User talk:MarB4

Best viewed with Firefox or Chrome with the Vector skin at 1152 × 864 resolution or higher.

Hello and welcome to my talk page On Wikipedia, I spend some of my time patrolling recent changes. If, while doing so, you believe I have made a mistake, please note: I am only human, I sometimes make mistakes. Edits I revert, I generally revert as they appear to be vandalism of some sort. If you believe I have made a mistake, just undo my edit, and leave me a message pointing it out to me here. I dislike disjointed conversations, where one has to switch between pages as each participant writes. If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Wb|your_username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page. I am not here everyday. If you leave me a message and I don't respond immediately, don't panic! I will get back to you the next time I am online and see your message. If you wish to discuss the content of an article, please consider doing so on that article's own talk page. That's one of the things that they are there for, and everyone concerned about the page gets to benefit! If you want my attention on the matter, follow up by placing {{ subst:Please see | location={{{location}}} }} on my talk. Note: Please start a new talk page thread by clicking the New section link above, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ).

George Demos page

Please reach out and speak to other users before inserting the Vandalism tag. The, so-called, "Whistleblower Section" of the George Demos page does not cite Reliable Sources and must remain off the page until you, or someone, find proper sources. Citing an internal court document is Original Research, and therefore a violation of wikipedia's policy against original research. Please find Reliable Sources for this information, and refrain from the vandalism tag. Sdavi410 (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. First of all try to understand that during patrolling you do sometimes unintentionally tag wrong, and the George Demos article might be one such case. I take that you should be the first person to understand such a mistake given the fact that you have been writing recently on another users page. I have no personal interest whatsoever in the article or its subject. Looking at the warring going on I suggest you request for comment or seek dispute resolution. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 03:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above notice Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdavi410
MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 01:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Les Merton

Les Merton is notable since he had made significant efforts to re-popularise the Cornish Dialect, notably by authoring "Oall Rite Me Ansum"", which follows in a tradition of books about the dialect, which include Ken Phillipps 1993 volume "A Glossary of the Cornish Dialect" and earlier works dating back to the foundation of the Old Cornwall Society in the 1920s by Robert Morton Nance and earlier works in the 19th century (e.g. Jago - http://www.scribd.com/doc/3980618/The-ancient-language-and-the-dialect-of-Cornwall) Govynn (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I suggest you contest the speedy. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 20:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have left a message on the talk page of Les Merton also. Govynn (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for withdrawing the nomination, I do think though that you acted far too quickly, Wikipedia:DEMOLISH Govynn (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you frank opinion and your added references to Les Merton. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 08:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

split: a divided america

hello - saw that the updates to the split: a divided america wikipedia page were reverted. as the film's director, i am updating the wikipedia page for the documentary's re-release this fall - hence the 2011 date change. thank you. sincerely - kelly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfpictures (talk • contribs) 21:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

{{|Wb|your obsteve}}

replied to your message, thanks Obsteve (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

colour of pots, kettles, etc

The instructions at the top of this page ask other users not to template msg you. So why don't you follow your own guidelines and not template experienced editors, especially with accusations of vandalism like you did at User talk:Jenks24? His edit gave a reason for removing the notability tag, so you are free to disagree with his opinion, but it is not ok to call it vandalism. WP:AGF please. The-Pope (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion which I assume is in regards to the article Amy Knight. An experienced user should be welcome to add RS instead of removing the notability tag summarizing "rm notability tag; check gbooks, gscholar, etc.". Please read WP:BLP and let me know if you need any help. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 00:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in the article or it's notability, only that you shouldn't throw accusations of vandalism around so lightly -WP:DTTR. The BLP policy refers to content, not tagging nor incivility/AGF. The existence or lack of a tag doesn't really change anything. We are all tying to improve this place in our own ways. The-Pope (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Pope. I'll only add a few things: first, I'm hoping this edit was just a misclick with Twinkle. If not, you probably need to have a re-read of WP:VAND. Second, it's generally good practice to have at least a quick google search before PRODing/BLPPRODing/AfDing an article. In this case the first result from a google news search (this article) proved the notability and verified a decent chunk of the article. Only a little further on in the google search we see publications like The New York Times and TIME calling Knight an expert on Russian and Soviet history. It's better to take a few minutes to do these searches than just tag and move on. Thirdly, the reason I removed the notability tag is because it was BITE-y to tag an article of a clearly notable author which had been created by an inexperienced user. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Jenks. I am happy to see that you added references to the article. I'll keep your remark about the notability tag being BITE-y in mind, you might be absolutely right and if it can still the waters regarding my revert using vandalism instead of AGF I have no problems saying to you: Sorry, mate, didn't mean to neither do wrong nor hurt. The article looks fine, lets move on. Thanks. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 10:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, I appreciate it. Yep, let's move on and I hope we can work together one day. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Article "Tweaks"

