User talk:Lor/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Some information

P-123 and GregKaye Okay, just stop it. Continue and this is getting taken to WP:ANI. This has gone on long enough LorHo ho ho 06:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In dealing with trouble with another editor recently this may help you to guage things, I don't know: I am not s/he but s he. I would prefer this to go no further, please; apart from the editor, very few admins and other editors are aware of it. ~ P-123 (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC) G'day P-123. Whose the editor in question? LorHo ho ho 01:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Gregkaye. P-123 (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC) P-123 I am really hoping that in the above content that there is not an inference that you think I am sexist. A potential sign that this is not the case is that as a straight male I have been active in editing positively on LGBT issues and am a member of discrimination Wikiprojects. I have actively been involved in intervening with other editors to make sure that they did not disclose information about P-123 as evidenced (as following hearing P-123's concerns) here with a cryptic message left after giving a barnstar award and here with edit comment left with an editor who has now been banned saying "I would be personally grateful if you could let this pass m8 .." and I made similar interventions at a number of other points. At this point in time I risked myself in doing this. From my perspective yesterday was also a whole load of unprovoked trouble which I escalated relentlessly at Talk:ISIL#Ham fisted lead and the previous thread. It has been relentless and, as far as I can guage, utterly uncalled for. I have requested this P-123 not to edit on my talk page unless s/he is can agree to back up any claims presented. Please look at my archive and look up the vast number of times the name P-123 and P123ct1 are presented. P-123 is an editor who, when some editors that I have regarded to be significantly ISIL sympathetic have been flagrantly abusive to me, will simply and repeatedly say that I should to toughen up and when I take this to be a general viewpoint and speak candidly to this editor, these kind of proceedings unfold. You have seen from my pings the kind of situations that I have been in recently. This is an editor, as witnessed by the last posts on my current talk page, who wants to wield influence on issues like 1RR and sockpuppetry but will react extremely defensively and somewhat aggressively, as far as I have seen, when any other criticism or guideline infringement comes the other way. I really think that P-123 should be kept to account with the same standard as everyone else. This is an editor that asks and hints that materials be collapsed or deleted so that eavesdroppers will not see but will happily add section headings in high traffic article pages as here displaying a user name to all which I then converted into something more neutral here. In short I consider P-123 to be a highly litigious and accusational editor while being extremely defensive in cases in which any guidelines based accusations are raised. In my opinion this type of activity is a waste of both your time and certainly mine. The above is a case of leaving an uncited accusation and walking away. I don't think that this type of behaviour should be tolerated. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC) It was clearly very bad judgment on my part to have made that post. The thought of sexist attitudes never crossed my mind, and never has done, in any dealings I have had with Gregkaye, or with anyone in Wikipedia for that matter. Yet once again, I feel cornered by Gregkaye into defending myself: I was once sensitive about anonymity, but am far less so now. I would never have mentioned it if I was. I am angry and tired at what I see as constant streams of abuse levelled at me (now dredging up very old scores I had forgotten about) in various forums, this being the latest. For example, I am extremely offended at being called "highly litigious and accusational", which is a gross distortion and almost libellous. I am tired of having my character dragged through the mud by Gregkaye. I have never done this to him. Wikipedia is a dangerous place, where this kind of talk can go unchecked and read by everyone, and be extremely damaging to reputation. It would never be permitted in real life. On admin PBS's Talk page I have suggested that Gregkaye take me to AN/I to settle this dispute once and for all, either that or an IBAN. As I said there, to have the charges marshalled properly with diffs at AN/I would make the whole picture clearer and the matter could be dealt with efficiently by some admin, with a definite conclusion, to put a stop to this dispute once and for all. The link to PBS's Talk page on this dispute is here. [from edits from 18:19, 24 December 2014 to 18:35, 24 December 2014 by P-123] P-123 How or why have you felt cornered? Threads on admin pages (that, in my interpretations, have wasted a huge amount of editor time) have been started by you. What streams of abuse. I have, of late, pointed out you increasing infringement of WP:guidelines, I have done this in subtle ways on your talk page so as to reduce your potential embarrassment. I have presented evidence that I personally interpret as being indicative of, amongst other things, your "highly litigious and accusational" approach. I raised these issues in response to threads started by you to try to set your raised issues in context. If you want to dispute the interpretation that I have proposed I suggest that you do this in connection to the evidence presented. My "talk" has been connected to reference and, in rare occasion where this has not been done, reference can be provided. I do not cast aspersion. You say, "I have never done this to him". What you do is place accusation I believe to any extent you can without providing evidence to back it up. If you think I have done anything wrong them present it clearly. Why did you start this thread? From my perspective, this thread has been an utter waste of time and now I have no idea as to why it was begun. From my perspective and in my own interpretation one major reason that I did not raise issues regarding your guideline infringement and interpreted POV issues earlier was due to my misplaced application of what I now in retrospect interpret as attempts at gallantry. I now think that I would have done better if I had followed your example on similar issues as you have applied to litigation in instances when a "problem needs nipping in the bud". I hope for your support in addressing infringement of guidelines, whether it be in article or user talk page comment or referral to admin notice boards, of any editor that breaks guidelines on the talk pages. "The link to PBS's Talk page on [another] dispute is here". I am also angry and tired. Please do not make types of further comment here that will warrant my response. I did not want to have need to walk here and want to walk away. 05:10, 26 December 2014 GregKaye ✍♪ 05:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

