User talk:Olowe2011
 |
| Main | Talk | Archives | Editing | Sandbox | Policy References | Moderation Log | Exit |
|---|
Look Over Requests
I enjoy looking over articles and giving feedback on how they might be improved, Especially ones on Law or medicine as I have extended experience in both areas. It might benefit you to have someone to give you some views on your edit or writing. If you would like help with this please click New Section on the toolbar next to edit then make the subject: REVIEW. Please try and include any details about the article / text location and what specifics you would like me to check out!
Thank you !
In response to your feedback
If you don't know how about the code, then you must see this.
Ivan530Talk 03:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot I will be sure to read it. My main issue is with working out advanced codes like tables and infoboxes!
Nominating an article for AfD
Hello, Olowe2011. I wanted to let you know that I've reverted two recent edits of yours [1] [2]. I understand that you want to nominate the article for deletion. You can nominate it by following the instructions located here, but before you do so please take into account that the article is referenced, and that it has been kept in three three previous nominations, so it seems to meet the criteria for inclusion. If you still want to nominate the article, please make a note on your rationale of why the result from the previous AfDs is no longer applicable. Feel free to ask if you have any doubts — Frankie (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I fixed the nomination for you, feel free to replace my comments here with your own. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
-bThank you :) But I made it and As soon as I made it lol ... I saw your one haha
- You're welcome. I recommend using WP:TWINKLE for Afd work, it makes it much easier. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks I will try WP:TWINKLE. The new nomination page I created is HERE. --Olowe2011 (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Stapled trans-anal rectal resection
This operation developed from an operation for prolapsed hemorrhoids, but the operation with this name is used in rectal prolapse, internal intussusception, mucosal prolapse. Advise merger with hemorrhoid article inappropriate. If merger at all, should be to rectal prolapse article. tepi (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Ty for fast response. Alternatively, STARR could have its own small page. A number of the conditions I am studying atm use this operation. I don't want users to be directed to a specific condition when they type it in...I can develop this page in a sandbox at some point, or add later to this stub? tepi (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have done a quick resources search for STARR and I can find plenty of good and reliable information on the internet that will help expand the article and give reliable sourcing. From what I can see this operation is known in the medical sense and would be a point of research for those having the operation or studying it, therefore making it good content. If you plan to expend the article (which would be good) It would be good for you to go all out in sandbox and update the current article when completed. If you can show that various conditions are treated / managed using this operation in the article it can benefit more than making it independent on the basis of one condition in which case it would be suggested to merge with the sole conditions own article. Once you have done be sure to tell me so I can give a look . --Olowe2011 (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Years in Denmark
Thank you for your interest in and support of the Years in Denmark articles. Any assistance filling content into them will be much appreciated.:)Ramblersen (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Re: Hugh Davies (cricketer)
Not sure, having made just short of 29,000 edits, that I really need telling how to improve the article! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Wikipedia is a place in which everyone can have their view and submit it. I was pointing out some improvements in which I viewed the article needed. This isn't a edit superiority contest and I just pointed out what I believed a general consensus would have been about the page in the format I viewed it in. --Olowe2011 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits to Music Blvd + Soapboxing
Hi Owen,
I didn't remove any tags as you indicated. If you go back and look at the thread, it was the other editor that was reviewing the page. I'd appreciate if you take those tags off my profile.
Thanks TrystanBurke —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: MusicBlvd
Hello Olowe2011. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of MusicBlvd, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: there is enough assertion of importance here to pass the low bar of WP:CSD#A7. Let the AfD take care of it. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Don't worry about this. WP:CSD#A7 is deliberately set lower than "notability", and requires only a "credible claim of importance or significance". It does not even require sources. The idea is to save work at AfD by weeding out the obviously hopeless cases. What constitutes a credible claim is a matter of judgment, but in this case I thought that "the first music related and lyrics website in the world, with 80 million+ unique page views" was enough. If you are going to do New Page Patrol (which is a very good and useful thing to do) it is worth re-reading WP:CSD from time to time; and there is good advice for speedy taggers from a experienced admin at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
RE: PN Link
Per your request I am responding here as well as my talk page. Here is what I said there:
I don't really care that much about the layout of the infobox. For what it's worth your changes seem fine to me. But I am concerned with your efforts to remove the group's URL. Are you saying that you know the website is unsafe (i.e. it contains malware, trojans, malicious scripts, etc) or are you just saying that because it's a troll site you imagine that it might be unsafe? Unless there's actually evidence then we'll have to restore it per WP:NOTCENSORED.