Mar -- What principle is guiding you to add more parentheses to the species authorities in the Buprestidae genus articles? The source material I'm using doesn't have them, and the author of the website is the current subject matter expert on jewel beetles. They actually have a meaning and a purpose when used in taxonomic naming. Granted, I had to learn this lesson, too (I was actaully dismissing them entirely until someone chided me). While I understand it's probably a good faith edit, I would like to ask you to please refer back to the references in the article and correct your "additions." Thanks. NielsenGW (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nielsen. Seeing your many beetle stubs - how do you manage to create one every 5 min? Impressive! - I thought to myself "He missed parentheses here and there, I'll add them." I had no idea it made a difference, only trying to help. I have reverted my edits in those four or five beetle articles. Thanks. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 12:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Like I said, I had a bumpy learning curve on these types of articles, too. As for my speed, I don't use any of the Wiki-software (AWB, etc.), but rather have two monitors and "copy-and-paste" templates for both polytypic and monotypic genera, as well as a formatting macro in Excel to take the website data and turn it into wiki-code. It's a lot of fun--I've done about 4,000 article this way. Adios! NielsenGW (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Westmoor Mot centre

Hi. Thanks for doing New Page Patrol, without which Wikipedia would very soon become unusable. A comment about your tag here: where A7 would apply, I think it's preferable to use that rather than G11, because G11 tends to make the author either protest that it wasn't meant as advertising, or take out a few adjectives and try again, where the real issue is that the company just isn't notable. Of course, G11 is still fine for the real "our highly skilled staff provide world-class... " spam. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I sincerely apologize for posting on your user page rather than your talk page. This is because am quite green at wikipedia editting.I shall read through the links you just posted on my talk and be rest assured that it will not happen again.Very Truly Stephen wanjau (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stephen. Thanks for your apology, totally accepted, shit happens. And yes, there is a lot to figure out on Wikipedia. I think it is a very good idea you have: do a bit of reading, do some minor edits on articles that have your interest, and then make a strategy for launching your first page again. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 22:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Davis Gym edits

The sourcing for the edits I made is old Bucknell basketball media guides. They are not available online. Hooptime (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hooptime. Thanks for letting me know. Maybe you can generate a citation with this little tool based on the books on your shelf? Happy editing! MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 22:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, books on my shelf and 20+ years of covering Bucknell basketball as a sportswriter Hooptime (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Good to have you on the team" never sounded more appropriate. Welcome once again. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 23:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jhoomo Re

Hello MarB4. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jhoomo Re, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Would likely vote delete at AFD, but as the band's article exists, this isn't an A9. Thank you. Courcelles 00:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Courcelles. Thanks for letting me know. Please obs that the article at the time of tagging for speedy deletion did not contain any artist info. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 00:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed :) When you're thinking of certain criteria, a quick check of the what links here feature can reveal some hints as to what is going on. Courcelles 00:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I could, the creator did redlink the album on the artist page a few minutes before, and I also acknowledge that "check the "what links here" link to see [...]" is mentioned in WP:GTD. And that would also be the only hint as to what is going on. A much less resource consuming solution would be to create a decent stub before publishing it. Don't you think so? MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 10:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Amen. If people took more care with their new articles, CAT:SD wouldn't be the near constant backlog she is. Courcelles 11:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kailasa (album)

