![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
![]() |
The Malaysia WikiProject Newsletter |
![]() |
Issue 7 • November 2016 • About the Newsletter | ||
![]()
| ||
Past Newsletter • Newsroom • Malaysia Noticeboard • Malaysia Portal | ||
Newsletter written by NgYShung huh? (Delivered: 09:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)). You may opt-out of this monthly newsletter by removing your name here. |
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Han Taiwanese. 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:
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. Lysimachi ( talk) 21:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lemon! It is sometimes hard to define his/her edits if matching local facts & wiki rules, although I reverted some improper or useless descriptions from his/her works... Since this person is effecting many SG geo pages, could you please help on them accordingly? Thank you. Gzyeah ( talk) 09:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lemongirl942 reported by User:Lysimachi (Result: ). Thank you. —
Lysimachi (
talk) 09:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain why you think LA Times and SF Weekly are unreliable sources on the article talk page please? Pwolit iets ( talk) 09:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I was about to lose my temper. It is true that the article as it sits -- it's a translation that was only finished about 15min ago and on which I have already spent bunches of time -- does assume that readers understand that many of the musicians it mentions are famous, but that's a frequent problem with articles from other languages, and this is how we do it.
First we translate and then we edit.... Anyway, thank you for de-escalating this. I'll make sure it's referenced and further adapted for an American readership in a timely manner, but I am burned out this second from translating the Spanish, which is not that easy for me. I do know from looking for the wikilinks that there are numerous substantive articles (mostly in Spanish though), and a lot of the former members are also important. But the band only needs to have ONE record to be notable and they have a dozen, so I kinda have to wonder what that editor was thinking, as all the releases are prominently listed and on that basis alone he shouldn't be claiming lack of notability....
Anyway, sorry to bend your ear about this but I just wanted to express my profound gratitude that I don't have to wiki-litigate the obvious tonight... Elinruby ( talk) 07:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vile-eight (
talk •
contribs) 10:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lemongirl942, I noticed that you reverted my edits on the parliamentary record of Lee Bee Wah (specifically, changes Lee suggested in Parliament that have become national policy). Do you think that in general, parliamentary records of politicians are not suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia? I've noticed them on the pages of other Singaporean politicians, like Josephine Teo and Sylvia Lim. Personally I think parliamentary records can be included if they led to notable events or changes. These will inform the Wikipedia reader of what is notable about the subject. Wanted to hear your opinion on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathercai24 ( talk • contribs) 04:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Lemongirl942. Will look into adding more encyclopedic information there.
Hi Lemongirl942, Wondering why Rebecca Masisak page was redirected to the TechSoup Global entry, with your comment about notability in mid-October? A notability discussion was opened on the talk page in July and a variety of other experienced editors voted to keep. - Bajeckabean ( talk) 19:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities and towns in Andhra Pradesh by nicknames has some error in merging. Its contents were not merged. If its merged, it will be a mistake, as towns are included in it. So, please review and make some alternative attempt. I've accepted it, but upon having a glance at the merge process, I found this.-- Vin09 (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello again. Hopefully I don't come across as stalkish. It chanced upon me that your talk pages were very long, and I realized quite some of them have to do with disputes. Try not to be too accusatory maybe (at least don't sound so. Things like "you are" and "your" are quite incriminating. Maybe use "I think you might be")? We ourselves make mistakes too. Also, perhaps maybe some show of goodwill would be good? Like this message? I'm also one who comes across as too sure of themselves in real life. So maybe I could give a little advice as I'm learning too. Cheers mate!-- Officer781 ( talk) 03:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lemongirl942 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so glad to find another Singaporean Wikipedian here! Nice to meet you and thank you so much for understanding my editing intentions! You pointed out something that many other editors have not noticed. I realised that Magnolia677 doesn't seem to be friendly when she left a message on my talk page, she warned me that I will be blocked if I continue to make unsourced edit and adding unreliable references. I was so scared of her that which is why I tried to include as many references as possible within a limited period of time to defend myself from other editors whom lack understanding in my editing patterns. Only you and Arjayay ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to truly understand my good faith in making constructive editing, and I truly appreciates it. While I understand your perspective, I just couldn't resist listing out all the entertainment events for a huge music fans like me. I believe that what I have added are useful for music fans but of course I understand that not everyone will find it beneficial or meaningful and I totally respect their opinions. I am trying my best to include as many reliable references as possible and my apology if I am unaware of how strict it is to have a reliable sources. Some of the unreliable sources I have added may appear to be reliable to me as long as it is relevant to the event that I wished to source upon in the first place. Please teach me on what are reliable and unreliable sources so that I can look at it very carefully before adding it. Lack of citacions shouldn't be the reason for my edits to be reverted since I am very busy editing many other articles at the same time. It takes time for me to include more useful references but I hated it when editors becomes impatient. I hope to hear some advice from you on that, thank you so much for putting yourself into my shoes in the first place, cheers! Xinyang Aliciabritney ( talk) 13:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you admin on wikipedia, i want to report something (someone precisely)? a serious matter 84.255.215.13 ( talk) 17:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Arbcom get paid for that stuffI like that ;) -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 14:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
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!
SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)FilmMakers20190 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I know all of their articles are hoaxes, but I'm not sure about edits like [1], [2] etc. Can you check to make sure they should be reverted? Timmyshin ( talk) 20:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lemongirl942,
As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).
Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.
Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.
It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.
(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Singapore article. 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 further states:
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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be
blocked from editing.
Please do not remove templates without consensus. You apparently have some experience but prefer to ignore the rules.
Hello Lemongirl942.
Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed.
New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
While I agree that the content in question is poor, I reverted your pushing forward of my edit. Appropriate discussion has begun on the matter, which was my bold edit of a piece of text that has in fact been around in various forms for a few years. This isn't something that has been discussed recently. Implementation after dispute resolution is of course a different matter, as we have seen with the recent RfC and all that, but it would be best not to conflate the various disputes as much as possible with regards to content. Best, CMD ( talk) 17:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Lemongirl942. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Please do not Move other editors comments as you did at
Talk:Singapore, without consent. I had to copy some relevant information back to the survey section thread before you decided to move everything back to the same place. Please review the Wikipedia guidelines and policies if you are uncertain. Thank you. -
Shiok (
talk) 06:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The 3rd Wikipedia Malaysia Meetup had now arrived on Selangor! Pack your bags and your laptop, and meet some fellow Malaysia Wikipedians in the meetup!
This meetup was initiated by Chongkian and the invitation was written and sent by NgYShung. For more information, see the meetup page. If there is any enquires, feel free to discuss at the talk page or at the Facebook event page. (Delivered: 07:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC))
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Singapore. This is the second time you have reverted the same sourced content I posted. 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:
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. - Shiok ( talk) 06:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Regarding "This is the second time you have reverted the same sourced content I posted.
" Umm, please see
WP:BRD. You added, I removed. You now need to get consensus. --
Lemongirl942 (
talk) 07:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello there Lemongirl942! The biennial/annual roll call of WikiProject Malaysia have been started! The roll call was intended for maintaining a healthy list of active members in the WP:MY members section. You may follow the instructions to stay in the WikiProject, or leave the WikiProject. Make sure you've make the right choice! After about 1 January 2017, you will be moved to the inactive members list. The link is at here. On behalf of WikiProject Malaysia, NgYShung huh? (Delivered at: 11:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC), one run)
Hello Lemongirl942, as you have been responding to recent edit requests for this article, just a quick info: I have opened a new SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdnanAliAfzal, as this is probably another sock of a recurring problem editor. Regardless of this unfortunate issue, your good-faith help on the article's talkpage is appreciated. GermanJoe ( talk) 15:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.
Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
Hi Lemongirl942
Im writing to ask you to reverse the deletion of the Spec property wiki page. Im not to clear after reading the reasons why it was deleted how the sources were not credited to be reliable.
The sources referenced used a lot of Australia media that operates in both the Financial and Property areas. The business Spec Property has built over $1b in apartments in Melbourne, Australia. [3] [4]
thanks Tom
Specpropertydigital (
talk) 01:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kepompong is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kepompong until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ArdiPras95 ( talk) 04:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
You appear to be sending another notice to harass, even when the original tag editor has not done so. Please note that:
You may be reported and blocked from editing the next time you do it again. Shiok ( talk) 13:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Lemongirl, I find it difficult to read this diff as anything other than a personal attack. I suggest you redact/remove or modify it. I understand you may be frustrated, but simply linking to CIR is not helpful for anyone, nor does it move conversation forwards in any way. Best, CMD ( talk) 18:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I believe my page moves were sufficiently uncontroversial, per MOS:PN. That is why I did not start a discussion. If you thought that my edits were controversial, you should have at least started a discussion before making mass reverts. --Peace world 16:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Any interactions between us should be on our respective talk pages for now. So please to not obscure my questions to the closer. Wrigleygum ( talk) 11:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I see you are really frustrated dealing with Singapore articles and the users. And also seems like WP:ANI doesn't work for that matter. I suggest taking this to WP:ARBCOM and naming it "Singapore" (if you are opening). Remember to read WP:A/G and if you request one I may be there commenting. Good luck! NgYShung huh? 04:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear administrator,
I am writing to inform that the founding date of Rajah & Tann Asia is inaccurate. Could we get permission to correct the year to 1976 please? Accurate information: Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP (then known as Tann Wee Tiong & TT Rajah) was founded in 1976.