Music Boulevard vs. MusicBlvd
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Olowe2011, I just noticed at the AfD that you suggested that I have a bias against your edits and I wanted to clear this up. I don't. I ran into your edits first in relation to the Patriotic Nigras article and then largely moved on after the AfD closed. When you improperly edited the page yesterday to remove the group's URL under the claim that it failed WP:SOAP because "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article." Then I thought it might pay to review your edits for similar errors on other pages. I can see that you're a new editor here and it's natural that you will make mistakes or misjudgments here and there. The contrary position I have adopted at the news AfD has to do with my sense that the deletion rationale for the underlying article is improper. I only weighed in because I'd seen you make a similar argument at a page I have been involved with, not because of some bias against you. I don't think you're correct that urls should be excluded based on someone's subjective determination of what makes an organization "major". If the article's topic is a website then 9/10 times it is acceptable to include links to that website in my view.
- Anyway I have no bias against your edits generally, but I'll take moves to correct errors if I see them. Please don't take it personally. Although I know you are relatively new here, I believe that you are editing in good faith so I have no reason to have any bias against you. -Thibbs (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
RE: RE: MusicBlvd
Per your request I am responding here as well as my talk page. Here is what I said there:
Before you go further, please note that I don't really care that much if you are mocking me. I'm generally thicker-skinned than that. If you're not mocking me then all the better, but either way I won't let it get in the way of us working constructively together.
Regarding your new edits, I've proposed that your newly created Music Boulevard be merged into MusicBlvd for two reasons. First of all, having two articles with largely identical content like that existing simultaneously in articlespace is called content forking. It's bad practice here at Wikipedia. If you want to move an article, you need to follow the instructions listed at WP:MOVE. That's the Wikipedia way of renaming an article's title. But in this case I've requested that "Music Boulecard" be merged into "MusicBlvd" and this brings up my second point - The website seems to be called "MusicBlvd," not "Music Boulevard." Although full names are generally preferable to shorthand forms, official company names are preferable to alternative names, and here it looks like they refer to themselves as MusicBlvd. The third and final point to make here is that the new page lacks an edit history like the old page and in order to preserve the edit history it makes more sense to merge in the recent article into the older one and then simply perform a "move" if need be.
Regarding your suggestion that I should fix the MusicBlvd article up myself, I am actually rather busy right now. I may take a look at it if I have some time, but for now I can't promise anything. Feel free to try to improve it yourself, though. I can look over any edits you make at the page.
-Thibbs (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
-
- Comment - Yeh I agree with the merge just with total restructure once the AfD debated has taken its course. Then if you don't mind we can work on the new creation together (I.e if the current page located MusicBlvd is deleted we work on the other page I created however if it is not deleted we can re structure using the current titled page if you would like to contribute it would be good.) Regards, --Olowe2011 (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Attacks
It looks to me from some of the things you've said that you're getting fed up with my disagreement of your actions. I want to stress to you as I did above (regarding your suggestion that I was biased against you) that I am not attacking you. It's very clear to me that you are editing in good faith. You are clearly concerned with SPAM and bias and you are taking bold steps to eradicate it. For that I commend you. I don't think you are applying WikiPolicy correctly at times and in those cases I have spoken up, but I recognize that your intentions are pure. I have dealt with many many bad editors in the past - people who are actively seeking to harm Wikipedia and whose lack of interest in collaborating have made them a liability to the project - but you are not one of these people. You're a good editor. And I am too. My disagreements with your edits aren't attacks or displays of bias. And although I have pointed out that you are relatively inexperienced here, I certainly don't want you to think that I hold this against you. My only reason for bringing it up was to explain that I didn't consider what I saw as your misinterpretations of the rules to be character flaws, but rather that they were linked to inexperience. I probably shouldn't have brought it up at all. Anyway I don't want you to feel attacked here. I do think you should proceed with more caution as you work to eliminate POV and SPAM, but it's as clear to me as I think it would be for anyone reviewing your edits that you are trying to help here at Wikipedia and I applaud you for your efforts. -Thibbs (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- PS - One thing you might consider as you start out here is to join WikiProject Spam, an advertising-fighting group here at Wikipedia who are very familiar with the basics and the details about when it is appropriate to blank urls and to file AfDs. Even if you don't join, you can contact the WikiProject as a whole for guidance at its talk page and you can contact the members of the project for their particular insights. -Thibbs (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