Hello MarB4. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kailasa (album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The band has an existing article, invalidating the A9. Thank you. Courcelles 00:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi C. Same as above and in this case the article still does not include artist info and like above links to nothing. The smallest little effort from new page creators would be nice, would save my time as well as yours. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 00:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Restoring the article on Shalini Bahl

The article on Shalini Bahl have been deleted, citing notability deficiency. Request you to undelete the page as the Subject person has done extensive and authentic research on Mindfulness approach towards every aspect of life, be it business, personal lifestyle or general work environment. She has written 100s of article on various subjects ranging from management, spirituality and social media besides other. The above writings can be accessed at <redacted>. The page been edited and her achievement were being included. She is already a famous personality in Amherst, MA. Her articles on subjects of management, social media, spirituality being widely published in respectable Journals like Journal of Consumer Research (forthcoming), Journal of Advertising, and Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. She is also a well known speaker appearing in TED, AWEtv and being invited in various national and international forums. The page has not been created to advertise the product and services but Ms Bahl has evolved an unique approach iAM approach - which stands for the Innovative, Authentic, and Mindful approach to business. This approach been used to help individuals, whether they are self-employed or employees, to become acquainted with what is unique about them and channel that for maximum productivity, engagement, and enjoyment in their work. Her original work of research on various subject, alliance (1), authentic (16), authentic branding (3), authentic business (2), authentic differentiation (1), authentic mission, statement (1), authentic personal brand (2), authentic women entrepreneurs (1), awetv (1), balance (1), blogging (3), blogging frequency (4), brain (2), branding (1), breathing (2), business (1), challenges (1), cluster analysis (1), community (1), conscious capitalism (1), consumer research (1), covert marketing (0), customer well being (1), effective communication (1), efforts (1) environment (1), environmental scan (1), ethical marketing (1), finding purpose (2), freedom (1), good questions (1), happiness (1) hidden beliefs (5), hidden fears (1), highest potential (2), how to do viral marketing (1), iAM Business Consulting (1), iAM person of the month (1), iAM Tip (2), increase productivity (2), inner conflict (1), inner critic (1), inner purpose (7), innovation (5), innovative (3), insights (1), inspiring (2), integral business (1), integrated (1), Life's lessons (2), LinkedIn (1), local business (1), market research (1), marketing (2), marketing with integrity (0), Measuring success (1), mind (2), mindful (3), mindful approach (4), mindful business (2), mindful marketing (6), mindful practice (1), mindful pricing (1), mindfulness (7), mindfulness practice (2) mission statement (1), move with ease (1), New marketing paradigm (3), new mindset (3), non profit (1), old thinking patterns (2), online id (1), paradoxes (1), passion (1), perfect business name (2), Personal branding (6), Pranayama (1), present moment (1), pricing (3), processes defining authentic business (1), product (1), professionl identities (1), profits (1), purpose (2), quotes at work (3), self awareness (5), sex sells (1), sharing online presentations (1), slideboom (1), slideshare (1), small budget marketing (1), social identities (1), social media (10), social media sites (1), Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (1), storytelling (1), stress (2), Sudarshan Kriya (2), sustainable (1), sustainable business (1), TCR (1), tools for digital identity (2), Transformative Consumer Research (1), transparency in business (1), truth (2), twitter (2), Uncategorized (1), unemployment (3), viral campaign (1), viral marketing (1), volunteering (1), win win situations (1), word cloud (1) can be accessed at <redacted>. Request you to reinstate the page. -Szolan (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szolan (talk • contribs) 05:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Szolan. I can see that you already raised the question on WP:UND and it was turned down on the grounds "this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning people. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning people will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject." If you took your time and read a little on WP:UND you would see that it says "Note that requests for undeletion is not a replacement for deletion review. If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here." You could try that. But my unqualified opinion is, that the article would stand a much better chance if you started creating it in your own sandbox and did a decent job on it. That would involve a lot of reading in the policies and guidelines you find if you follow the links given to you in the welcome message on your talk page. Good luck! MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 09:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thnx. where do i request a copy of the deleted page, so that i can edit and upload for review. it can also be sent in my authenticated mail. regards Szolan (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you can get a copy of the deleted page. You could try and ask the admin that handled your request for undeletion. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 09:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Should I Feel That It's Over