Thank you and best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTAfan88 ( talk • contribs) 07:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I am an employee. We have documents to support our claims, may I check how I can pass them to you for verification? Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTAfan88 ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) ( user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) ( user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I would value you opinion on User talk:TheMagnificentist#Category additions. I may be way off base, but I'd appreciate your opinion. Thanks. Magnolia677 ( talk) 03:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for linking to this book at AfD. Pretty clever—hadn't seen it before and actually laughed out loud a few times. By the way, there's a PDF
here.
czar 20:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.
ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE
Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
Hello Lemongirl942,
I understand you live in Singapore, which is a beautiful country (which I've visited).
I'm wondering if you have ever read a copy of The Reader Magazine and if so, how many?
I'm wondering why you would eliminate the work of contributors to this page who actually have lived in the region where this magazine has been published for more than ten years?
You have eliminated neutral, descriptive text such as it's business model, which I contributed and so did others, who quite possibly also live in the region where the magazine has been distributed.
Recently, you added a link to a headline concerning The Reader at the Poynter web-page, a headline which states that most or nearly all of The Reader is plagiarized according to the CJR article.
This is quite a damning statement-- and it is also false.
The CJR article contained no actual numerical analysis of the proportion of articles they alleged The Reader plagiarized. And yet the headline you linked to states The Reader is mostly plagiarized. To use the term "most" or "a lot" or "half" you would want to normally make the case by determining how many articles were original, properly attributed or improperly attributed. Ms. Fry never even came close to this. She simply made a statement without showing any numerical evidence. She went as far as to call the business model of The Reader based on plagiarism-- because she says so, not based on evidence.
Unfortunately, this is how falsehoods become perceived as real. In this case, you placed a link at The Reader Magazine page on Wikipedia that people from all over the world would see that connects these people to a headline that is patently false and quite injurious.
In her article, you may also notice that to make her case "compelling" Ms. Fry did not distinguish between her allegations of copyright infringement and allegations of plagiarism, which are two very different things.
Hopefully, your sense and pursuit of fairness will be affected by this rather large omission of actual evidence in Ms. Fry's article which did not stop her from making blanket and sweeping allegations-- and didn't stop others from repeating them as if they were the truth.
If you can, please read her article for yourself. The Reader addressed Ms. Fry's article at www.readermagazinefactcenter.com.
Please consider allowing those of us who know this magazine and are doing our best to describe it accurately, neutrally and fairly to contribute to the page. I am personally doing the best I can. WikiBalandina (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
And thanks for reading this!
