Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 60.231.241.44 (talk) at 15:02, 8 October 2012 (→Please explain this revert: stop reinserting BLP violations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an open invitation for participating in the RFC about the utility/redundancy of Largest cities/city population templates on WP:RFC/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated!

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Rashmi Singh

Please help as I do not know why so many articles on wiki is accepted without a single citation and whats gone wrong with this one?? I have given so many references,a;; from reliable and retrievable sources Ananyaprasad (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Okayyy Will try again today but hope, you only go through it and if you find any source can be cited in a better way, please do so for me. I am not professional and adept..plzz Ananyaprasad (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have made the changes.. please see and remove those links or sites which look like promotion. I have done on my own but need your help. I have seen you have retrieved almost all sites. The recent Telegraph ones, I hope you have been able to get. If you think it is suitable now then please move it to article space. This subject is really notable and the subject deserves it. If you think it needs neatening up then too plzzz help before anyone else lands on it Ananyaprasad (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"plzzz help before anyone else lands on it" -

1. In plzzz → one "z" or "s" is enough.
2. Try to assume good faith.

Misplaced Pages is collaborative process that is based upon mutual trust and camaraderie. I know for a new editor it's hard (even sometimes it's hard enough for me too) but that is the way it is. Mr T 15:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see that I don't add extra 'zzz'! But seriously I want help of the editors and I know I am getting too. I have added one more reliable source. Pls see and rectify if you find not worthy. Ananyaprasad (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey! Hope you are going great with your editing. Please check my article once moreAnanyaprasad (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your editsAnanyaprasad (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

And I am noticing Rashmi Singh has been already formed as an article. so can the article's name be changed to Singh Rashmi? Can you edit it please?Ananyaprasad (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Take care of indentation while posting your comments. You don't have to worry about the title. Mr T 07:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC

• Thanks. I think it is now perfect. Please check and let me know. I'll be thankful.Ananyaprasad (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:K7L is biased with this page. I have mentioned on his talk page too. please check. If any user has done some manhandling while creating a page on the author's name, why blame the author directly? Anyway I am happy that the author has finally got her share and hope all the best for her.Ananyaprasad (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Rashmi Singh

Hatnote or dab page. I'll let you handle it. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

 I will take care of it, don't worry. Mr T 08:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in again. Here's the hatnote/dab story: If somebody ends up at Rashmi Singh (author), it's because they typed the word "author", or selected it. So, not hatnotes are needed. As there is no primary topic, I would suggest a simple disambiguation page called "Rashmi Singh" The word (disambiguation) isn't needed because you've already move the journalist to Rashmi Singh (journalist) . Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Both writers, so makes sense. Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, thanks for appreciating. Mr T 09:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Rashmi Singh (author)

• Thanks all i can say!Ananyaprasad (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Application performance engineering page

Thank you for helping improve the page. What do you recommend be added/changed? Third-party credible sources are cited, and the topic application performance engineering is becoming increasingly utilized by industry analysts, IT organizations and vendors.

Work on citing reliable secondary sources for each unsourced assertions or delete them. I may give you more tips on the talk page of the article later. Mr T 19:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

new article Mark Staufer

Hello there, I submitted an article on Mark Staufer, author which you reviewed and the comment I got from you is to "check sources." Could you please specify what that means -- add sources, sources I cited are not considered valid?

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mark_Staufer

Thank you, Chickazilla (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant reduce the duplicate sources and use full citations. But don't worry I have done it myself. Mr T 07:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. I'm just letting you know that I have tagged a page JKB Films' Production of Doctor Who Fan Series for deletion per WP:A7 that you only placed maintenance templates on and passed for inclusion. Please familiarise yourself with our criteria for notability for organisations and companres at WP:ORG. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Speedy deletions

You tagged American Project Management Academy for speedy deletion but amended the "reason" to be "there is no reference to establish the notability. This whole thing could be a farce". That is not a reason for speedy deletion. The article asserts notability, and is not blatantly a hoax (googling finds its website. Please note that speedy deletion is only appropriate for articles which meet the strict criteria, such as "an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject.". This article asserts that APMA is "a known and recognized standards institution around the world".

The same goes for this. Please be more careful with your speedy deletion tagging. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

609th AOC edit

Mike, Unfortunately you undid my edits on the 609th Air Operations Center wiki page. Being actually stationed here, the edits were made at the request of the Commander and so I would appreciate you not changing what we are updating, since we are trying not to be in the business of putting out information that will aid anyone wishing us harm. It is unfortunate, but due to security reasons, we are not publicizing locations or names (which is mainly what I deleted, besides some fluff which should have been deleted anyways). Hence, my reason (which you deemed badly explained and unhelpful) for saying it was for security reasons (and given the current world situation, that should be self-evident). The other option is to delete the page entirely, but the point of the page should be information on the AOC and so specific location (for the time being) and Commander's name are irrelevant to a larger version of history. Being the ones in harms way, we don't need much of a reason to conceal that information if we feel it will improve our security. I concede that we cannot control all of the information out there, but we should be allowed to do so when possible. Please understand that I am not trying to stifle any relevant information (and, in fact, put Southwest Asia for a location which should have been good enough) but your deletion caused another user to update while I was asleep and that will also have to be updated. Thank you for your vigilance, but please let us control our own security on the military pages (when necessary). Thank you.

As much as I would like to believe you, I can't because of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Truth is not the threshold for inclusion, verifiability is. Cheers, Mr T 08:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Jan Sivertsen PROD removal

I've removed your BLPPROD at Jan Sivertsen. The article was referenced to a museum website prior to your insertion of the PROD template but it had been presented as an external link. - Sitush (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You did well then. Mr T 08:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You might help this article. Mr T 08:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Please explain this revert

Can you please explain this revert which you "identified as a test/unhelpful". Can you please explain what metric you use to ascertain whether an edit is a test or unhelpful. I ask this because it has been stated in the edit history that it is sourced to blogs, and is a WP:BLP violation. 60.231.241.44 (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Mrt3366, if you insert the BLP violation into again, I will report you to WP:BLPN. Also, this is not acceptable. I have not removed content because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but because it is a WP:BLP violation. Please stop, before this goes further. 60.231.241.44 (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Infosuv article not accepted

Hello. I am writing to get more information on why the Infosurv, Inc. article was not accepted. Could you give any specific reasons as to why the company was not notable enough for Misplaced Pages? I've cited several independent sources to show it's notability, but I'm assuming maybe they're not phrased/formatted the correct way. I would appreciate any feedback you have.

Thanks, I staywoke I staywoke (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What page are you referring to? Are you talking about a page I reviewed and declined? Or a page that I patrolled which was created? From your contributions, I came across a page called Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Infosurv, Inc. It seems notable, albeit needs some work (but that's okay). Well, I don't see my username on the history page except for one time where I corrected the link to the reference. I cannot comment unless you give me the link to the page you're talking about.

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Infosurv — creation of a previously deleted page is not generally encouraged unless it's extremely notable. Mr T 14:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)