User talk:FoolMeOnce2Times
Welcome!
Hello, FoolMeOnce2Times, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- And thanks for your vote. Cheers! ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Roger (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
A cheeseburger for you!
|
You can haz cheezburger! Just because...
Thanks for being a page curator. Fylbecatulous talk 17:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC) |
- So you want me to go from 220 to 240? OK, you don't have to convince me! --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
RE-New Pages
Yeah i have created numerous new pages. Yea i accept that few links are not very reputable like imdb but these are just supporting. There are few other reputable links. Atleast 3-4 links are reputable. One article has youtube links, it's about the model and actress Vibhinta verma. These videos are the short ads where she had worked so i added them as supporting references. But you will find at least few strong references. I am adding more referencing. I am interlinking my articles. When the interlinking will be done, I will add more references. Thank you for your time and assisting me with Wiki policies. I really appreciate that i am thankful to you. Dr Adil 17:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)comment added by Candicell (talk •
Alliance
Yes, I thought I'd seen that before - thanks for the link. I've put both versions on my watchlist, and if it reappears I'll very seriously consider salting. A lot of the outfits posting stuff like this use throwaway accounts, so I'm not worrying about an SPI. Peridon (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I absolutely HATE salting, but sometimes it must be done. I actually tried to save the article but couldn't find anything of use. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
MMA AfDs
Thought I'd take you up on your offer to discuss this topic further. As a survivor of the MMA wars that have raged on WP for the past two years or so, I thought I'd fill you in a bit on why WP:NMMA is so often quoted in these AfD discussions. If WP:GNG is met, then notability is achieved and that's that. The problem is that the coverage for most MMA fighters consists solely of routine sports reporting and thus doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, a consensus of MMA editors agreed upon the standard you see at WP:NMMA. It's a somewhat tougher requirement that many sports use, where any top level appearance confers automatic notability, but somewhat less strict than the standards for boxing (WP:NBOX) and martial arts (WP:MANOTE). Papaursa (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I have seen what you have lived for 2 years which is why I rarely vote on MMA discussions (good luck to you if you decide to continue as it looks like a full-time job for those who want to do it). The issue that I have is that MMA discussions have become so contentious that many people seem to make their decision to keep or delete an article, and THEN go to the guidelines to pull up something that they feel will support their position. This is completely backwards. Prior to even saying the person meets ANYTHING under WP:NMMA, it must be determined if they meet WP:GNG. As you state above, many fighters fail WP:SIGCOV which is what I pointed out at the deletion discussion (there certainly are not enough WP:RS to go any further with a discussion at that point). Many people who vote to keep or delete go directly to one of the two criteria for MMA and fail to see if they even have significant coverage or if the sources are reliable. I agree that many of the sources are simply snippets about a fight they fought or fight records on a site that anyone can publish to. This does NOT raise to a level of significant or reliable sources. So basically, it disturbs me when I see people saying delete or keep based on the 2 criteria without even addressing the WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS (which I believe that you and I are on the same page about significant coverage and reliable sources). EVERYTHING dealing with notability starts with WP:GNG, everything! So, it would be better to state in a deletion recommendation that a person "fails WP:GNG as there is no WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS and subject also fails to meet WP:NMMA for (fill in reason here)." My comments were my way of saying "wake up" to everyone and take a look at WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS before you even go to the MMA guidelines, as without reliable and significant coverage, they are NOT notable. Just my opinion. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think NMMA gets used because there is coverage by reliable sources, it's just not significant (i.e., it's routine sports reporting). Therefore, since GNG isn't met, the question becomes whether they've done something notable in their field and that's where NMMA comes into play. Always happy to see a new contributor to the discussions, especially since things have calmed down the past few months. Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly my point. Many people "assume" the significant coverage or do not understand significant coverage or reliable sources. They go straight to the MMA guidelines. Or, others "want" or believe in their mind that the person has significant coverage and then use MMA to support their contention. Good luck with future AfD. I only !vote on them if they happen to be in the same batch I am voting on for the day. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think NMMA gets used because there is coverage by reliable sources, it's just not significant (i.e., it's routine sports reporting). Therefore, since GNG isn't met, the question becomes whether they've done something notable in their field and that's where NMMA comes into play. Always happy to see a new contributor to the discussions, especially since things have calmed down the past few months. Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I have seen what you have lived for 2 years which is why I rarely vote on MMA discussions (good luck to you if you decide to continue as it looks like a full-time job for those who want to do it). The issue that I have is that MMA discussions have become so contentious that many people seem to make their decision to keep or delete an article, and THEN go to the guidelines to pull up something that they feel will support their position. This is completely backwards. Prior to even saying the person meets ANYTHING under WP:NMMA, it must be determined if they meet WP:GNG. As you state above, many fighters fail WP:SIGCOV which is what I pointed out at the deletion discussion (there certainly are not enough WP:RS to go any further with a discussion at that point). Many people who vote to keep or delete go directly to one of the two criteria for MMA and fail to see if they even have significant coverage or if the sources are reliable. I agree that many of the sources are simply snippets about a fight they fought or fight records on a site that anyone can publish to. This does NOT raise to a level of significant or reliable sources. So basically, it disturbs me when I see people saying delete or keep based on the 2 criteria without even addressing the WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS (which I believe that you and I are on the same page about significant coverage and reliable sources). EVERYTHING dealing with notability starts with WP:GNG, everything! So, it would be better to state in a deletion recommendation that a person "fails WP:GNG as there is no WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS and subject also fails to meet WP:NMMA for (fill in reason here)." My comments were my way of saying "wake up" to everyone and take a look at WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS before you even go to the MMA guidelines, as without reliable and significant coverage, they are NOT notable. Just my opinion. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
fiyi
You placed a speedy dleetion tag on Bashir Ahmed.
I've requiested userification. Geo Swan (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I did. However, you will need to request userfication from the deleting admin as I do not have the ability to do so. Sorry. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Changes in the Abacus Consulting page
Hello. I do admit that I have a COI as I am an employee for the company. However, I must mention that we spent hours upon hours trying to refine the content of the page, make it as 'un-promotional' as possible, and trying adhering to the guidelines of Wikipedia. Please point out the sections which had problems, and what needs to be added/removed to bring them to the level on Wikipedia. Also, please do let know what were the issues with the 'History' section? How does that come under to banner of promotional to begin with, seeing that it was very objectvie. (116.58.48.100 (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC))
- Thank you for reaching out. Although you say it was "very objective," I would have to disagree. It was promotional as it read like an advertisement for the company. You can read more about the policy here. In addition, there was little of anything that could be verified through a reliable source (WP:RS). You cannot just write anything in a Wikipedia article, even if objective, unless you can verify it with a source. That doesn't mean that everything must have a source in the article, but information you put in must be verifiable. I checked and found a few reliable sources, but the majority of what you used did not conform to the guidelines for WP:RS. For starters, I would recommend familiarizing yourself with what Wikipedia is NOT (WP:NOT). Also, I would suggest that even though there is nothing wrong with have a WP:COI as long as you edit from a WP:NPOV, it would be better for you to use the talk page of the article to request the addition of any information that you would like to see. If you do not get any help on the talk page with editors willing to introduce content you request, you can also go to the WP:COINB and I believe you can request the addition of information to the article there (only after you are unsuccessful with the talk page of the article). Please let me know if I can assist any further. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay I do agree with most of what you are saying but the problem is that you removed the entire page! There was a lot of verifiable content in there as well including sources such as cnn, bbc, SAP, economist, local newspapers etc. Why did you remove the entire thing? Okay so how do we solve this? I suggest that the plausible way to take this forward will be that I start uploading information on my user talk page section by section, and you can let me know if it is acceptable or not. Is this arrangement workable for the two of us? I can request information as well but I seriously doubt there will be anyone out there willing to contribute to thus particular article.Second, There are hardly any online sources narrating the initial 10-15 years of Abacus. You can find plenty on the net about C&L and PWC, but I have been searching about Abacus and I have not been able to come across distinct sources other than our company website. How can this be helped? (58.27.159.152 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC))
- Okay since you've completely stopped responding, what I will do is, after two working days I shall revert to the old page and content. Hope that does not bother you. Abacus Consulting (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Haven't stopped responding, but I don't live on Wikipedia. If you have not received a response, sorry. Also, just because I may be absent does not mean that your article suddenly meets Wikipedia guidelines.