All the best,
WikiBalandina ( talk) 09:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
If you want the sources for Daniel Son; Necklace Don, here you go. I just find it odd that you'll revert my edits from weeks ago though, weird. JayPe ( talk) 1:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
cn}}
template so that others are alerted to the unsourced data. --
Lemongirl942 (
talk) 02:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Just wanted to drop by and say thanks for leaving the Exceptional Newcomer Award on my page for Iskandar Ismail! I'm a music student currently based in the USA, but I grew up in Singapore and would love to keep contributing to articles pertaining to Singapore's music scene in the future. I created the page for a school project and it was an honor to do it for Mr. Iskandar. Limjlcm ( talk) 16:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Illuminating perspective barnstar |
It's not too often that I'm gobsmacked by information from someone else, but your points about churnalism has resulted in one of those rare moments where I see the nuances of a situation very differently. Thanks so much for your patience in explaining it to me. CaroleHenson (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
I would be interested to know which parts of the article do not have reliable sources as per your reinstating the notice. TIA Tushi Talk To Me 03:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello Lemongirl942: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Mona778 ( talk) 03:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Do you plan to have the closures reviewed at MRV? -- George Ho ( talk) 06:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ Lemongirl942:, I notice you're an expert with COI issues and wonder if you could take a look at this page and it's archive #3. I'm at the end of my tether with trying the gentle approach, and it's now interfering with improving/editing this page. I would truly appreciate your advice. I think it should probably go to COIN as it's interering with good faith editing, but I'd appreciate a second opinion. Thanks in advance Luther Blissetts ( talk) 19:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you please restore the page, and avoid doing anything to it? I am in the midst of improving the page and trying to add any reference as soon as there is more published, and since the page is still in its preliminary stage, I strongly encourage others to add in more information rather than have it speedy deleted. The page I created is on a relatively new star, whose popularity is on the rise. LMX97 ( talk) 12:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: The header originally contained a Hokkien profanity which I removed. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 16:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Then why don't you help to improve it? Rather than despising on other noob Editors? Talk so much might as well help. Why can't the singers have their own page? You can have a user page which are not any important or famous person while at least those Singers are famous or to you they are not. Talk only, why don't you help improve. I know I suck i know but all you do is despise, can't you improve? Does 1 more or in fact 4 more articles kill you? No right? Can't you just leave it? If you can't, then ignore it. CO16 ( talk) 23:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you please set it back and do not redirect it to The Sam Willows? Please? I do not understand why you have to do that. Please just make it a standalone page. Please do not delete it or do anything to it. Please please? Can you reply me? CO16 ( talk) 01:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Singapore Tamils. 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:
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.
Please stop edit warring and adding content sourced to unreliable sources. If you continue to do so, you might be blocked.
Winnan Tirunallur (
talk) 15:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Who are you and why are you deleting my references? They are valid and not spam! — Preceding unsigned comment added by H4km4k ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Correct they are the best links but the links I posted are also relevant and I'm pretty sure people would appreciate the reference and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H4km4k ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello Lemongirl,
I see you are a helper at the COI board. If you have a moment could you please read the report about the article Charlie Zeleny. there is a SPA ip editor who is acting very aggressively toward me. I think he has a conflict either being the subject himself or a friend or family member. He denied it to me, but he has taken ownership of the article and says he is going to ban me from wikipedia. Look at the talk page with all the threat and calling removing weasel words as vadalism. Thank you. Pauciloquence ( talk) 13:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC) 13:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
As you and I were discussing (separately) on Juliancolton's talk page about the inappropriateness of merging the content of Conviction: A Sequel to Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice into List of literary adaptations of Pride and Prejudice, and as the merge has taken place already, I'd invite you to continue the discussion at Talk:List of literary adaptations of Pride and Prejudice. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 00:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to that article - it recently went through an AfD (result: keep, at my urging and that of others) and I have begun to improve it in the wake of that process. I hadn't yet worked my way down to the portfolio section, but my plan was to trim it back substantially, which you did - so, thanks!
That said, a few of the funded companies had separate profile-type articles on them in reputable publications (NYT, Forbes), so I'd consider them deserving of mention in this article. I will incorporate them into the History section, today if I have time. I'd just humbly suggest that maybe next time, if you are going to remove that much content from the page (including a slew of references) that you check the talk page first - in this case, for instance, I had flagged a couple of notable portfolio companies there. I fear that aggressive WP:NOTDIR edits like this run the risk of removing useful content - much of which deserved to go, but some of which should have been kept, albeit in a different form. Once that content is deleted, realistically, no one is going to remember that it was there and retrieve the good bits. I almost missed it myself; I skimmed my watchlist and saw that you removed the excess external links but since it wasn't in the last edit, I didn't notice the removal of the portfolio section until I went back to the page.
Thanks-
-- Vivisel ( talk) 17:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you reverted the disruptive user's edits on Hindi. Your edit summary said that you were unsure as to why he arbitrarily removed a lot of information. It is highly likely that this user is a Dravidian nationalist, that is, a person of South Indian descent who harbours an intense and irrational dislike of North Indian culture, languages, or festivals. Hence the user's removal of Hindi, a N. Indian language, Holi, a festival that is predominantly associated with people of North Indian stock, and so on. Just informing you in case the user continues with his disruptive edits after his 30-hour block has expired. Tiger7253 ( talk) 18:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() (
Charles R. Knight, 1922)
|
Thank you for all you did for this project in 2016, Lemongirl942. May your house be safe, and may you and those having the privilege of your company enjoy good health in a Happy New Year 2017! Kind regards, — Sam Sailor 02:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding
{{
subst:
User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. |
![]() |
Happy New Year! |
Wishing you a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2017. Thanks for your friendship! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hi Lemongirl942!
