User talk:Mahewa/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Thank you for voting
Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Citing Commercial Databases
{{helpme}}
I read that if I cite a resource that I read somewhere else, I need to say where it's from. If I'm getting an article from a commercial database (like LexisNexis) with no real link, and the article's no longer available from the source, how do I cite that?
- This is where things get tricky. It is difficult to examine a source's validity if it is no longer available. Sometimes when this happens a newer/more public source replaces the outdated/private source. I would suggest the next time you read it you leave all of the information there, and definitely note the "Accessed Date" on the citation for reference. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 18:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, because I may have made it confusing, the article is still fully available on LexisNexis, and probably always will be. I meant that it's no longer available from, in this case, the Washington Time's website or any other public site that I can find. There was no in the article originally, it was tagged as needing a citation. I'm just now sure if/how I can indicate in the citation where it's available when there's no link available. FYI, I'm referring to [1]Mahewa (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 06:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles 06:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
hello
please stop vanadalizing my profile
thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.222.89 (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you actually don't have a profile. If you are referring to your talk page, it is my obligation in rolling back edits to issue proper warnings in the hope that you will confine your editing to properly sourced materials. Considering that 4 editors had already given you cautions and that one of your edits was blatant vandalism in the form of unsubstantiated allegations of pedophilia against a living person, this was entirely appropriate, if not lenient.‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 20:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Unsorted Entry
sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.203.129 (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
RE:18 August 2010
Please revert the redirect. The original Yakouts page was written by non-Sakha person and probably second language speaker. The quality of language is substandard and factual information is distorted. So I'm reverting your reversion. The way this nations name is mostly known in English speaking world is probably Sakha, while I barely know any use of "Yakouts" in any high level literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.163.21 (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. You are an unregistered user and blanked a page with a decent editing history over a year old to make it a redirect with no discussion on the talk page or explanation. You should take this to the talk page before proceeding on this path. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 03:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Should that be considered even for such a substandard article? In my opinion the whole article needs a complete rewrite and not only ethnonym change. And as you can see, there already are a one year old name change proposal on article's discussion page. So I though that it would just totally ok to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.163.21 (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- As I said on the article's talk page, I have no expertise in this subject matter at all. I am perfectly content to let those who have that knowledge make that determination. Your reasons sound perfectly valid, I simply believe that they should have been explained on the talk page. Even if it doesn't rise to that level, it certainly should have been explained in the Edit Summary. I still think it would be good form for you to add your reasoning to the talk page rather than relying on a reference to my talk page. But thank you for taking time to make good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia. If your concern is my comments on your talk page, I'd be happy to tune them down and make what my concerns are now more clear. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 04:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.163.21 (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- As I said on the article's talk page, I have no expertise in this subject matter at all. I am perfectly content to let those who have that knowledge make that determination. Your reasons sound perfectly valid, I simply believe that they should have been explained on the talk page. Even if it doesn't rise to that level, it certainly should have been explained in the Edit Summary. I still think it would be good form for you to add your reasoning to the talk page rather than relying on a reference to my talk page. But thank you for taking time to make good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia. If your concern is my comments on your talk page, I'd be happy to tune them down and make what my concerns are now more clear. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 04:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The page MV Stena Navigator is an exact copy of MS Stena Navigator. The majority of articles about motor vessels begin with 'MS' rather than 'MV'. So a redirect to MS Stena Navigator is justified. Philphos (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that the pages are redundant. But I don't think blanking a page and changing it to a redirect without even so much as an edit summary is appropriate or desirable. Additionally, unless I'm missing something, the fact that these are duplicates does not excuse the application of Help:Merging which requires several additional steps to comply with licensing and so the history will be clear.‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 15:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies for clearing the page. I shall reinstate the article and start the Help:Merging procedure. Philphos (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that the pages are redundant. But I don't think blanking a page and changing it to a redirect without even so much as an edit summary is appropriate or desirable. Additionally, unless I'm missing something, the fact that these are duplicates does not excuse the application of Help:Merging which requires several additional steps to comply with licensing and so the history will be clear.‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 15:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Larkin Community Hospital
Mahewa Please, delete the article about Larkin Community Hospital. You are an outstanding member of Wikipedia.
This is an article that does not meet the relevant and educative criteria for content of the encyclopedia and this stub is unsuitable, unhelpful, and does not meet the required criteria, giving a business or institutional negative image. This stub must be proposed to be deleted for a good cause. This is considered Vandalism because it is including only unofficial information from some local articles acting in a direction or course opposite to the real prestige of this organization (see the institution’s official page). This stub is demonstrating some intentional, personal, premeditate AND unethical behavior; because author only is encouraging to our community to review some past negative local scandalous articles with non-evidenced allegations from sensationalist’s acting against the reputation of this organization. (A scandal is a widely publicized allegation or set of allegations that damages the reputation of an institution, individual or creed) This short article is over-hyping insignificant events, being deliberately controversial, loud, self centered or acting to acquire a negative opinion of many people using wikipedia. PLEASE, if you want to write an article about this institution, you will refer to the positive history and important programs that this hospital has been offering to the community of South Florida over many years and they are also saying incorrectly the number of institutional beds. Defamation=calumny, vilification, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. Please, take a positive and compassionate action! Thanks, God bless you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.156.194 (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that I didn't respond to your message earlier, as I have been travelling. I will not take action to delete the page, for a couple of reasons. First, I believe that the page meets Wikiepedia's notability guidelines. Second, a discussion about deleting this article has already taken place here and the consensus was to keep the article. While I agree with the outcome of this discussion, you are free to re-open the discussion by posting at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. If you honestly feel that the page rises to the level of libel against a living person, you can post a request for action on this Noticeboard. Normally, this would only be the case if the libel is against a person, not a group.
- You bring up several reasons that the changes you made might be valid, but the proper way to handle this as someone who apparently has a strong interest in the article is to propose the changes on the Talk Page, and try to discuss the issues. The reason that your edits are tagged as vandalism is because you removed any negative attributes of the hospital while adding material which comes across as ad copy. It could be that this over amplifies the negative or ignores the good, and that's a fine argument to make, but the judge of that is not the hospital's official page. If you made uncontroversial edits (such as the number of beds) I know that I, for one, would not object or try to undo that action. Those were only reversed because they were part of your overall edits.
- If you need help pursuing any of the above methods, please don't hesitate to ask for help. All the best, ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 04:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)