On what grounds? My request to you for a temporary IBAN has been archived without a response. You may forget it now, as if this trouble continues I will request an IBAN myself at A/NI. P-123 (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There's not much of a point asking for an iBan from me. Mostly due to the fact that unless the general community agrees with it i cannot give it out on my own. Lor^{Ho ho ho} 01:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

And the other question? On what grounds would this be taken to AN/I? In other words, what would the "charge" be? P-123 (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you Lor. Not my comment. P-123 (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

To request an iBan. It seems like one of you two, cannot seem to Move on to another topic since this topic is bringing so many issues. Lor^{Ho ho ho} 8:18 pm, Today (UTC+11)

P-123, a first step would be to substantiate existing accusation. Personal reconciliation with direct reference to content has not been attempted. Please do not continue with your WP:ASPERSIONS. I think that your question is valid but that it cuts both ways. Please consider how you proceed. I have lost a great deal in having to respond to legislations that have lacked much point.

Please also note earlier comment, "Please do not make types of further comment here that will warrant my response. I did not want to have need to walk here and want to walk away." GregKaye ✍♪ 11:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

IBAN and explanation
@Lor
Who would request the IBAN? An admin or should I? Can I briefly explain why I lengthened the above thread and apologies for doing so. My main concern now is some quite serious misrepresentation now appearing publicly (i.e. not just user Talk pages); I have an editorial and personal reputation to protect (particularly on the ISIS Talk page). If such misrepresentation is not answered immediately clearly there will be reputation damage. I will limit comment here to questions to you if needed. P-123 (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Gregkaye has taken me to AN/I for sundry offences. Perhaps it will clear the air at last! See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. ~ P-123 (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 this, I believe, is the text that includes a "thought police" reference that you have objected against. I also include a "thought-police" reference of yours from my talk page

Not just 'SIL but other similar groups may well have an aim to establish what they would describe as an "Islamic state" or what they would describe as an "(Islamic) caliphate". However to say that such was the aim of Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād would need confirmed citation. The fact is that the group have undertaken a wide range of War Crime type actions that are, by no means, required for the formation of either of the above. When there are citations saying that the group are targeting and killing the Shia, should we declare the groups aim to be the denuding of Shia populations? We can't crystal ball on these issues. We are not thought police. We can only present facts. An earlier comment of yours on my talk page was: "I have further redacted the comment, but I had already opened the thread by saying, "I first moved the designations as terrorist organisation part of the Lead to the top and the consensus was to keep it there. I think I made a mistake in moving the criticisms part of the Lead from the bottom to the top to join it. The first thing that hits when reading the Lead now is that second para of heavy criticism." Is that not a clear admission of "guilt"? I have added a "because" to make it even clearer. This is just one of many instances where you have tried to make editors retract or modify their comments and this is very bad practice indeed, IMO. You are lucky that I complied, and I am not surprised other editors have not. I have never known an editor try to do this before. You see it as "fairness", but to me it is thought-police behaviour. Please can you drop this now? ~ P-123 (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)" You are entitled to your view. All I did was use your wording.