Wanted to know the meaning of the phrase you used when reverting my edits on the Algebris page. I wanted to know what this phrase means - "Doesn't seem to be an RS"
Thanks! FlyingBlueDream ( talk) 08:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lemongirl, how are you doing? Good to see you around Afds. Just wanted to drop in a small, quick note. Generally, I would have done this by first striking out my earlier vote and earlier statement rather than overwriting it, and adding a new comment before or after the struck !vote. Nothing important, but it helps understand what your original view was and how it changed. Thanks. Lourdes 15:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I see you've been monitoring the Mayank Prakash page. It looks to me like he's been editing his own profile from an IP address of 92.237.49.254 - the amends sound like his rather distinctive use of English. Is it appropriate for him to be puffing his achievements in this way?
Sjoh0050 ( talk) 16:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from removing relevant references to the Land Transport Guru website as you have done so on multiple pages with regards to Bus Interchanges in Singapore. The proper removal of SPS content as per your intentions should be the complete deletion of all copied content from Land Transport Guru, and not the convenient deletion of proper content attribution which other Wikipedia users have done.
Wheelandaxle293 ( talk) 06:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
You were probably right about the list of presidents - but I've seen it on other bank pages so I thought I would get some credit for adding it here. Not sure why you would then question my motives. The Kendall-K1 removal of sponsorships and awards is not warranted. Those are both common sections. This page is easy to update so I was trying to score some points.
Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastboy18 ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Lemongirl942. I noticed your recent request at WP:RMTR. In fact, there is a recent trend to have ROC things renamed to be Taiwan things. I don't have the links handy, but it's not a question of pure nationalism any more. More like common usage. This happened even with some election-related articles. So I wouldn't be shocked to see some undiscussed moves go by in this area. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 20:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, did you see that? Ridiculous! This wasn't even close! He reverted 4 times in a row on a 1rr page, and the admin says "no violation!" Is every admin in this joint corrupt? I don't get it. 4 is obviously more than 1. I didn't even get an explanation. 63.143.196.107 ( talk) 12:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
This IP is a sock of Kingshowman, just to let you know. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Taiwan under Japanese rule. 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:
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. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 03:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Every edit all must be made by you It is also let us new editors to gain some experience if not why not u run the entire Wikipedia if that is the case or close down Wikipedia!!!!!!!! 😡😡😡😡😡 Bryan4562013 ( talk) 06:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
hello. The reason that I'm writing here on your talk page is because the discussion on the notice board was closed before I got a chance to respond, due to the Admin's decision and action (that you had a bit of a disagreement with). Forgive this lengthy comment here, but I needed to thoroughly state some things, on this matter.
Anyway, thanks for your consideration and concern to this matter from yesterday. I want to say that I do apologize for going a bit past the 3RR rule myself (though Jytdog went further beyond as you can see), and also my occasional somewhat battle-ish tone, or maybe sometimes over-bluntness.
And I do appreciate that later the editor Jytdog made an excellent modification, and found an agreeably better and more solid source for my section and paragraph. If he had done that to begin with, I swear I would NOT have undone it or fought it, as I respect people’s meaningful modifications, adjustments, or better source referencing. You see though that that’s not what he did at first, nor later on even. But only after he went beyond 3RR and for some reason afterwards he went to the noticeboard where he didn’t think that he’d be reprimanded or would get in trouble or have 1-day block himself. But after I wrote my defense on here, he did see (is my surmise) that he broke 3RR badly, and was gonna be in hot soup as well as myself. We both edit-warred, obviously, with 3RR violation, though he a bit worse, and yes I a bit worse with a more combative tone (though not every statement of mine). But I was rightly and understandably both hurt and annoyed, at what was disrespectful and overly hasty, and it came across as "Own" and "I don't like", rather than totally valid reasons to completely delete. Yes, admittedly the source I put in was not the best, or the most reliable, in WP policy, but I hope you can see that WP policy is not necessarily to wholesale remove everything just because the source used is not the most reliable by WP standards.
