to all bold, unsourced claims. Cheers, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Sports-related curses

Hello, you requested for me to add a source to my Edit to Sports-related curses, regarting Sporting CP's unlucky number 7. Most of the "old" info I took from this article from UEFA.com[2]. This article was published in 2003, which means it doesn't serve as source to the post-2003 info I added. That I wrote myself from my experience as a club fan since the 90's. However, this DailyStar[3] article mentions most of what I wrote, even though I'm not sure if DailyStar is regarded as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royk14 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

18:11:24, 6 September 2016 review of submission by Trent77

• Trent77 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Labor Law Plus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can we retain the advantages section without it sounding promotional? It's all sourced from a reliable source.

Thanks!

@Trent77: I suggest a complete rewrite of the whole article. The advantages section definitely needs to go though. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

CVUA

Hello DatGuy, do you still take students at the CVUA? If so, please accept this as an application for me to attend--Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ 12:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteriumen (talk • contribs)

Per SineBot comment above, I think I've identified that it prefers one type of signature over the other, and as such is enforcing uncommissioned policy.--Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 22:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jona Laks

The article Jona Laks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you. This proposed deletion was started by User:Piotrus

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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Even though this is not AfD, please see WP:BEFORE. Two BBC articles, one of which isn't even an interview, a UN speech, a page on the Candles Holocaust Museum, a Chicago Tribune article, a biography film and more. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 September

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

• On the History of smart antennas page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Mikel Schreuders

added links pointing to Swimming and Aruban

Madeline (video game series)

added a link pointing to Each

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Jona Laks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jona Laks 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/Jona Laks 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

ISIL

Hi The ip had 3 reverts against me without consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I ask you to return to the ante bellium version. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

re: Signing

Please do not remove information on how to contact me. People too often deprod and ignore the prodded. This makes it easier for them to be courteous and inform me when they remove the template I added. Templates like this that allow for explanation can also include links to related projects or talk pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus: See your talk page. Links from mainspace to userspace are not allowed. See every PROD here. It makes it a pain in the ass for CheckWiki users such as me and Bgwhite to clean it up. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no rule that actually states that, I did look at WP:SIGN. I am not signing an article and claiming authorship to them, I am just making it easier for people to follow best practices for PRODs and ping me back. I am sorry that it makes your fix tax more difficult, but you can just add an exception for my username to your script, or better, make it so that it ignores text in proposed deletions. With all due respect as a fellow editor, your removal of reference to my talk page from my prods makes my volunteerign task of cleaning spam more difficult too, as it decreases the chances I will be notified of deprods. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

That's up for Bgwhite and Magioladitis, but for now wait to reach consensus instead of PRODing more articles. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not intend to stop spam cleanup tasks given that you are not able to cite a clear policy that supports your view. If you can cite the policy first, I'll reconsider. I did start a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Signatures#Is_making_a_reference_to_one.27s_username_in_a_proposed_deletion_template_acceptable.3F, and I am not reverting you, per WP:BRD, so now kindly please stop reverting me in turn. I hope we can work out a compromise solution that will make everyone happy, it is not like I do not understand your point, and I do not want to add to your workload. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't removed any of your PRODs since this discussion started. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 05:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I replied at WT:SIG, but this isn't appropriate there. I noticed alot of your prods were to older articles. This is my personal opinion... I don't like it when older articles are proded. Nobody is usually looking at them. I usually go the AfD route to make sure. Prods on older articles have been used as a way to get rid of articles people don't like (not the case with you).
I have removed several prods of yours. A quick Google search showed multiple, valid references. Another reason to got the AfD route? I think it is good you are removing the cruft, I just wish there was a better, easier way to do it. Bgwhite (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

18:52:59, 14 September 2016 review of submission by SeeS Music

• SeeS Music (talk · contribs)
  • User:SeeS Music/sandbox/SeeS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Thank you for reviewing my article. "SeeS aka SeeS Music"

I am a pretty well established musician and this is my first time submitting to Wikipedia so thank you in advance for you patience and advice.