Please take a look at the paragraph and please specify what you think is wrong. If there is something wrong I will be happy to comply. I do not see it. My indication was that none of us are thought police. We are not in a position to make judgements on people's thoughts. Please P-123, I am doing all the work here. If you have accusation please specify. Is there anything else specific here or do you think I have missed anything above? GregKaye ✍♪ 17:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye Bogged down with answering the AN/I at the moment, Greg, but will look at this. Your puzzlement seems genuine. P-123 (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 As far as I can see my objection is justified. My wording was prefixed "We" and you are talking here about misrepresentation. Of who? GregKaye ✍♪ 08:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Again, I am not quite sure what you mean. I cannot remember the exact context of that remark, but I think I was referring to what I saw as your attempt to get me to explain myself on the Talk page about something I had done. I felt strong-armed, hence the "thought-police". I did not mean you forced editors to think what you wanted them to think! Can we stop there, please? P-123 (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"How do you undo something?"

How do you undo something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvik10 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nirvik10: Why do you ask? Lor^Chat 01:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

About WZ-10 page

I have given the reason why I edited it, why you say I do not give a reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.202.225.44 (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have checked the page again, and yes I have given the reason, "None of the deleted materials are official and credible. Need official confirmation for reliable sourse", so why you say I do not give the reason? Do you think Wikipedia is a place which can use certain tone without the official source data support but from some people who did not involve in the issue and also not interview with the people who involve in? Is it scientific or justified?

As far as i can see the sources are creditable. Discuss it on the Talk page if you have issues with it. Lor^Chat 02:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This is is your thought. I don't think any materials without both sides' arguments are credible. If you want to allege one-side's argument, you should use the words like "XX has argued that", or just not talk about it

What is more important, materials not from official documents or clients can be created by any people, so this should be use the words like "rumors said that" or similar tone.

A kitten for you!

Moved kittens here Lor^Chat 03:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-01

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Software changes

• There are no technical changes this week.

Feedback about Tech News in 2014

• The writers of the technical newsletter are asking for your opinion. Did you get the information you wanted this year? Did we miss important technical news in 2014? What kind of information was too late? Please tell us at m:Talk:Tech/News. You can write in your language. Thank you!

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"What did you object to in my revision concerning The Ogre?"

What did you object to in my revision concerning The Ogre?

Talkback

Hello, Lor. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 07:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A Question, my friend.

Firstly, I responded to you, and asked you a question merely out of curiosity, on my talk page. But that aside, I also asked a question of some import at the Help Desk. You can respond here, there, or on my talk page. I'll be checking all three. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.154.10 (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up

@Lor: Hi, just a kind reminder, as instructed have resubmitted the stub article [: Draft Hradyesh] for further process. Thanks One life to live (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

About the deleted lines from Hug

The reason I deleted those lines from Hug is because the links were non-existent on the page (possible vandalism) and there was no other way I could verify the authenticity of the lines from a page that doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason foren daniel (talk • contribs) 06:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jason foren daniel: Then use a source such as the Internet Archive to get a link of the page in a previous state. Lor^Chat 06:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Some Quality Streets for you!

Moved Sweets Here

Thanks! Lor^Chat 22:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Lor!

Happy New Year!