There are plenty of other sources, more solid, for the drift of my addition. (And Jytdog, to his credit, did a good job later on in finding and placing one, and modifying etc.) But before that was the problem, where he totally removed hard work, that a very good-faith (and accurate and copiously sourced) contribution, and hard work, were just summarily dissed and dismissed by him, simply because the source that I put was not the best, but he wrongly accused or said that it was just “original research”. That is patently not true. I did not come up with the Jesus using Lot’s wife to warn against clinging to material possessions at the end of a world thing. That’s obvious from the Biblical text itself, AND ALSO FROM VARIOUS OUTSIDE SOURCES. Yes, I may not have picked the best source (admittedly), but it seems to be forgotten that WP policy and strong recommendation is to NOT destroy another contributor’s edits because of that, completely, but to try to find a better source, or give a source TAG, or modify the edits or additions. Not totally remove or eliminate. And sorry, I had a very valid point with that. '
And as I said, it was arguably very needed, and sorely lacking, the thing that was only slightly briefly mentioned in the lede. Needing elaboration, as NO "New Testament" reference in the body of article regarding "Lot's wife" was present anywhere.
Now, as far as another thing that’s been said by both Jytdog and you Lemongirl etc, that is actually a misunderstanding, and NOT what I did, regarding “pointy” about the name of God matter. No, that’s not what I meant. The edit itself (in that small matter of putting the Anglicized form “Jehovah” instead of what was there “God”) was to NOT “make a point” but for valid varying and clarity, in the Jewish context, of the God of Jews, and elaboration etc. When I said “my point” that was only in my comment on the TALK page, in response to Jytdog’s objection that that form “Jehovah” (the tri-syllabic English Latin form) is somehow not used by “scholarly sources” even though it clearly is, past and present...in various reputable works, by various scholars and theologians...though maybe not as much as the less-accurate two-syllable form “Yahweh”. When I said “it was not that big a deal to me” I meant if consensus (which is what Jytdog was later calling for on that specific matter) went against having that form there in that specific place. I would not fight against that so much, because it’s overall minor...though my EDIT on the actual article was NOT “pointy” but simply clarity and varying and elaboration. The edit itself was not meant as “to make a point”, but rather my comment to Jytdog on the talk page about “scholarly sources” and that the motive to remove that form was not really warranted given the fact that it’s a long-established form and found in a number of scholarly books, sermons, and references, as well as in a number of reputable Bible versions. THAT was my “point” about “point”. Not the actual original edit itself in the article. That was just for clarity in context.
Anyway, as I said, I do appreciate your thought to all this, though I do not think it was all that necessary for Jytdog to even go on the board to report me, since he was (though unintentionally) also ipso facto reporting himself. But his subsequent modification and compromise and collaboration and better source that he found I do appreciate and have no problem with. It’s cool. I appreciate also Jytdog’s diligence for good sourcing on Wikipedia, though I don’t agree that he handled it originally in the best way or in line really with WP recommendation or policy. And that was my argument with all of that. Anyway, sorry for the long presentation here. I appreciate your taking the time to read through it. I felt it was necessary (since I was not able to all day yesterday) to further state my case and maybe clarify a misunderstanding or two. thanks again. Regards....... Namarly ( talk) 14:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It has been two hours since you reverted my edits on that article. I hope you have been preparing a list of your reasons of the revert for starting a discussion in that article's talk page. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 07:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed, several times, that you keep reverting true info to untrue and, in fact, this is an attempt to defend untrue info. I noticed that you don`t work on how info is correct or incorrect. On top of that you disseminating conspiracy and that I am the paid user. It is very strange to see how you don`t examine true or untrue information but escalate simple situation to conflict. Sorry about that, but it is very strange and non-constructive behaviour.
Also, how do you come to conclusion that corporate info is not useful info? Please give the source or link.
Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.216.246 ( talk) 14:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, still no reply on my questions , so I am feeling that I am entitled to ask you , please, stop disruptive editing/reverting. Most of them doesn`t make sense and it gives feelings that you are defending untrue information and in not-good-faith mode. Thanks and kind regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.216.129 ( talk) 07:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
It appears that you have been
canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While
friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are
indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain
point of view or side of a debate, or which are
selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Regenteditor (
talk •
contribs) 08:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
(This is a personal reminder of the stuff that needs to be done today)
-- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 04:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello there. Would you care to review or comment at my nomination of House of Music for featured status? The previous nomination did not gather enough commentary, so anything at all would be appreciated. Dan56 ( talk) 04:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Simpletester. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Umid gas field, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the
referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. addition of improperly cited material, dead links, put correct sources,please —Preceding
undated comment added 09:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, this is regarding your aggressive edits on the page of Swami Nithyananda. You have made the whole page into a mockery and destroyed the hard work of many editors including wikipedia admins over the past few years. If there are specific references that you are opposed to you should discuss them. I am wondering if there is any COI from your side and whether you have a vested interest in writing against the subject of the BLP article. Acnaren ( talk) 06:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Lemongirl, there is a user who just deleted all of the content of the page... I was simply reverting it back to the version you had previously. It's obviously defiled and lost information in its current state — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rurban23 ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Lunar New Year! |
![]() |
Hello Lemongirl942, |
![]() |
The AFD Barnstar | |
A note of thanks for your due diligence at AfD, especially on refbombed nominations. Though the AfDs may not close justly, I wanted you to know that your efforts do not go unnoticed. Happy editing, czar 06:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC) |
![]() |
Happy New Year |
Wish you a prosperous, lucky, blessed and otherwise wonderful year of the rooster! Timmyshin ( talk) 11:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
For your combination of diplomacy, resillence, and stoicism at the wiki- coalface. Happy new year! O Fortuna! ...Imperatrix mundi. 13:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Malaysia WikiProject Newsletter |
![]() |
Issue 8 • February 2017 • About the Newsletter | ||
![]()
| ||
Past Newsletter • Newsroom • Malaysia Noticeboard • Malaysia Portal | ||
Newsletter written by NgYShung huh? (Delivered: 10:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)). You may opt-out of this monthly newsletter by removing your name here. |
Thanks a lot for your wishful message on my talk page User talk:Lemongirl942! Just wondering, how do I insert those templates for birthdays and festival templates to you? I always see other contributors doing so for a very long time, but I have no idea how to do so. Besides that, how do I get started for inserting those introductory templates on my User Page? Do provide me with tips accordingly for that.
You are always so kind and patient with me, I am still grateful that you defended me at Anon a few months back when almost every other editors were criticizing me but you always believed my true intention of edit and have excellent faith in me; thank you so much for that! :) Don't mind me asking, may I add you on any social media accounts (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) so that we can continue to communicate with each other even outside of Wikipedia? Of course it is your choice, but I do believe and trust in you a lot since you seem to understand my editing patterns very well and not forgetting the fact that you are a Singaporean too. Hope you have enjoyed this festive season with your family and friends; 3 cheers to that! :D Xinyang Aliciabritney ( talk) 11:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lemongirl942, thanks for your note on my talk page. I stumbled into editing so many rap music articles about a year ago after writing a biography about Kodak Black. I quickly found that keeping that one article properly sourced and free from spam took a huge amount of time, and the article has been permanently page protected. I would often follow the non-IP editors who added unsourced content to the Kodak Black article, and noticed a similar pattern. These were editors who exclusively edited rap, electronic music, and DJ/producer articles, and the bulk of their edits were mostly unsourced cut-and-paste discographies (no text or prose). I suspect some of these editors work for large music companies, though some of the most prolific of these editors turned out to be teens (they would disclose this on their talk page or in their block appeals). The problem was, when I checked the accuracy of the few sources that were ever added, only about 75 percent of each edit was correct, which does not really help these articles. As you've seen, I've been relentless with some of these editors, and a few have been permanently blocked.
Going forward, my concern is how to protect these music articles and enhance their accuracy. Most of my edits are to small towns in the United States, where I rarely see this sort of mass unsourced editing. These small city articles are well-patrolled by experienced editors, and unsourced "cruft" is quickly removed. Another example is the mass production of sports biographies (eg. US football players). I rarely see unsourced or inaccurate sports bios. These rap music articles are not like that (though there are a few very hard working editors who make well-sourced contributions). Compounding the problem is that discographies are exceeding difficult to accurately edit. Yesterday I spent ages teasing out unsourced content from just one article, Plata O Plomo (Fat Joe and Remy Ma album). As well, these discographies use very complex tables that are difficult to configure.
