User talk:Quasar G./Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: Apolline de Malherbe (December 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Simply still nothing for actual genuine notability in Wikipedia policy, and there's no inherited notability from anything or anyone else.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Deepan Sivaraman

I had to restore Deepan Sivaraman To an earlier version to remove a copyright violation. The result of that was to undo edit you made.

I deliberately did not do a revision deletion of the intervening edit so that you can restore your edits if appropriate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Stats in football players' infoboxes and update of career stats

Hi.

When you update the stats in football players' infoboxes please remember that you should also update the timestamps as of when the stats are correct. This is done by updating |pcupdate= (or |club-update=) parameter when updating club appearances and goals, or |ntupdate= (or |nationalteam-update=) when updating national team appearances and goals. The easiest way to do this is to use five tildes, which automatically converts to the current time. For example |club-update=~~~~~.

When you update the career statistics please remember that you should also update that timestamp as well to a time when the stats are correct. This is done by manually updating the date above or below the statistics table. By doing this we show when the stats were last updated and it prevents other editors from accidentally updating the stats again.

This is done to show other editors when the stats were last updated and prevent them from accidentally updating the stats again, and also it shows readers that it has been updated.

Please keep this in mind. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Qed237, I don't have much experience with timestamps but I think I understand now. I would still like to know why you reverted edits made earlier on by me and MYS77, rather than simply updating the timestamp on the infobox. Quasar G. (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Basically, a lack of time but also trying to send a message to people. If I keep doing it for them, they never learn and MYS77 known very well about this timestamp, yet he has choosen to ignore it. I have already corrected it myself this time. Qed237 (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Qed237: In fact, it wasn't more simple to just improve and explain to us instead of revert, revert and revert? The information is correct, I've checked it. WP:BRD, mate. MYS77 ✉ 14:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@MYS77: It wasn't simpler since I hade to check how many matches he had played before updating the timestamp myself, the easiest was just to revert. And I gave you information at your talkpage which you ignored. Finally, I did follow WP:BRD, you were bold (B), I reverted (R) and even left you a message (D), but you ignored it completely and then re-reverted me. So WP:BRD right back at you, mate. Qed237 (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Qed237: WP:BRD states revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Our edits were improvements (as they introduced important updated info to the article) and they could have been fixed by refinement. The solution was not to revert the edits just because you didn't have a few moments spare to update the timestamp; you should have left the edits as they were and improved it when you got the chance.
@Qed237: The fact is that Buxton did not play a single match since the last timestamp update, so it was correct. His last match before joining Tranmere came on 18 May 2016, the box was, in fact, updated. However, I do recognize the error in the squad list, thank you. MYS77 ✉ 13:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

15:36:32, 18 February 2017 review of submission by Gad133


Hi, I have added many new sources and re-rorganised them as requested. I have spent the whole day making sure it's accurate and concise. I hope it's all good this time. Thanks!

@Gad133: I'm currently editing your draft, just to tidy things up a bit. It will probably take a couple of hours, but it's looking good! I will create your article when I'm finished; feel free to keep editing it in the meantime. Quasar G. (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Quasar G.: Thank you! Much appreciated. I will work further on it to improve as much as possible. Gad133 (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The Beer Song and secondary sources

Wikipedia itself acknowledges that the difference between "primary" and "secondary" sources of information is an arbitrary and relative one. For example, although a Youtube video itself and the comments on it could count as a primary source, Youtube's own tracker of the number of people who've seen that video could be considered a secondary source. In light of this, what really matters is the that the sources satisfy the reasons why secondary sources are preferred - namely, that the cited sources are reliable and that they demonstrate that the thing being discussed is widely known enough to warrant an article for the purpose of collecting and centralizing information about it. The Beer Song, and especially people's questions and misconceptions about it, have appeared in so many places for so long and been seen by so many people that the song IS notable regardless of whether or not the mainstream media have written anything about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.231.147.189 (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@73.231.147.189 I understand what you mean about primary sources sometimes being useful. However, these often serve only to give a source for statistics (such as the Youtube viewcount), and in most cases cannot be used to prove notability. There are thousands of videos on Youtube with over 10 million views (not to mention millions of queries which yield 150,000+ search results on Google); Wikipedia is not supposed to be a databank for all these internet phenomena. Some sites do serve as lists of memes (such as Know Your Meme), but Wikipedia is not like this. It requires multiple references to reliable, secondary sources to show the notability of a subject, and as it stands, your article only contains one such reference (this one), and the reliability of that is questionable. If you can find more good sources, I will be happy to review your article again. Quasar G. (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hello