Lor,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Darylgolden^(talk) 05:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Dear Lor,
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! A new year has come! How times flies! 2015 will be a new year, and it is also a chance for you to start afresh! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Created by Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook). To use this template, leave {{subst:User:Nahnah4/Happy New Year}} on someone else's talk page.

Talkback

Hello, Lor. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 15:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

He. I you read my changes, you would be sure that all of them were correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.179.244.128 (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

CVUA graduation

With a 79.5% result, I reckon you're competent enough to go vandal-thwacking as a pro - I'm very happy to award you this certificate of graduation: Moved to awards page Here Yunshui ^雲_水 11:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Lor^Chat 13:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

• News and notes: The next big step for Wikidata—forming a hub for researchers

• In the media: Study tour controversy; class tackles the gender gap

• Traffic report: Surfin' the Yuletide

• Op-ed: My issues with the Wiki Education Foundation

• Featured content: A bit fruity

• Recent research: Wikipedia in higher education; gender-driven talk page conflicts; disease forecasting

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report

Guild of Copy Editors 2014 Annual Report Our 2014 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Review the election results; Membership news; Changes around the Guild's pages; Plans for 2015. – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"Hi Lor, thanks for approving my article"

Hi Lor, thanks for approving my article. My connection with this singer is professional, i was doing a lot media PR work for her management company last year. Regards Seb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb Brett (talk • contribs) 01:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The entry in question...

Lor,

The entry in question is on me and contains multiple errors and other personal information which is unecessary for the strength of the entry. I have submitted the same entry later with all the corrections having been made and the personal information about me I do not wish others to have. I would take it as a great courtesy if you would follow suit and remove all the versions up to the one in which I corrected and amended and erase my private personal information

Thank you,

Sincerely,

Keith Hill - Instrument Maker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDFA:2130:5CCD:FC31:BC75:2546 (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A 130 second review?

With all of the warnings on the page, it took you only 130 seconds to look at the sources on the article and approve it to be moved to mainspace. Time to look more closely at the references. Many don't discuss the product. They simply mention it. Still fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Chilli lover 435 to NEW Chilli lover

YES YES YES! SORRY! I forgot, my account was "Chili lover 435" not just "Chili lover". BUT still. Deleted is DELETED. Why this "Materialscientist" barges in like that?! Please educate me.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

• In the media: ISIL propaganda video; AirAsia complaints

• Interview: Interview with Jakob, one of Wikipedia's more prolific waterway contributors

• Featured content: Kock up

• Traffic report: Auld Lang Syne

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-03

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

• Rotated PDF files in landscape format used to show too small. They will now display correctly. You may need to purge older files. [1]
• You can now use the {{!}} magic word instead of Template:!. Many wikis used the template to create a pipe (|) in tables and templates. You can delete the template. [2]

Software changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf14) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since January 7. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from January 13. It will be on all Wikipedias from January 14 (calendar).
• A bug in VisualEditor sometimes added a ☀ (Sun) character. This is now fixed. [3]
• The search and replace tool in VisualEditor is now much faster in long pages. [4]
• The TemplateData editor now uses the same design as VisualEditor. [5] [6] [7]
• The thumb option is now shown in your language in the help of the classic editor toolbar. [8]

Future changes

• You can sign up to answer questions from designers. It will help them make editing easier. [9]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

you suck

STOP MESSING WITH ME!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.203.109 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Cantata++: Article for creation accepted

Hello Lor, Thank you for accepting my article for which I was working for a very long time after the two propositions of deletion. As you can see, just after a few hours of you acceptance there has been a third proposition for deletion from Walter Görlitz, who has already asked for the other two in the past which I can't understand: He neither gave me some constructional feedback, nor added a reasonable argument why the article should be deleted once again. I am really mad about it right now, because I invested a lot of time to change, enlarge and finally reduce the article as you can see in the history. I improved it a lot over a long period of time and he didn't thought about helping me during this process, but now just asked for deletion the third time... You were the one who accepted the article, so I'm appealing to you, what do you think about that "behavior" ? How should I go on with all of the article ? Couldn't it be a personal "problem" of him ? For me, after this long story, everything seems to be like that... I appreciate your honest answer, best regards, QARon (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@QARon: could you supply some diffs to back this up? This seems like a decently serious breach of WP:AGF. Lor^Talk 01:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