I want to make sure my article gets approved and the reason you did not approve it had to do with reliable sources. I believe there are enough valid sources to establish my credibility and deserve a wikipedia article. I apologize if citing my own blog (once) created an issue, or citing some of the smaller blogs. However I was hoping you could confirm the following sources which I cited are credible and if they are not enough, could you please explain why?

Hot97 (The largest hip hop station in the US) http://www.hot97.com/blogs/new-music/new-music-sees-apples-eden-video HollywoodTake (Major online entertainment news site) http://www.hollywoodtake.com/sees-between-lines-makes-its-mark-connecticut-hip-hop-artist-scott-sheldon-transforms-789122 DopeBoyz (A very established Hip Hop Blog) http://2dopeboyz.com/2016/04/02/sees-apples-in-eden/ ThatsEnuff (DJ from Hot97's Hip Hop Blog) http://thatsenuff.com/2015/09/28/sees-never-let-em-down-video/ Don Diva Mag (Major online and print publication for Hip Hop) http://dondivamag.com/connecticut-emcee-sees-drops-controversial-visual-called-apples-in-eden/ WZMX - Hot93.7 (A major CBS owned radio station) http://hot937.cbslocal.com/2015/03/14/fridaynitespotlite-ft-the-conn-viction-tapes/ HipHopWeekly (Another Hip Hop Blog) http://www.hiphopweekly.com/connecticut-emcee-sees-drops-controversial-visual-called-apples-in-eden/ Itunes (was intended to verify my distribution through Universal Music)

Please assist me if possible. I have several songs on radio and it is hurting me an an independent artist to not have an active Wiki page.

Thanks,

SeeS Music (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@SeeS Music: Thing is, some of them are the videos or the music itself. You need references that cover the musician, not helps you listen to the musician. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 05:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Pardon the intrusion, but I noticed two problems outside of the referencing that would need attention before most AFC reviewers would pass this. First, there is a good bit of unencyclopedic writing, especially in the Personal Life section. Every WP subject is "more than a (whatever they are that makes them famous)", so you really don't need to state that. That whole section should really just go. It sounds like a rapper writing about himself and not an encyclopedia article (perhaps an awkward issue, since this actually is a rapper writing about himself). Second, there is no need to use direct quotes so extensively in the entry; it would flow better to accurately paraphrase the material from the sources.

I don't have the music expertise to comment on the value of the sources, but I can point you to WP:NMUSIC, a notability guideline for musicians on WP. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Review Request

Hi there,

I submitted a page for 'Genius Sports' about a month ago and was wondering if it could possibly be reviewed anytime soon?

Kind regards, George — Preceding unsigned comment added by George3107 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

seljuk leaders

hello please stop it. I want to talk with you.Please not delete my message. talk..--88.251.246.73 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of performances by the London Symphony Orchestra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hans Richter. 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) 09:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

BRFA

Your BRFA has been approved for a trial, please see the request page for information. Please post your results to BRFA when complete. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see updates for extended trial. Also, unless you will carefully watch it I suggest redirecting your bot talk page to this page. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux:  Done and  Done. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Great you are going to control a bot! Congrats and good luck! VarunFEB2003 12:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Lord Newby

Can you explain why my edits to update Lord Newby's page to reflect his election as Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords are unconstructive? It has added a lot of information, improved formatting, and updated the information to reflect his position as of September 2016.

Question

Dchen (WMF), may I also help testing? Cheers, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@DatGuy: Thanks for reaching out! :) We have a few tests going on now and a few upcoming. Do you use Twinkle, Recent Changes page, and/or Content Translation tools? Cheers- Dchen (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dchen (WMF): I certainly use Twinkle. By recent changes page, before I got rollback permissions and started using Huggle I used Special:BlankPage/RTRC. I started using the content translation tool, but stopped (I speak Hebrew and English professionally). Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 05:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@DatGuy: Awesome. Please email me at dchen[at]wikimedia.org with the following info:

• Username
• Email where I can reach you
• Your city or time zone
• Best time to talk to you
• Your primary use of Twinkle or Recent Changes (e.g., reviewing recent changes, reviewing with a particular focus (specify), anti-vandalism, new-page review, welcoming new users, etc.)
• How often you've used Content Translation and why you stopped

I'm doing quite a bit of recruiting at the moment and triaging of respondents, so please be patient if I don't get back to you right away. Thanks for your interest :) Dchen (WMF) (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Malcolm modele draft page

Hi, I wrote the draft of the actor malcolm modele 5 months ago but was rejected and was asked to remove all IMDB references, content that had tone issues and content that was not verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarishMP (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

please revert it back to the newly edited version of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarishMP (talk • contribs) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit on Insteon Page

Hello, my edits on the Insteon page were constructive as the page was written off a deceptive pieces of documentation. Insteon has had various security flaws and it appears that they have all been edited out of the wikipedia page. I attempted to fix only some of the lies on the page. The insteon wikipedia page reads like marketing. A well known security researcher did a short talk on Insteon documentation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy1LTQLmPtM How would you recommend that I reword my edits. Thank You

The issue is the wording. Instead of adding 'this is however untrue,' just doesn't fit Wikipedia. You could add 'According to security expert x, this statement is false because of xxx.' Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs

Cross media publishing

Hi, it appears you made a mistake with AWB - you/it tagged a redirect page (albeit a broken one) as a stub. I've fixed it now. — Smjg (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Smjg: Thanks for fixing it. I wondered about that, but I was at school and didn't have a lot of time to check it over. If it was a proper redirect, then AWB wouldn't have made that change. Cheers, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit on Osteopathic Medicine

Dear DatGuy,

Thank you for your message when removing my edits. I do not think that my changes were nonconstructive. Instead, I was trying to portray the current status of Osteopathic Medicine as more subjective than the current wording communicates. This is an incredibly controversial subject, and the current wording makes it sound like there is an established consensus. I request you to reconsider your removal of my edit, as I think it is dangerous to portray a medical issue as having a consensus when there is indeed debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.97.113 (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello 113. I believe I intended to revert that as a good-faithed edit, but misclicked. Feel free to re-add the content, but use proper grammar and watch for run-on sentences. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Lord Newby

Hey Dat Guy can you explain why my edits to update Lord Newby's page to reflect his election as Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords are unconstructive? It has added a lot of information, improved formatting, and updated the information to reflect his position as of September 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladstwo (talk • contribs) 14:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

CVUA

I never got a reply to my request. You gave a hint at something else. So what is your stance at CVUA? I'm still interested--Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 18:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for disambiguating that list of articles DPL bot left on my talk page -- samtar talk or stalk 13:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban or block 3 users

These three have been very troublesome and have been violating seveeral rules in the past. These rules include violation of 1RR, basing edits on their WP:OR, using unreliable sources and being uncivil. These users are Beshogur, Iwan123Iwan and Pbfreespace 3. Their disruptive history might go longer than I think, so it will be difficult for me to find it. The user Mehmedsons seems to have some problems in his edits as well, but I am not sure. The 3 users have detoriating the quality and accuracy of thr conflict modules and seem to only care about what they think is correct rather than Wikipedia rules. In fact one user Pbreespace3 even stated on his talk page that he is willing to violate the rules. And others according to their edits and comments, seem to be willing to violate the rules over what they believe as well. These 3 need to be either topic banned from all conflict related articles or evrn blocked. Users who violate rules so blatantly shouldn't be here. And to be frank, their roughshodding over rules as well as continued refusal to consider anyone else's opinion sometimes. If they keep on editing, I'll have to quit myself eventually. And I doubt it is only mr who is getting tired of them. Hence I request you to please immediately topic ban or block them for the good of the Wikipedia. Newsboy39 (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic Nikam

This page talks about an old history of a clan in Maharashtra state in India. The information presented here is very useful for the people. Kindly let it be as it is. Do not change or revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.78.191.243 (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The second edit was a test edit. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)