Hello, I was wondering why the linkrot tag was added to this article as all references are not bare URLS. Ajsmith141 (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Smith. Have a look at WP:BURLS and tell me if you still think the linkrot tag is unfairly placed. Do you know the Reference Generator for making citations? MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 16:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Reference Generator. I see from WP:BURLS about adding the citations but I'm not familiar with using it. Ajsmith141 (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You'll find it's a fine tool for generating proper citations instead of the bare URLs now in the article. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 16:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I'll have a look now. Ajsmith141 (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Harrietfield References

Dear MarB4,

Thank for drawing my attention to the problem with the references on the Harrietfield page. I have had a go at corrected them but as I am a but new to this I wondering if you could let me if they are correct and if I can remove the banner form the page now. In addition I 'm not sure if I should have posted this here or on the Harrietfield talk page and am sorry if I have caused any inconvenience.

Many Thanks, EditMonky. EditMonkey (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear EditMonkey, Have a look at the article now, I made a proper citation for the first reference using this tool. I could not see Gitting B., which I assume would be the author/editor name, anywhere, so I left it out. You can add the fields, if you want to. Have a go at it. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 16:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Hi MarB4. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for IMAST, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 21:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Antony Powell

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I deleted this article as a very nasty personal attack against a genuine living person. There is a vast difference between hoax and attack pages. Pease be sure to fully read pages before tagging them and if you need any help; do read WP:NPP, or leave a message on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Kostabiel

Hi. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please don't place welcome templates on the pages of users who haven't made an edit yet. We need a lot of good new page patrollers - I think you could be far more helpful there, but do read up on WP:DELETION first. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. My usual practice when welcoming people is to open the New user log and go down and find one of the oldest of the 500 with contribs, check out what they have done and greet them accordingly. If I have welcomed a user that had zero contribs - I actually think I did that one single time a couple of hours ago, that is a rare case, the exception from the natural rule (and likely based on something rather silly as the sound of the username!), as this could be done much faster and better by a bot, should it be done. You are mistaken when it comes to Kostabiel, s/he made an edit which prompted my rollback.

I am sorry to see you use conditional mood in regards to my current efforts on the new page patrolling. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 00:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The text of Those welcome templates have to be manually fixed after pressing save. The main reason we have just passed a major new rule to prevent new users from creating articles is because NPP is in such a mess because it is not done accurately. We need all the help we can get to get it right. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And what exactly do you mean by those statements when you write them to me? MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 05:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Due to the research work we are doing, I and a couple of other editors patrol the work of the patrollers. It is not aimed at any particular individual. Experience has shown that an unacceptably high proportion of patrolling is error prone, hence the reason why consensus was reached recently to prevent new accounts from immediately publishing new articles. Attempts to improve the standard of NPP over the last nine months have failed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit to J.I. Packer page...

I believe it is an improvement to the J.I. Packer entry to post a picture which depicts Dr. Packer alone. (No offense to Mark Driscoll.)

There are plenty of portrait pictures out there of Dr. Packer, and as soon as I have the rights to post a picture myself I will submit one. That is, unless you'd like to improve the page by posting one yourself that does NOT have another person with him? I can send you one if you like.

dcharris1

PS: Since I removed the other picture in good faith, with every intention of posting a better one, it does not constitute vandalism. As for the Mark Driscoll page, I should not have removed that one, and will not attempt to in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcharris1 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Harris. Thanks for your unsigned message. Your POV in regards to what would be an appropriate picture for the article should be posted on the article talk page. That you remove an image without discussing it first and without having a substitute yet IMO is not very logical.

Yes, creating an account and within minutes removing the same image from two articles without at least an edit summary and then repeating your removal three times after a rollback that is vandalism. Arguing now that it was good faith edits ... sorry, it's a little late to plea innocent, if you ask me.