== Cantata++: Article for creation accepted ==

Hello Lor, Thank you for accepting my article for which I was working for a very long time after the two propositions of deletion. As you can see, just after a few hours of you acceptance there has been a third proposition for deletion from Walter Görlitz, who has already asked for the other two in the past which I can't understand: He neither gave me some constructional feedback, nor added a reasonable argument why the article should be deleted once again. I am really mad about it right now, because I invested a lot of time to change, enlarge and finally reduce the article as you can see in the history. I improved it a lot over a long period of time and he didn't thought about helping me during this process, but now just asked for deletion the third time... You were the one who accepted the article, so I'm appealing to you, what do you think about that "behavior" ? How should I go on with all of the article ? Couldn't it be a personal "problem" of him ? For me, after this long story, everything seems to be like that... I appreciate your honest answer, best regards, QARon (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@QARon: could you supply some diffs to back this up? This seems like a decently serious breach of WP:AGF. Lor^Talk 01:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lor: I was just reading the deletion discussion today which talks a lot about the references in this article. This is why I looked up in the history to give you some detailled examples about the development of them: Quickly after the creation of the article in 06/12 Walter Görlitz marked on top of it, that there are not enough references in it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cantata%2B%2B&oldid=526875367. For a long time there didn't happen anything and then in april 2014 he proposed it for deletion, that was when I started to improve the article. As you can see in the history and also in the 3rd discussion for deletion there were a few wiki authors helping me to improve it, gave me some good tips and motivated me to go on. Then, JoeDecker removed it to mainspace, thinking the article would be ready to "survive": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cantata%2B%2B&oldid=615234266. Just a few days later there was another proposition of deletion by Walter Görlitz. After that I started to enlarge the article enormously what you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cantata%2B%2B&oldid=621027318 which was, concerning to another author TOO DETAILED, so the author helped me to reduce it and advised me to look for more references which I did. I also added the screenshot which you can see in the article right now for a better understanding of "how it works". But as you can see there's the third discussion about deletion right now and I don't now how more I could improve it. I've nearly spent about 2 years of improving it and the difference between the first edit and now is huge. And the only thing Walter is ALWAYS saying about is that it doesn't meet the notability guidance or the content is not enough. BUT, comparing my article to other software articles there are a lot of article which do not mention many references (just their websites) nor have a good content in my opinion. You can find a list of them here:

• 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_C%2B%2B_Mocking_Framework
• 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasoft_C/C%2B%2Btest
• 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SafetyNet
• 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessy_(software)
• 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit%2B%2B

So, I know that I'm quite new here on Wikipedia, my experience is not very big and I'm looking forward to get help from everybody who wants to help me to work, especially to improve the Cantata++ article. A lot of user did by giving me tips and telling me exactly what should be modified. But in my eyes Walter Görlitz doesn't. Honestly, I really DON'T want to put anything in charge of him, but for me it seems to be more than a simple proposition of deletion, he never really tries to help me to improve nominates it for deletion because of a lack of references or saying that the article does not meet the notability guidance. This isn't very helpful in my opinion. Shouldn't h, as a qualified and serious improver of the encyclopedia, motivate and help me instead of telling me "to stop writing and whining about the deletion" as you can see in the discussion of the 2nd nomination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cantata%2B%2B_(2nd_nomination). So, what would you do ? I don't know how to go on and how to improve it any more, because there a lot of references, and as you can see even the MIT mentioned it in one of their empirical evaluations, so come on, I'm sure that not every single software dos have its' own books... Looking forward to here from you! Tell me what you think about it, would be nice. Best regards, QARon (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"I contact you regarding my edit about the "Representational state transfer" "

I Lor,

I contact you regarding my edit about the "Representational state transfer" and most specifically the section "Architectural properties".