Packings (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

20:47:01, 20 February 2017 review of submission by Bluethepf


Ah ok, so my manager lied to me saying bmi was a proper source! Thank you because now I can fire her!

@Bluethepf: BMI can be used as a source, but it does not demonstrate notability, since thousands of musicians are listed there. I'm not sure what you mean about your manager, is she hiring you to write a Wikipedia article? Quasar G. (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

22:49:29, 21 February 2017 review of submission by Djennin2


The redirect mentioned goes to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%27s_6th_congressional_district_special_election,_2017#Democratic_Party

That does not seem to be a correct option to remove an individual's wikipage in favor of a broad special-election reference page

Please advise.

@Djennin2: I did create the article (here, look at the page history) but another user did not believe it to be notable enough for an article. As per WP:NPOLITICIAN, I agree with him, and I should have reviewed the criteria before accepting your article. Sorry for leading you on; perhaps if/when Jon Ossoff becomes a member of the House of Representatives, you can resubmit the article. Quasar G. (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

University of Arkansas at Little Rock

Oh- thanks. I guess I didn't check, so yeah, they don't really work for that. Facepalm Facepalm -A lad insane (Channel 2) 00:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Paige O. Rogers: no problem, I nearly reverted the edit myself - from the page's history it looks like this dispute has been going on a while. Let's hope it's finished now. Quasar G. (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 00:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

13:44:50, 23 February 2017 review of submission by M819192


I added some online sources. Most of the information is from the componay's archives. Is this what you meant?

What you added is good, but a few more news reports and furniture reviews are required to show notability (see here for criteria). If no more sources can be found, then it may be too soon to write a Wikipedia article on Lande furniture. You need to talk about how the company owns Artifort furniture in the article; it is an important point and lends the company more notability. Quasar G. (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Quasar G.. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! -- Samtar talk · contribs 11:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

19:28:50, 27 February 2017 review of submission by Sandra Weese


Ah Ok. I hope I understood it correctly now about "footnotes ... I had them all piled up at the bottom of the article without relating them to any statements made in the article itself. There are actually tons of newspaper snippets etc about Maria, of course most of them in spanish. I now just connected all the spanish newsposts, but could I also connect the "google translated" english version of those same articles?

@Sandra Weese: Thank you for using the footnotes, the article is looking a lot better now. Don't worry about the fact that the news articles are not in English, it is not a requirement for Wikipedia's sources to be in English; although bear in mind that editors will check the Spanish sources using Google translate, so that they know the sources back up what you're saying. The problem now is that more major news articles are required to demonstrate the notability of Maria Ripoll. See WP:GNG for more information. Quasar G. (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. You are refering to articles written primarily about Maria Ripoll in national Newspapers etc? The ones written about the films she did and also talking about her ... are they valid? I have already linked up a few of those ( el Pais/ La Vanguardia etc) , but I can find more and add them to "further reading" ...or expand the article into much more detail to add them as footnotes ( would that be a good idea?)

I also linked the awards& festivals that are mentioned in the article to the actual awards pages( Alma awards, the Goya Awards pages etc) other directors dont seem to do that. Is it better to delete those links and focus only on the Newspaper articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandra Weese (talk • contribs) 12:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

I know how difficult it is to review an article that has been previously rejected so many times. I appreciate your ability to make difficult decisions. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Janweh64 - very tasty indeed. In truth, it was the work you did on the article in adding reliable sources which made it much easier for me to accept it (although questions have been raised regarding the subject's notability, see below).