If you do get a better photo of Packer that can be used, why not upload it, suggest it's use on the article talk page and see if there is agreement on substituting the current. Who knows, your opinion might be shared by others. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 01:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Please Examine Edits

[1]

I have not removed any meaningful content in this edit.Curb Chain (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Curb. Just left you a msg a few secs ago. Will be back online later, lets chat then. Cheers. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 09:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I certainly don't need to take a break from editing asana articles. Per our protocol, and yes, since I've worked on them yesterday, the articles do not seem to be notable after reading most of the articles. They maybe adequate on list of yoga postures, but they don't seem notable for their own articles. You can read WP:N for further information. I also participate in articles, templates, and categories for deletion, so I know the ways around them (our standards).Curb Chain (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to sleep. I will give you the courtesy of assuming good faith and will give you time to digest this possibly new information. I have to work tomorrow so I'm going to give both of us a break (some time).Curb Chain (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If irc is more convenient for you, I am back from work and online, so if there are some problems please don't hesitate to discuss.Curb Chain (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

IPA

It is not enough to include citations to pronunciations such as this. I highly doubt the pronunciations in that book is a good transliteration of sanskrit. That's why we ALWAYS need IPA transliteration and yes, {{converipa}}{{convertipa}} is a necessary template on the articles which don't use IPA.Curb Chain (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Curb, hope this find you well. Avoid shouting on talk pages, many editors here do not like that; the essay Wikipedia:Please don't shout expands on the subject.

Talk page discussions are based mainly on policies, guidelines, and RS, not mere opinion as you here present. I am open for the idea of adding IPA to asana articles, so I'll try to answer you anyway, and I find it a fine opportunity to work positively together after the closing of your AfD nomination of the 58 asana articles.

Starting with your last sentence saying "we ALWAYS need IPA transliteration" I assume you did mean "IPA transcription" as there is quite a difference between graphemic and phonemic conversion. Next, would you please give me a link back to the page saying we always need IPA? I am sure you are right when you say it, but I can't seem to find it.

Let's have a look at what we have in regards to pronunciation of asanas, what we want, what we need, and what we can.

We have ~58 articles (3 redirects included), leaving us, if I can count, with 30 articles without any information on pronunciation, and 25 articles with pronunciation info.

Current pronunciation info: I am surprised to see that you consider it a transliteration of Sanskrit. Using Paschimottanasana as an example it currently reads

• Paschimottanasana (POSH-ee-moh-tan-AHS-anna) (Template:Lang-sa; IAST: paścimottānāsana)

and following WP:PRON which tells us that "When a foreign name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and foreign-language pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first." it should be clear that "(POSH-ee-moh-tan-AHS-anna)" therefor is the English transcription and not as you assume reflecting Sanskrit pronunciation. Were that the case the correct placement would be after Devanagari.

Next, which transliteration method do you propose have been used? I use Paschimottanasana as an example again and we have

Harvard-Kyoto: pazcimottAnAsana

ITRANS: pashchimottaanaasana

IAST: paścimottānāsana

Velthuis: pa"scimottaanaasana

and IPA transcription: pɐɕcimoːt̪t̪ɑːn̪ɑːs̪ɐn̪ɐ

Compare that to POSH-ee-moh-tan-AHS-anna. This is not a transliteration as suggested, but a pronunciation respelling. And that is a transcription. (Please have a read on transliteration and transcription.) Pronunciation respelling has its strength in accessibility - no need for next-door Joe to know IPA - but is at best a "pan-dialectal" English approximation and has its obvious drawbacks. That is why we ideally want IPA transcriptions on as much as possible and the narrower the better. If we can source or produce them reliably. With the above info available we can have a lead starting

Paschimottanasana (POSH-eemohtan-AHS-anna) (Template:Lang-sa; Sanskrit pronunciation: [pɐɕcimoːt̪t̪ɑːn̪ɑːs̪ɐn̪ɐ]; IAST: paścimottānāsana), Seated Forward Bend"

I have looked at all asana talk pages and unless I am in err there are no other requests for pronunciation, meaning the prior community consensus was no need. That should not stop an innovative editor like yourself to raise awareness of the possibility and need, in fact I choose to regard your tagging with the rare {{convertipa}} template and your AfD nomination of the asana articles as a welcome drive towards better articles in the Yoga arena. As I am focusing my limited time on WP the next months on broader contents matters I will leave a detail like pronunciation in the asana articles to you and will suggest you to this end deploy a 3-step strategy (which of course you can expand with your own ideas):

1. Source IPA. I have looked around specifically and found nothing, but you might do a better job. For inline citations from gbooks Reftag is at your disposal, and for everything else Reference Generator is available.
2. Produce IPA. That would take Sanskrit knowledge far beyond my own, but if you think you have what it takes, go for it. We can always get a second opinion from RD/L before adding to the articles.
3. Request IPA. If you have no results with step one and two above, express your need under a new section heading on the article talk pages, that's what they are there for. This needn't be more than a line or two specifying your request including the appropriate template if needed, which at the same time would accomplish getting {{convertipa}} off the article page where it never belonged in the first place.

Hoping you will take heed of the above and trying to inspire you with a little Ahimsa in your future editing I send you

Ok, thanks for the beer. I can say that everything you have said is correct, but only one thing is in err: The tag actually does not belong on any talk page, it belongs on the article page (main page). You can verify this yourself by checking the articles who use this template. Also, this would be the only template that belongs on the talk page, if that was the case, and this would useful to editors. Some of the pronunciations are sourced. I can point out that theY cite sources that don't use IPA. We can convert them to IPA. Also, there is no problem to include the respelling, which is what is on the article pages, in addition to IPA. As you know, IPA is perfered. Do you want me to go ahead and implement your suggestion?Curb Chain (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Curb said: "we ALWAYS need IPA transliteration" Please give me a link back to the page saying we always need IPA?

Curb said: "It is not enough to include citations to pronunciations such as this." According to?

A suggestion of converting sourced pronunciations to IPA is set fourth, but the only sourced pronunciations in the articles in question are pronunciation respelling, and these can obviously not be converted to IPA. This suggestion in itself shows little if any understanding of the subject I have expounded above and lends no credibility to the statement "I can say that everything you have said is correct", and it also further repeats the basic lack of understanding already demonstrated by writing "I highly doubt the pronunciations in that book is a good transliteration of sanskrit" between what is the present English pronunciation respelling and the wanted Sanskrit pronunciation.

Regarding the convertIPA template it belongs on the talk page, and it is advised always to read the docs and guidelines. Especially when here the adding of the template to 25 articles easily could be construed tag bombing in order to push the subsequent AfD nomination.

Please either act according to my very friendly intended instructions and suggestions above or remove the convertipa template from the article pages. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 21:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not say in {{convertipa}} documentation that the template should be on the talk page. IPA transcription/translation is the preferred form of phonetic spelling on Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects. Respelling is done after the IPA has been established. Such pronunciations, even though they are sourced, should not be included if you insist that they are the pronunciations of these yoga positions. IPA is an unambiguous phonetic spelling; we should be using IPA to transcribe the pronunciation of the sanskrit, then use Respelling, to supplement, and even this is not necessary. The sources that use this "respelling" has many drawbacks because the phonemes they represent are ambiguous. This is not sufficient for Wikipedia. I suggest removal of these non-IPA pronunciations, or the tag should stay.

The adding of the template to 25 articles could not be easily construed as tag bombing, because the my nomination of the articles was wholly different issue.