I've noticed that the current version states "Fielding describes REST's..." and that's the very first occurence of Roy Fielding (one of the main author of the HTTP specification) in the article. Here what I found confusing and what I wanted to improve through my edit:

- Considering it's the very first occurence of Roy Fielding in the article, I think there should be at least a Wikipedia Link to his page and both his first and last name should be visible. Otherwise it similar to assuming everyone reading this article knows who Roy Fielding is, which is probably not the case. - There should be a short description of who he is after his name.

What I proposed was going from :

"Fielding describes REST's effect on scalability thus:"

to

"Roy Fielding, one of the principal authors of the HTTP specification, describes REST's effect on scalability thus:"

I thought this small edit was a good occasion to start contributing to Wikipedia, which I've been wanted to do for a while. I'm therefore really interested in any tips, guidance and remarks in general about how to be a good contributor and this particular instance.

Thank you for your time, pbamba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbamba (talk • contribs) 13:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

:)

I just edit the History of the " system "

"System" means "something to look at". You must have a very high visual gradient to have systematization. In philosophy, before Descartes, there was no "system". Plato had no "system". Aristotle had no "system".

In the 19th century the first to develop the concept of a "system" in the natural sciences was the French physicist Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot who studied thermodynamics. In 1824 he studied the system which he called the working substance, i.e. typically a body of water vapor, in steam engines, in regards to the system's ability to do work when heat is applied to it. The working substance could be put in contact with either a boiler, a cold reservoir (a stream of cold water), or a piston (to which the working body could do work by pushing on it). In 1850, the German physicist Rudolf Clausius generalized this picture to include the concept of the surroundings and began to use the term "working body" when referring to the system.

One of the pioneers of the general systems theory was the biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy. In 1945 he introduced models, principles, and laws that apply to generalized systems or their subclasses, irrespective of their particular kind, the nature of their component elements, and the relation or 'forces' between them.

Significant development to the concept of a system was done by Norbert Wiener and Ross Ashby who pioneered the use of mathematics to study systems.

In the 1980s the term complex adaptive system was coined at the interdisciplinary Santa Fe Institute by John H. Holland, Murray Gell-Mann and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.177.78 (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

References

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.183.132.221&diff=cur

Actually I did provide a reason if you had read what I wrote in the comments part. It was a addition that was a promotional for an individual and his organization with the only source being a promotional newspaper article and the IP Address that added it originally traces itself to his organizations office. I am re-deleting it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.132.221 (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

My recent edit

If you want to know why I removed content from the list of same-sex marriage supporters page, it's because one of them just left office and another hasn't entered yet.(166.173.57.91 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC))

"This is about the sudden deletion of the Frameline Film Festival article"

Hi Lor,

This is about the sudden deletion of the Frameline Film Festival article. This page is not unambiguously promotional, because all the events happened years ago. I'm not trying to promote anything, I'm just relating history. If I seem boosterish it's because if feel these were important and positive developments and the people behind them deserve credit. I repeat, I am not promoting or advertising anything. I'm just trying to tell a story in a way that will engage readers and, as I said, give credit to a few people. I'd be happy to be given specific examples of where i've gone over the line so I can bring my approach more in line with what Wikipedia wants. But just wiping the entry off the site seems unfair.

Is it possible to get it restored?

M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mppage (talk • contribs) 01:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Moved barnstar Here

Thank you! Lor^Talk 01:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

• Op-ed: Articles for creation needs you

• WikiProject report: Articles for creation: the inside story

• News and notes: Erasmus Prize recognizes the global Wikipedia community

• In the media: Wikipedia's birthday brings tributes, app, award; Castro death rumors

• Featured content: Citations are needed

• Traffic report: Wikipédia sommes Charlie

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

IIRC

Please let me know why pages are changing or why deleting. IIRC is an organization, which is most reputed in public domain. Its non profit org. Najeem M Illyas is a person who has public value. Please advise how to make those appera in wiki, if anything gone wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchester001 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Manchester001: The name of the organization is also the name of multiple articles on wikipedia, you can make a new article if the organization is notable enough for an article on wikipedia and also add a link to it on IIRC Lor^Talk 12:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"Hi Ms, Lor"

Hi Ms. Lor, im Steve Freeman presently residing here in malate, Manila. im a half brother of Elizabeth Freeman Oropesa I apologize if i violated rules in editing that page. I hope you can help find the Full name of my Father which i know as Henry C? Freeman since Elisabeth Oropesa which i consider my half sister dont have time of entertaining my message at her facebook accout. I hope you can help me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.149.13.72 (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

First, i am male. Second, i'm not too sure how i can help with that. Lor^Talk 11:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-04

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• You can download the new version of the Wikipedia app for Android. The new version shows lead images, better galleries and content from Wikidata. It also has many other new features.[10] [11]
• Programs and bots still can't read information about images on many wikis. You can see the list of wikis with the most files to fix. Wikipedia in Italian, Indonesian and Japanese language have the most files to fix. On the biggest wikis you should use bots. Bots can add information templates to groups of files. You can ask other tech users to help you.

Problems

• All JavaScript on Commons was broken for a few minutes on Tuesday. It was because of old code in the HotCat tool. The same problem happened on some Wikipedias on Wednesday. It is now fixed. [12]

Software changes this week

• There are no software changes this week and next week due to annual meetings. [13]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

About McVeigh stuff

Hello, all messages that i left on esWP and enWP (like the one that mcVeigh got in his talk) were taken out of the esWP because it was a non-proper section. Hope the message will be taken out because it's out on esWP too...

Cat.

--ElGatoSaez (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

CMB

Hi Lor,

Explanation of my modification is per Talk:CMB

It shouldn't automatically redirect to Cosmic_microwave_background

I tried to read up on proper wikipedia process, but I clearly don't know what I'm doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.185.136 (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Macbeth

Thanks for the info. Yes, I have source on this. I'll get back and provide the proper citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFeinberg (talk • contribs) 12:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Concerning my content removal @ Reliable Sources noticeboard...

I am sorry for removing the section I had listed without explaining why. I went through & removed the section, as I felt it was badly-structured. It was my intent on re-listing the section with better structuring. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Generally, unless you're an experienced editor, you never remove content from noticeboards. Lor^Talk 12:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did not know that and I apologize for my actions. I will endeavor, from now on, to make sure that my need to remove content doesn't arise again by ensuring I structure future listings more cleanly. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

About electronic pest control

Hi Lor,

I recently edited the wikipedia article 'Electronic Pest Control' with a few things which I found to be extremely useful to me after struggling with a pest control problem for many months.

I have tried many pest control devices and none of them seemed to work. I've individually tried ultrasonic and electromagnetic ones but because they weren't used in a combination - it always had poor results for me.

I found out that my research is lab tested and true. I have given advice to many of my friends who were facing a similar problem, and they are all very thankful I gave them some insight into what i've learned from my personal experience over the past few months.

I would request you to please re-edit and add my "How it really works" back into the article. I'm also willing to rewrite it to make it sound more neutral (if you wish).

Regardless, thank you for your time and I appreciate you taking the time to review the article.

Thanks - Ishan Soni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishansoni1 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

• From the editor: Introducing your new editors-in-chief

• Anniversary: A decade of the Signpost

• Interview: WWII veteran honors shipmates through Wikipedia editing

• News and notes: Annual report released; Wikimania; steward elections

• Op-ed: Let's make WikiProjects better

• In the media: Johann Hari; bandishes and delicate flowers

• Featured content: Yachts, marmots, boat races, and a rocket engineer who attempted to birth a goddess

• Arbitration report: As one door closes, a (Gamer)Gate opens

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Michael Gleissner

Hi there,

Whyd di you find my edit to Michael Gleissner unconstructive?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.89.24.158 (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much because you were Vandalising the article with biased and rude opinions. Wikipedia maintains a Neutral point of view in articles. Lor^Talk 07:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

jadaun

i eidt the page beacuse of the certain wrong facts mentioned in it such as 1-jadaun are mali and kurmi real fact they are jadaun rajputs basicaly ruling class or thakur of mathura and kaurali and surrounding regions

2-yadav and ahirs according to puranas yadav were papastoral peoples or tribe whereas jadauns were warrior class people.

