User talk:Nairspecht/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nairspecht. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Your submission at Articles for creation: LYF (February 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

Look at wp:corp, the policies for companies and products. What is NOT considered notable is "simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued," - Essentially what you have here are the promotional articles that talk about a product launch. And this produce has not been on the market for more than a month! It is definitely too soon for this company or this product to have achieved notability. A Wikipedia article can be created later if it does.

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:LYF 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.

LaMona (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Teraa Surroor

Greetings!
You reverted my edit on Teraa Surroor because I added unsourced and promotional content? Please see it again I provided reliable sources for the content I added and adding about box office is not the promotional content. Please read how articles for film are created. I have reverted your edit. Do a discussion on the talk page before deleting my edit again.--Musa Talk 08:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't engage edit war discuss it on talk page.
Thanks--Musa Talk 08:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Musa Raza: Please check the film's talk page. One we discuss it along with other moderators, you may add the content. I have no issues. But personally, I think statements like "most distributed film of HR" is promotional, and that too without a source. Nairspecht (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nairspecht: It was not added by me and I removed it in my edit but you reverted my edit without noticing that it was already removed. That's why I asked you to start a discussion on the talk page but you reverted my edit for the third time which means you're engaging edit war. Please see my comments on the talk page and tell if your points are clear.
Thank you.--Musa Talk 09:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Teraa Surroor. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges.

You were asked to discuss on talk page of the article before reverting the edit but you still reverted it. Musa Talk 09:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Musa Raza: Agreed. I was asked to discuss? Please make sure you use your words carefully here. Threatening will not get you anywhere. I am ready to resolve this amicably, Mr. Musa. Cheers, Nairspecht (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nairspecht: I'm not threatening you. I just gave you a general warning for engaging an edit war. Please see THIS, my first message on your talk page. I asked you to do a discussion on talk page before reverting my edit again. You didn't read that and reverted my edit again. This is edit warring.--Musa Talk 09:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Musa Raza: I apologize for that. Nairspecht (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nairspecht: Thanks for understanding. Please close the discussion at the talk page so the full protection is removed from the article.--Musa Talk 12:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Musa Raza: Give me some time, Mr. Raza. Cheers, Nairspecht (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallelooya

Yes, what you in good faith sent to AFD had issues BUT they were not valid deletion rationales and were quite easy to address through regular editing.

Here's the situation in a nutshell. The film is to release with a week or so. If it were already released, the massive amount of availble coverage (used or not) would have the topic be notable enough for an article. Since it is days from release, we instead look to WP:NFF (paragraph 3) to see that that same level of coverage for the film's production, has the topic merit an article. I ask that you withdraw... buy changing your stance at the AFD, note you've withdrawn, and perhaps even do a <s> ~~strike-through~~</s> of your disproved nomination statement. There is no shame in reversing your stance in the face of evidence to the contrary, and indeed doing so shows you as a reasonable editor. What say? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

MichaelQSchmidt Done. Lets move ahead! Nairspecht (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)