A few of my concerns are:
I'd be curious to hear your opinion. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm wondering if you are interesting in reviewing the article on the Kingdom of Singapura as you have contributed in article on Singapore before, and I'm inviting reviews for the article - Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom of Singapura/archive1. The reason is mainly because I believe the article needs to be overhauled, but it may not be easy because of the extensive amount that's written already, therefore I would like suggestions that can improve it. The main problem is the uncertainty in the history and what appears to be skewing of the narrative (some points raised in Talk:Kingdom of Singapura). Many historians believe that many of the kings may be mythical. Suggestions, or even edits on the article if you want to, would be appreciated. Hzh ( talk) 16:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing This England. I withdrew my FA nomination, but also asked you a question on the nomination page, which I hope you can answer there or on my talk page if the page is closed. Also, I wonder if you would have similar concerns about Joseph Schwantner: New Morning for the World; Nicolas Flagello: The Passion of Martin Luther King, or if you think this sourcing is better. I'd consider nominating this article for FA status, but only if I knew sourcing was not a problem. Thanks again for your time and feedback. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The FAC nomination page has been closed, but I am still curious about your thoughts on Joseph Schwantner: New Morning for the World; Nicolas Flagello: The Passion of Martin Luther King. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey Lemongirl, long time no see. I wanted to apologize for the things I said a while back, it wasn't professional of me and I hope you can forgive my actions. In the meantime, I've looked into Too High to Riot and made some changes to it. I was hoping to get your opinion on it whether what I did was right or wrong. Thanks. JayPe ( talk) 01:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrow Scout Group :)-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 02:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Since u all are talking to me with no respect while u all are idling the way sending me message I suggest u all should make a wiki page for Tan Jun Sheng u all have the time to leave message on my chat page I suggest u all use the time to do a research Bryan4562013 ( talk) 05:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lemongirl, I hope that you would help me do a wiki page of a Singapore an kid actor named Tan Jun Sheng. Thanks. 😊 Bryan4562013 ( talk) 10:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks for your advice, will do page move according WP instructions. I read carefully the article. I moved page w/out talk page because old name is mistake apparently, doesn`t reflect the content and it means old talk page is not applicable. The article should be rewritten as I note on the talk page. Thanks for your thoughts. Swissfishpool ( talk) 10:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
We now have 810 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at
PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.
The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.
Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.
This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I have opened a DRN case regarding a Singapore discussion you participated in. If you wish, feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty. Best, CMD ( talk) 16:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I noticed you eliminated my article. It is factually incorrect that Advanced Bionics is "Not indepednently notable at this time." They are the world's second leading producer of cochlear implant systems. MED-EL, the worlds third leading producer, has a wikipedia article. They are featured in countless journals and articles, independent of the audiology world. The Sonova talk page, may I quote, requested that separate articles for major Sonova divisions be created. "Child companies and Grand-Child companies Sonova owns Phonak, Unitron, Advanced Bionics, and Connect Hearing Group. Connect Hearing Group owns at least 10 other brands. I've added the grand-children companies -- it'll probably be helpful for some searcher. The majority of the grand-children companies are in non-English countries, so I chose not to add a redirect. If you think it's needed, please do. I'm also gonna go through and add links to the brands. Also, it appears that the majority of these children (or even grand-children) companies have notability. Enough to merit their own page? I don't know so I'll just leave the children and grand children on this page for now. If it's deem that they have enough notability for their own page, go ahead and create it. CerealKillerYum (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)" Advanced Bionics is notable by all measures, hence the article should stay. PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 11:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Valentine's Day! |
Happy valentine's day dear!-- Mona778 ( talk) 06:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC) |
I think you wrongly revert it. You need to re-revert to the latest version that you revert. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.165.12.118 ( talk) 19:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Advanced Bionics is notable, they are the second leading producer of cochlear implants. There was no reason for it to be deleted. In terms of consensus, fully owned subsidaries do have independent articles about them. For just a few examples, Delta Air Lines and (Delta Private Jets), British Airways and (BA CityFlyer) (OpenSkies), El Al and (Up (airline)). PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 20:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.
We now have 810 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The 4th Wikipedia Malaysia Meetup will be held for the second time on Selangor, and you are invited!
→ To collaborate between Wikipedia Malaysia User Group and
Sunway Group, a large corporation in Malaysia.
→ To create Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects)'s articles and edit/improve articles on the spot.
This meetup was initiated by Chongkian and the invitation was written and sent by NgYShung. For more information and updates, see the meetup page. If there is any enquires, feel free to discuss at the talk page. If you wish to opt-out of any future Malaysia meetup invitation, please add your name here. (Delivered: 11:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC))