Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:41, 4 January 2009

Hi, Welcome to my Talk page!!!

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Miss-Pooja.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Miss-Pooja.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articHi, Welcome to my Talk page!!!

=les will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wanjara.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wanjara.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Surindershinda.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Surindershinda.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

List of educational institutes in Islamabad/Rawalpindi

Hello and thankyou for taking a look at the above mentioned article. You tagged that article with the cleanup template. I surely believe the article needs improvement i.e the list is incomplete. However, I must ask in what sense does it need cleanup? I don't see the article to be unwikified or having spellings or grammar mistakes. I could be wrong. If you saw other error/s, and tagged it wrongly, kindly inform me. Thankyou. 12:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nominating Anup Ghoshal for deletion

Hi, you have tagged the article Anup Ghoshal for deletion. Can you please explain why the article needs to be deleted? Dr. Anup Ghoshal is an eminent playback singer from India. You are welcome to expand the article and make it better.

Borfee (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)borfee

• Hi, Thanks for improving this article.

Re-write this article as per WP:MUSIC guidelines, as the references are pointing only to a single source. Add multiple & reliable references, which are reliable and do not point to offical website of Anup Ghoshal. Quality check 08:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nakkirar

Why did you add the unreferenced tag to Nakkirar? I had created the article with references. ShivNarayanan (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, Thanks for improving this article.

Please add some online and reliable references from multiple sources.Quality check 08:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of several articles

Hi, I see you have proposed the deletion of several articles on towns and villages in Kerala. Could you please explain your reasoning? Unfortunately, the PROD reason is blank on each of them, so I'm not sure what your thoughts on these particular articles are. Thanks. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, Thanks for your concerns about articles on towns and villages in Kerala. Request you to expand these articles, which are created by you with suitable information, as these articles contain almost no conetnt. Plz see Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion#A3. Quality check 13:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Um, no, I didn't create these articles. I'm just asking you why you want to delete them. They look fine to me as stubs waiting expansion. CSD A3 does not apply to them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Prodding Indian villages

Hi, I would suggest that you stop prodding Indian villages. Inhabited settlements are, by long standing convention, notable and none will be deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

yes, I know it seems strange at first, but the logic is, where could we make the cut-off? there is verifiable third party informtion about any inhabited place. DGG (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

-- Tinu Cherian - 13:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yr Arddu

Might I suggest before plastering a new site with banners that you wait just a little to how it develops. The article was only 16 minutes old before you added your templates.A significant mountain in Snowdonia is likely to be notable and if references are required (but you will see many mountain articles with few if any references) the Ordnance Survey is always a good starting point. A more constructive approach might be research the article and add content or just hold back for a while. Removing the banners would also be a good start. Velela (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

...and I notice you have behaved in exactly the same way to Rib tool within minutes of its construction. In my view this is not acceptable Wikipedian behaviour at all. Velela (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, Pasting these notices will give someone (including creator) a chance to improve that page. You can also delete these notices, if these are unnecessary or after modifying that page. Thanks for your contributions to wikipedia. Quality check 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can delete these tags. I have been a Wikipedian for over 4 years with nearly 5000 edits and having created over 150 pages. I prefer to be neither thanked for my contributions nor patronised by an editor who chooses not to answer a valid point that new articles need to be allowed a reasonable period of grace before being assigned improvement tags. Velela (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As you wish. I often patrol recently created articles on wikipedia. If i feel some page need improvement, i always give my suggestion by pasting these tags. If you are experimenting with your article, please prefer using Show preview button instead of Save page. Because its not possible for me to know exaclty, when any editor will modify that page. Quality check 18:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

Hi, there's no need to add a qualifier at the end of a title if there's no other articles with the same name; see WP:NC. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion?

You might want to try cleaning up some of the articles you tag yourself. At the end of the day you tagging them is not improving the article per se, it is simply bringing it to the attention of others who have to improve it. If you tried wikifying it/referencing it/expanding it yourself it would cut out the middle man (and also be a lot more satisfying to the user than drive-by tagging, trust me on this'n). The backlogs in those sort of areas are massive; try not to increase them where you can possibly avoid it. Ironholds (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag crazy

Actually too short is about the lead of longer articles, not about one sentence articles. By putting it in that you will categorize it and make the category huge.

Notice the article says on it that it is a "stub," that's what is used to identify one sentence articles.

As to only one source, did you want me to put a source for every word?

Again, by its nature as a stub, it will probably have only one sentence and one source. Find longer articles with short leads and work on the leads yourself rather than tagging articles that are already supplied with information that they are short and need work, ie, they're stubs.

--KP Botany (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding bio stub to an article, however, is VERY useful. --KP Botany (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, don't tag articles someone is writing right now (The Pubes). Give him a day, then tag it if you need to. Adding a category to that one was easy, though. --KP Botany (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your suggestions. I'll be more careful in future. Plz read my comment below.

Warning

I'm going to give you a sort of all-encompassing warning. You've been repeatedly warned for improper CSD tagging, improper PRODS and useless drive-by tagging of articles. You blanking the talkpage messages is indicative you have read them, so I'll just say it: please cut it out. You have been around long enough that you should have some element of clue, but that seems sorely lacking. Please take some time over your edits, allow users have a chance to correct themselves and consider whether tagging articles with enough tags to double the article length is really helping the Wiki, especially when some of your 'concerns' could be fixed by you yourself in a matter of seconds. Please take a step back to consider your actions or I will take this to WP:ANI. Ironholds (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I often patrol recently created articles, and give my suggestion to creator of page by pasting tags. so that any other editor may also note it and improve it. Once anyone has improved that article, anyone can delete the appropriate tags. But i cannot wait to return next day, that the article gets modified or not; You cannot predict as some articles gets modified within seconds and some gets edited rarely. Check the preview of your article before Saving it to wikipedia, when you create a new article or otherwise. But you could not say that i have wrongly used any of tags (except tooshort). Also i'm getting mature with each edit. I'll be more careful in future regarding this. You are free to do anything.