Miles Doleac

Hello, Quasar G. I noticed that you recently accepted the above-named article for publication at Articles for Creation. I'm a bit puzzled as to how you found the article's subject to be notable in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word. Any claim to notability based on the subject being an academic with a published book would seem to fall short of the considerations set forth in WP:NACADEMIC (not to mention the fact that the article itself gives only passing mention to the subject's academic career). Did you find notability in the lengthy list of acting roles? But there's no evidence that any of them were significant roles in notable productions, a consideration required under WP:NACTOR. Nor is there much of a claim to notability as a director/producer/writer, because none of criteria of WP:FILMMAKER are met by the subject.

My inclination is to nominate this article for deletion. Before doing so, I would greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter. I look forward to your response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, @NewYorkActuary: I respect your diligence in questioning my decision to accept an article that had been rejected multiple times, and in part I agree with your views. As you say, the subject does not meet guidelines at WP:NACADEMIC or at WP:FILMMAKER. However, Doleac is verging on meeting the criteria at WP:NACTOR because of his reasonably major roles in reasonably notable films and TV series such as Don't Kill It, Containment, The Historian and The Hollow. Many of the sources listed on the article are, admittedly, simply listings and announcements which do not demonstrate notability. However, amongst these are reliable, secondary sources (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) which include much more than trivial mentions. These sources elevate the subject to a level that fulfils WP:GNG.
It may be a good idea to nominate this article for deletion, as it will generate a community consensus, which is the only way this debate can be closed. If you choose to do so, I will simply reiterate what I have said here, on the deletion discussion under weak oppose. Quasar G. (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Underworld: Blood Wars

I posted some information from the BoxOfficeMojo site that you might want to review and I hope can resolve the ongoing edit changes to the page. Please stop by and take a peek when you can.

--KNHaw (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thank you for your work on Underworld: Blood Wars KNHaw (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Your redirect request

I have reviewed your redirect request and have not either accepted or rejected it, but I have posted a question. Please see your redirect request and reply. Sakuura Cartelet Talk 03:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

University of Arkansas at Little Rock (again)

I looked at the page history and this thing is still going on. Maybe a hidden statement in the markup is warranted? I didn't see one when I looked through, and that could reduce the number of times this unwarranted "cheating scandal" section is added back in. Perhaps something along the lines of "Please do not add the Cheating Scandal section back in as is. It is greatly exaggerated and unwarranted in its current form. If you legitimately believe the section should be here, take it to the Talk Page to present your reasoning BEFORE adding it." Understanding that the majority of these edits are reverts, some aren't, and so this could help. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Paige O. Rogers: I've added the hidden comment you suggested. Since most of the edits are reverts, and so users will not see the comment, I have also requested the page be protected. Hopefully these measures will mean people give up trying to continuously add back this section, although some users seem to be pretty determined... Quasar G. (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully that will work. :| -A lad insane (Channel 2) 04:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Prod

Hi, I removed the BLPPROD because it only applies to biographies of living people created after March 2010 and in this case the article says he died in 2015 so it is not a biography of a living person, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah I see my mistake, I didn't even consider the living part of BLP Facepalm Facepalm. Thanks for clarifying that. Quasar G. (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Apolline de Malherbe has been accepted

Apolline de Malherbe, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 TT me 17:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

thanks! BigDwiki (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem m'lad. Quasar G t - c 23:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Madam CJ Walker edit.

Why did you revert such a minor edit?

Because it was unnecessary and made it look as though the link was going to antilynching rather than lynching. Quasar G t - c 23:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
No, it didn't, it clearly still linked to lynching. And I did it because having half of a word highlighted, with the other half not being so looks awkward.FamAD123 (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
To a user who had not already hovered over or clicked on the link, it would look as though it linked to antilynching. I have formed a compromise, by using anti-lynching rather than antilynching. Quasar G t - c 23:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

speedy deletion

Why you want to delete the page Patrali Chattopadhyay. Let you know that this is a genuine wiki page. So please don't do this any more. Rajeevkr224 (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rajeevkr224: Wikipedia requires that all of its articles meet the criteria at WP:GNG, which show that the subject is notable. Since there aren't enough reliable sources published about Patrali Chattopadhyay, the article does not meet these criteria. Also, since she has only had one role in a minor TV show, she does not meet the WP:NACTOR criteria either. Quasar G t - c 20:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