You are not new to {{convertipa}}, so it links explicitly to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation). In it, it outlines the myriad of reasons we do not use IPA instead of other transcriptions. Obviously, I may not have presented my arguments as eloquently as this guideline, but the concept is that respelling is an ambiguous transcription. This is what I mean by "I highly doubt the pronunciations in that book is a good transliteration of sanskrit".Curb Chain (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD rationale

I'm uncomfortable deleting George Gombossy as an A10. While it is a duplicate of User:Ggombossy, that is a user page, not an article. I don't think the criteria extends to material in user pages. In addition, it is likely that the user page will be deleted, as an improper use of a user page. (As an aside, please note I have blocked the editor). --SPhilbrickT 14:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 23:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

messing with the steve lerner page

Moved to Talk:Steve Lerner

 – as per good practice. Section is closed on this talk page. --MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 09:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

he is a noted authority in his field, stop vandalizing the page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorCool777 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your unsigned comment. You have been notified several times on your talk page about not removing maintenance templates from the Steve Lerner article until the issues are solved, which they are far from. Removing them 4 times as you have done going as far as shouting in your edit summary "DO NOT BACK THESE CHANGES OUT" and claiming that the "Issues are solved" when they are not, constitutes ownership.

The Steve Lerner article was unfortunately autobiographic from the start, which is strongly discouraged, leaving an essay like, vanity ridden article behind that is far from the strict standards in WP:BLP. You are a new user, or are using a new account, and have only made edits to the Steve Lerner article. Do you have a relation to the article subject you wish to disclose?

I made a Google Books search for "Steve Lerner" and there appears to be several by that name, but among the first 50 hits I could find nothing that was regarding the Steve Lerner in question. I will try to find 5 minutes and do some basic copy editing on the article to get you going. Please carefully read WP:BLP.

I would like to advise you not again post messages like the above on talk pages of your fellow Wikipedians. It will in many cases not be taken lightly. At best it will be taken as a sign that you care very little for how Wikipedia works, at worst as lack of civility. Flat out: (A) you are the one messing, (B) as the article stands now without inline citations focusing on high quality secondary sources establishing notability, the article has only a claim to notability (which I hope you can correct), and (C) do not call people vandals unless you have a solid reason, you are not creating a foundation for co-operation in what is a collaborative project. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 23:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They are resolved on the talk page. You keep backing out the long list of articles, public speaking, etc that constitutes notability, and then claiming lack of notability. And you have vandalized the page by adding 'joke' comments on it. Since this is a 'mutual policed state' on Wikpedia, you are now the one being policed, leave the list of notable articles and press about the subject intact, leave the list of speaking engagements intact, and feel free to police on grammar and style etc. Notable people are notable not just because of googling something- they are notable because of acheivements, which are not measured by Wikipedia editing standards, but by real world existence. •777• —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tulāsana

I've listed the deletion discussion under a few categories to encourage some more people to join in. Let me know if there are any other places you would like this to be listed. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 08:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeth, that was thoughtful. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Swedish alphabet

Hello. You have a new message at futhark's talk page.

Adw notifications

what are these?Curb Chain (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

max beesley

Hi You reverted an edit I made to Max Beesley's page saying he had a step brother, gary. You say this is 'unverifiable'. I AM Gary and I can promise you, we are brothers. Im afraid much of the information is not verifiable but it has not been removed. On the other hand, I think I am verifiable (I look in the mirror and thats me alright!) Please revert the edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.92.141 (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gary, thanks for your message. My reversion of your unsourced edit in Max Beesley came as part of welcoming you as a new user and was justified by WP:BLP. More specifically it says

The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.^WP:BLPNAME

The fact that the Max Beesley article is currently only sourced with one reference does not in itself justify adding new unsourced info, but I notice that the German version has five references, and I will try to find time and see, if they can be added here. Maybe you could help with adding further references to your step brother's article?

If you still think you should appear in your step brother's article, why not log in with your account, Airshlok (talk · contribs), and use the template {{adminhelp}} on your talk page, and an admin will come and guide you. Apart from reading WP:BLP and WP:BLP/H first it might also be of some value to give Wikipedia:Conflict of interest a read, since you are trying to add info about yourself to Wikipedia. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 05:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding a ref

If you can find a reference in five minutes, find it first, then undo and add it. Calvin Grant (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

According to? MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 10:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

According to everything on Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced and unsourced information can be removed at any time. BTW, the "sources" you added don't establish the notability of the episode. Proving who directed it and one guest star doesn't make the episode notable on its own. Calvin Grant (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)