The central issue is that despite repeated warnings you dont seem to have slowed down. As noted below, many edit summaries include things like WORKING ON THE ARTICLE PLEASE DO NOT DELETE yet you still tag-and-bag. Ironholds (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Plz don't prove yourself right by quoting others. I can myself read it.I already told you that i'll be careful now.Quality check 11:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, consider mine your second warning. After Ironholds, after many more, really. Sorry, you're putting unreferenced tags on referenced articles, non-notability tags on articles that assert their notability. I've just spent half an hour cleaning up your garbage. You're tagging articles while people are writing them and have clearly stated that is what they are doing in their edit summaries.

Also, check the edit histories. If it has just been created a few minutes ago, someone may still be working on it. Stop. Breath. Read. --KP Botany (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i add tags only when i am sure about it. May be some1 had improved that article and forget to delete the appropriate tag.

No, you don't add tags only when you're sure about it, or if you do, you need to spend more time making sure, because I just removed dozens that were incorrectly added by you. --KP Botany (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have re-checked my today's edits. Plz don't mind, but you seem to be allergic to tags. You just reverted my edits, most of the tags on these articles were applicable. Many of the articles were improved, after addition of different tags by me. Try looking at some other angle. Quality check

Heres an angle you might like to look at things from; rather than adding an "unreferenced" tag to an article and other bits of makework, why not add referencing? A two-line article doesn't require more than 1 reference most times, and I'm assuming you have access to google. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, That one was for User:KP Botany. Ok, Each one is here on wikipedia to do whatever one likes, with an aim to contribute something. Some one is adding new pages, some may be modifying existing pages, some may be patroling these activities. You could not direct/advise others, who is doing his bit of work as per his/her interest to do something else. If you are so much concerned, You are welcome to add references to all pages to which i add unreferenced tag. I don't mind at all.Quality check

Uh, the reason the articles were improved after you put the tags on is that you put the tags on while authors were clearly still writing the article, like the author who put up the Netherlands article who clearly posted in his edit summary that he was preparing the space for the article.

No one improved anything because of your tags. Your tags just got in the way of editing. And, no, I'm not allergic to tags. I left the handful that were useful, such as the article that clearly needed deleted as soon as possible.

However, you appear to only have an accuracy rating of about 5% with tagging, meaning you're creating more work than you are doing. I will ask that you be blocked if this pattern continues. --KP Botany (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point an interesting one out; an article about a man called Jimmy Higgins who, aged 16, comforted a polar bear without being torn apart (blatant inaccuracy) the polar bear was then treated by EMT's (blatant inaccuracy) and the child was offered a $1000 scholarship to any college in the area. A simple google search would have shown the article to be WP:BULLSHIT but your action? Tagging it as 'unreferenced'. You're completely missing problems right under your nose and doing makework that simply isn't neccessary. Tagging deletable articles with 'needs to be referenced' isn't helpful to anything but your edit count; in the words of Aesop Rock you are 'washing the trains the same day the graffiti artists bomb them'. Ironholds (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's like tagging stubs, "too short." First, that's what a stub tag means, that the article is too short. Second, that tags isn't even for articles. It's for the introductory sections of articles, only. And, if you had read the tag, instead of just exploding it all over the place you would have seen that.

Also, you don't need to put uncategorized on stubs, because the stub IS a category. These are just a few of the many instances in which you have inappropriately added tags, that simply made unnecessary work for other editors.

So, you have put a couple of good and useful tags on articles. But you've been wrong far more often than you've been right, so, please, read the tags, read the articles, read the article histories, tag at the appropriate time (not 10 minutes after the article was started, while it is still being written, and while the editor has clearly indicated it's in process), and tag articles with appropriate tags (not unreferenced on totally deletable bs, not too short and uncategorized on articles labeled as stub).

But, yes, you've got some right, and done a bit of good work. Focus on that, and do more of that. That's all. --KP Botany (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What both of you are doing now is, to justify yourself. You just want to prove that you are on right side, and i'm on wrong side. That's why you restored my talk page, which was blanked by me. To just show that i was erred earlier, is not a good spirit. THE BETTER IS that you should start a debate on not-using any of the tags on wikipedia at all or favour to reserve it for administrators/seasoned user only.
In future, whenever i'll come across any of the pages, which need some improvement. Then i'll definately offer my assistance either by adding the content to that page or i'll add tags which will be applicable (that is improving the page too). I'm doing some postitive contribution on wikipedia (there are only few instances of mistakes also along with process of learning) and i don't need certification/rating from anyone about my work. Only some wikipedia foe can nominate me for a ban. I suggest that you should close this debate (which you should have done it earlier) by blanking my talk page. As i told you earlier that i'll be careful now.

I know, KP Botany's comment was meant to be a sort of 'chin up, lad, you're doing better' comment, not further criticism. Blanking talkpages does not end a debate; in fact, it goes against the ethos of wikipedia by hiding information and giving only a partial view of any given situation. If you have problems with your talkpage being too long I suggest you instead archive it; if you don't know how, you can give me a poke and I'll show you. Also, could you please sign your comments by typing ~~~~? I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'wikipedia foe', and actually anyone can suggest blocking you if they have due reason. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagging articles

Instead of tagging articles as uncategorized and unreferenced, could you please spend time adding relevant categories and references to articles instead. It's a much more productive use of your and our time. Nick (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)