I have only had two issues with your speedy deletion tagging, but that doesn't mean you're not doing a lot of good work with it and I do appreciate you helping Wikipedia. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

SL93 - I got a little trigger-happy with the speedy-deletions today, thanks for stopping me in my tracks :) Quasar G t - c 00:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Yoneq Gene Spriggs

You very speedily deleted the article I was working on. Can you please return it to the starter article page it was on. I wanted to write more on it, but I ran out of time and left. I plan to contribute later and would like the article to be available for doing so. 'Pedia Trician (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@'Pedia Trician: I have moved the page to your sandbox, where you can work on it without it being nominated for deletion. When the article is good enough, create it by moving it to the namespace. The article at Yoneq Gene Spriggs will be speedily deleted because it is too short, and its subject does not appear to be notable. This does not mean you can recreate the article in future, when it is improved. Quasar G t - c 01:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Just in case

Hello QG. Thanks for placing a speedy tag on thee Mahad TNT article. I was about to do the same but I was going to use "person" instead of "band" because, from what I could tell, it is only about one person. Yours is probably fine but I thought I would mention this just in case. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 21:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hiya MarnetteD - I thought that template:Db-band could be used for individual musicians as well as ensembles, but correct me if I'm wrong. Quasar G t - c 21:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
You might be right QG. I notice that "Db-musician" redirects to "Db-band" so I think things should be okay as they are. Thanks for letting me know! MarnetteD|Talk 22:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The anonymous editor and flags in infoboxes

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please stop removing templates from talk pages not associated with yours. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Sportsfan 1234. I don't particularly appreciate being given a templated warning which does not even pertain to what happened - my edit (as far as I can tell) was not unconstructive, and moreover, it has not been reverted. I realise that this IP editor caused you quite a lot of trouble by putting flags in Olympics articles, but I'd quite like to hear your reasoning regarding giving them a level 4 vandalism warning, when no preceding warnings had been given and when the IP's edits were not actually vandalism. Thank you for your time. Quasar G t - c 22:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
That was not a vandalism warning, rather a disruptive editing warning. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sportsfan 1234: all I'm saying is that it was unfair to skip straight to a level 4 warning, especially when the IP didn't know his edits were disruptive. Quasar G t - c 16:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Tina Dabi

Hi. I removed your CSD tag on Tina Dabi and replaced it because the article had been deleted before. I wouldn't want an editor to try to slip out of A7 by reproducing the old claims. You were right to CSD it, I just wanted to be sure it stuck. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chris - thanks for correcting the CSD, I didn't know the article had been created before. Perhaps we should request the page be creation protected? Quasar G t - c 16:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
It's been deleted and re-created several times, which is why I'm watching that page. We could salt it but it would be up to administrators to do it and they should already be aware of the issue. Request at WP:RFPP if you think it's worth it. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
BTW, a ping only works if you use the correct username as well as sign your post in the same edit. This often means just replacing your signature with fresh tildes when you make a change. Through the preferences menu you can have the system tell you if you have a failed ping. I happened to stop back to your talk page on a whim; I didn't get the ping. Yes, I mistyped when I created this account and my last name ought to be capitalized. Many users make this error assuming I typed my username the way it appears in my signature. I don't know that I want to rename my account, though. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: I've submitted a request at RfPP, and discovered a whole new section of the preferences menu that I didn't know about - thanks for your help with all this :) Quasar G t - c 17:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Fatmir Dalladaku

Hello Quasar G.. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Fatmir Dalladaku, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims of significance on talk page. Notability is not required to fail A7. Thank you. SoWhy 14:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for you cleanup of VMC

Thank you for you excellent cleanup of the VMC article!, I wanted to make some further edits, but will start a discussion on that talk page.88.105.42.54 (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem! Quasar G t - c 10:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ajay Sharma - Art Director