- Okay since you've completely stopped responding, what I will do is, after two working days I shall revert to the old page and content. Hope that does not bother you. Abacus Consulting (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay I do agree with most of what you are saying but the problem is that you removed the entire page! There was a lot of verifiable content in there as well including sources such as cnn, bbc, SAP, economist, local newspapers etc. Why did you remove the entire thing? Okay so how do we solve this? I suggest that the plausible way to take this forward will be that I start uploading information on my user talk page section by section, and you can let me know if it is acceptable or not. Is this arrangement workable for the two of us? I can request information as well but I seriously doubt there will be anyone out there willing to contribute to thus particular article.Second, There are hardly any online sources narrating the initial 10-15 years of Abacus. You can find plenty on the net about C&L and PWC, but I have been searching about Abacus and I have not been able to come across distinct sources other than our company website. How can this be helped? (58.27.159.152 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC))
- Thank you for reaching out. Although you say it was "very objective," I would have to disagree. It was promotional as it read like an advertisement for the company. You can read more about the policy here. In addition, there was little of anything that could be verified through a reliable source (WP:RS). You cannot just write anything in a Wikipedia article, even if objective, unless you can verify it with a source. That doesn't mean that everything must have a source in the article, but information you put in must be verifiable. I checked and found a few reliable sources, but the majority of what you used did not conform to the guidelines for WP:RS. For starters, I would recommend familiarizing yourself with what Wikipedia is NOT (WP:NOT). Also, I would suggest that even though there is nothing wrong with have a WP:COI as long as you edit from a WP:NPOV, it would be better for you to use the talk page of the article to request the addition of any information that you would like to see. If you do not get any help on the talk page with editors willing to introduce content you request, you can also go to the WP:COINB and I believe you can request the addition of information to the article there (only after you are unsuccessful with the talk page of the article). Please let me know if I can assist any further. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aarti Gupta (2nd nomination)
In case you are using Internet Explorer, direct search link may not work for that browser, either try from another browser (tested in Firefox, Chrome) or search with "Aarti Surendranath" -Tito Dutta (contact) 15:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I did that already. Nothing I find amounts to anything that I would consider WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Even if I could, this still is not evidence that the article is about teh same person. Not quite sure how we can say that the article is about Surendranath as opposed to Gupta who is the title of the article. I am confused at this point, but either way there isn't anything that I can see that would lead either to passing notability guidelines. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are multiple articles in that page which mention both person are same, please have a look --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like it is her. Thanks for the link. Unfortunately for here, even the article states that she is not notable.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Check other articles from Google search now. It seems she has done other works too other tnan acting! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like it is her. Thanks for the link. Unfortunately for here, even the article states that she is not notable.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are multiple articles in that page which mention both person are same, please have a look --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I did that already. Nothing I find amounts to anything that I would consider WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Even if I could, this still is not evidence that the article is about teh same person. Not quite sure how we can say that the article is about Surendranath as opposed to Gupta who is the title of the article. I am confused at this point, but either way there isn't anything that I can see that would lead either to passing notability guidelines. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
India Becoming
Hello FoolMeOnce2Times, This is just a courtesy visit to inform you that I did a little expansion to your article with supporting referencess. Hope you'd like my effort. I'd truly appreciate receiving your say on this. Best regards. (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC))
- Thanks for taking the time to improve the article. First, please make sure that you realize that this article is not "mine." No one can actually claim an article as their own (see WP:OWN). I basically created the article as the article about the author was being expanded way beyond a biography and read more like an article about the book. With that aside, I am glad that you took the time to add additional information to the article along with references as that is what Wikipedia is about (continuously improving the content within the site). You made a great effort to improve the article and the only comment I would have is to make sure you stay away from using terms that are considered puffery (see WP:PEACOCK). --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)