3- sons of kings hence rajput.

4-lord krishna was descendant of yadu a from which chandravanshi clan was started .

5-lord krishna was ruler of mathura kingdom.

6-according to mahabarta pandavas was also chandravanshi rajput.hence jadaun are not yadav

7-many yadavs claim there they yaduvanshi rajput becuase of the fact that lord krishna elder brother was yadav but in fact he was not his real brother lord krishna was raised by yadavs as his parents was kept in prison by his uncle.

8-jadaun dominated the area near brij and kaurli .

9 they built various forts .

10-the descendants of lord krishna was raja bijai pal 88th descendant he was also jadaun thakur.

please correct the facts and details of this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.78.95 (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry? I do not really understand what you want me to do. Even then, you have not provided sources to what you want me to add. See WP:CITE Lor^Talk 08:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are you deleting the edits that i have made when they are factual?

Why are you deleting the edits that i have made when they are factual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.211.48 (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Performance Timeline query

Just what is the problem with 78.150.211.48 additions to Tennis performance timeline comparison (women). They look like updates to me, which is allowed once a player is done with the tourney. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Hmm...Looking at it again i just worked out that the color system that's being used isn't the Hex Color system. This means i thought that the edits were vandalism saying "a feeeeeeeeel" making it look like vandalism. Mistake on my part, sorry! Lor^Talk 09:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem... I was just confused in trying to find the vandalism. Happy editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

In case you are interested...

가마로강정 산본사거리점 is sock, see User:Revi/D. In case you see these patterns, report to AIV directly, no need to wait for 4 warnings. — Revi 09:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, Cheers -revi Lor^Talk 09:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Movember

Lor,

The origin of the term "No-Shave November" is largely unknown. It began as a joke during the last week of October 2006 among several friends at Penn State University. The friends were merely daring each other to grow a beard for a month, and to face the pressures of girls and family over the holiday without breaking.

The term "No-Shave November" gained popularity primarily due to two factors: 1. Participants spent Thanksgiving in their home towns, rapidly accelerating awareness. 2. Two of the participants managed a now defunct website (rickysienicki.com) that included No-Shave November details.

Of the original participants in the inaugural No-Shave November, barely one this of them lasted the entire month.

-NickNkramarev (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-05

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

• You can now translate articles with the new ContentTranslation tool on several wikis. [14]

This week

• There are no software changes this week due to annual meetings. [15]

Future changes

• You can join a project to improve WikiProjects. [16]
• The Compact Personal Bar will be removed for now. It has a bug that breaks the tool to choose your language. It will come back when the bug is fixed. [17]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability / reliability of sources

Hi Lor. Just wanted some clarifications in order to improve the article about the CMCRC, given that it looks like the content of the article is supported by reliable sources and given how the work of this institution has permeated its field and beyond. Any pointers will be helpful. Thanks Rdozzz (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Movember

Lor,

The origin of the term "No-Shave November" is largely unknown. It began as a joke during the last week of October 2006 among several friends at Penn State University. The friends were merely daring each other to grow a beard for a month, and to face the pressures of girls and family over the holiday without breaking.

The term "No-Shave November" gained popularity primarily due to two factors: 1. Participants spent Thanksgiving in their home towns, rapidly accelerating awareness. 2. Two of the participants managed a now defunct website (rickysienicki.com) that included No-Shave November details.

Of the original participants in the inaugural No-Shave November, barely one this of them lasted the entire month.

-NickNkramarev (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)