Hi, Can you please let me know of the short coming/s of the page? Pallav Gupta (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pallav Gupta. All articles about people on Wikipedia must meet the guidelines at WP:NPERSON, to make sure they are famous ('notable') enough to have an article written about them. Since Ajay Sharma is an art director, he must specifically fulfil the criteria at WP:NCREATIVE. At the moment, according to your draft, he has only had minor roles in films, and so is not notable enough. Use reliable, secondary sources (like news articles) to demonstrate his notability. Thanks - Quasar G t - c 19:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for the corrections, Im still learning :) Theeliteone (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding "Gaanchill Music" article

It's been 28 days since you have reviewed my article Draft:Gaanchill Music. Then I have resubmitted my article after trying to fix the issues accordingly. But I haven't gotten any feedback from you yet. It'll be better for me if you look into this matter and give me the feedback about my article as soon as possible. Thank you Maruf GGMU (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Maruf GGMU: thanks for trying to fix the issues - the article is much improved. It is not so much references that are required now (although more would be nice), but a more formal, encyclopedic tone. Quasar G t - c 21:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Hello Quasar G.

Before you turn into a swirling vortex of gas, I would like to apprise you about my page on "The Tandon Foundation". This page/article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this page belongs to the philanthropic and social foundation of the Tandon family. The page is still under development and will be updated in due course with adequate data and links from the clients. The wikipedia page is linked to the LinkedIn page of the aforesaid foundation as well.

You support in this matter is requested.

Thank you Laura Lyndon KnightBridge (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 22:35:09, 11 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Beppino


I created a new article on a book entitled, Contrasts: Comparative Essays on Italian-Canadian Writing (1985) and (1991). The book had significant effects on the development on Canadian literature and the recognition of ethnic minority writing and the whole question of multiculturalism in Canada. My article was rejected because I did not give evidence of NOTABILITY with external sources. I revised the article and supplied 17 titles from external sources which reference or quote from said book. The article was rejected again because of the technicality that it seems my cited external sources can be read as part of the original article. What do I do now ? In can remove these sources and just let the editors deal with them as external evidence of notability. I await your advice on this. --- Beppino


Beppino (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beppino: I've left a comment on your draft. Upon reconsideration, the publication does meet notability guidelines, but you need to prove this with reviews by reliable sources. Also, there's no point in listing all the mentions of the essay collection in other sources; you must say something about the context of each mention, and how it describes Contrasts: Comparative Essays on Italian-Canadian Writing. Quasar G t - c 12:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Manuchar Machaidze

About [1] Are Category:Soviet Cup and Category:FC Dinamo Tbilisi matches the correct categories for this article about football player? Player is not the cup season and player is not the club match. Why do you revert my edit? 194.50.51.252 (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I realise that my edit was wrong now, but it would have been nice if you had explained what you were doing using the edit summary. Quasar G t - c 12:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Neville Sigauke

Hi ,how are you doing?can you please help me fix the page Neville Sigauke. I have references but I don't know how to insert them .I'm still a beginner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ney ney changa (talk • contribs) 13:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ney ney changa. If you have a reference to a reliable source, simply insert it next to the information using <ref> tags. For example, if I wanted to cite the BBC website, I would write <ref>https://bbc.co.uk</ref>. This would display as: [1]. See WP:REFB, for more info, and if you want any further help, feel free to ask more questions. Quasar G t - c 13:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


Thank you very much 😊 MCee DaNev Is his Former name .Will try and get more references. You can even get more references about him on Google, Facebook & local newspapers and blogs.
  1. ^ https://bbc.co.uk

Divide (ed sheeran)

Hey! I think if you read through the ASCII article, you'll realise that the obelus (÷) is not an ASCII character, rather it's a Unicode character, and hence the redirect was a redirect from a title in only basic ASCII characters to a title with differences that are non-ASCII symbols. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire: Understood, and reverted. Thanks for flagging this up! Quasar G t - c 09:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Quasar G., and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Vanamonde (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Your changes to the Minimum Control Speed Article

I am Harry Horlings, the original writer of this article. I'm graduate (Dec 1985) of the USAF Test Pilot School for which the entry level was a MSc degree in engineering. What I originally wrote is science-based, and also defined in FAA Advisory Circulars, etc. I did not use any pilot twin-rating course books, not even FAA-H-8083-3a/b Chapter 12, Transition to Multi-engine Airplanes, while these publications are definitely wrong, not science-based - the reason why during the past 20 years more than 400 engine-failure related accidents happened causing over 3000 casualties. I noticed you improved the article and undid other changes, but also deleted important aspects of minimum control speeds and inappropriately renamed the article into minimum control speed, because there are more mc speeds than Vmc alone: Vmca, Vmcg, Vmcl, Vmca2, Vmcl1, Vmcl2; so there is a need for plural. As a 69-year old, very experienced flight-test expert and accident investigator, I do not consider these unnecessary details. I regret very much that so many editors obviously have no clue on the real value of Vmc's and of the flight restrictions that come with them. I'll have to redo the article to be again properly science-based, and will add again the references to scientific publications. You can reach me also via the contacts page of my website www.avioconsult.com, on the downloads page of which more articles are presented on Vmc's. I did all this to improve flight safety. Harry FTEof85A (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Harry. It is very nice to meet the original author of this article and of the paper that was so helpful to me (a layman) when rewriting the article. I don't particularly like being accused of "destroying" the article (yes, I did see this), but, considering your civility, I'm sure we can get past that.
You're right in saying I don't have a scientific background: my grasp of physics is intermediate, at best. However, the problem with the article you wrote was not its scientific accuracy, but the fact that it contravened a few Wikipedia policies:
  1. It was largely unreferenced.
  2. Some sections read like a textbook or research paper.
  3. A lot of it was excessively detailed and used scientific language not understandable by the everyday reader (you mention here that only "pilots and flight-instructors" will be interested in this article – regardless of your opinion on this, Wikipedia is written for everybody)
  4. Most importantly, there was a lot of close paraphrasing of your paper, possible in violation of WP:COPYRIGHT.
If you find any scientific inaccuracies in the article, do correct them (I'm sure I introduced plenty in my ruthless editing). However, please do not make any breaking changes without discussion on the talk page. Thanks for your time – Quasar G t - c 15:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Quasar G. Sorry for may be being a bit rude. I was just very disappointed that several editors changed the article in a way that it now is not in agreement anymore with the science of airplane control, and as is taught at test pilot schools. Editors also deleted references to academic books and a link to an emulator of the University of North Dakota, or displaced them to an other article (critical engine). I've seen good suggestions too, so it'll take some time to improve the article. I'm not very proficient in writing wiki articles, but will try to comply with your tips and wiki policies. Harry FTEof85A (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

content from Nairobi Convention

Hello Quasar G, thanks for the heads up, in future i will do a proper edit summary but the main reason is that i work for the convention and most of the data on it was not accurate and i was claening it up to ensure that users of wikipedia get the accurate information about the convention.

The reference for my updates has been[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahmunyao (talk • contribs) 06:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Elijahmunyao, the article is improved now. One small problem was the references to other Wikipedia articles, which are not allowed as per WP:CIRCULAR. Also, I have removed the many references to the list of articles of the convention; these were unnecessary primary sources, and were also citation overkill. If you have any further problems, just write a message underneath this one. Thanks again — Quasar G t - c 20:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://web.unep.org/nairobiconvention/

ChattBir Zoo

Uppercase-lowercase argument fixed in addition to few minor changes in sentences. Article is in no way whatsoever written in promotional tone. You deleted wildlife schedule act for no reason. Please reference 100 enclosures. You deleted "African buffalo". Important words "but not limited to" removed from sentence without no apparent reason. "The zoo remains open 6 days a week except mondays." makes perfect sense. Do not make unnecessary changes to the article according to your personal likings by specifying "grammatical mistakes" even if they fully conform to the english grammar. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiexplorer13 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quasar_G./Archive_1&oldid=1136151288"