User talk:Dammitkevin

Welcome!

Hello, Dammitkevin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Sanchi. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing 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

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Kaliachak Riots

Check the citations, they are merely junk links with no real citation existing. Rajat.kalia (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The citations include The Indian Express, The Telegraph, and India Today. They aren't junk links. Dammitkevin (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Maggie's Dream

Sad to see that someone, Dammitkevin, went to spoil Maggie's Dream page. You could as well take it off for good, there's nothing interesting left. And if you only had photo of them, you could add it but, you don't have, no can do. I have photos but won't share them with an arrogant editor. It's insulting to contest someone's knowledge about the band and add abridged information as if it were global information. I remember well enough those days when Maggie's Dream were touring in Europe, I was there. I also have known bassist Lonnie Hillyer since 1992. Well, if this is US style of editing or better killing pages, let it be. I don't want to be part of this. You really need orientate youself, not just cut information out and add few newspaper links as if it's all there was. Terence Trent D'arby and Living Colour were not mentioned with Maggie's Dream, not globally, only Lenny Kravitz was but, he was a friend with these New Yorkers and actually did singing job in their 2 first demos before they found Robi Rosa, as his name was in early 90's, and signing with Capitol. If one people gives opinion that MD sounds like Living Colour or Terence Trent D'arby, it doesn't mean that it was true. And you blamed me for adding opinions. I added facts but you cut them all off. Not only my editing but also original article. Who has that kind of power in here? This used to be a nice place once. You can have it, I'm done. Aniakallio (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You've never edited the Maggie's Dream page and all I did was add references and remove information literally labeled "rumor". If you don't agree with verifiability than Wikipedia might not be for you. Dammitkevin (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Lolicon

Stop vandalism, the website I post is an source. Why is the link below is a spam? SKULLOSSUS (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You are adding the same geocities link to articles which is spamming and you are using it to source original research. Dammitkevin (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Geocites is not an object to spam. It's allowed at Russian Wikipedia. Lolicon is prohibited in Russia and the warning at the site is a perfect evidence. SKULLOSSUS (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Geocities is not inherently spam but you are adding the same geocities website to articles and that is all you are doing. That is spam. It is not a reliable source so if you want to add that information you need a better source. Dammitkevin (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll inform admins about this incident NOW!! SKULLOSSUS (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. Let them know you are spamming unreliable sources into articles. Dammitkevin (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. They just check it. SKULLOSSUS (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If you are going to delete link at Russian article, you'll be instantly blocked. SKULLOSSUS (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for polypyrrole help

Not sure where you came from, but thanks for stopping a self-promoting editor from distorting the polypyrrole article. Only a few regular editors take time to do battle with self-absorbed editors determined to foist their narrow publications on Wikipedia. Efforts like yours strengthen this medium. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments. Kindness like yours strengthens this medium too. Dammitkevin (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Manjushri

Technically you have broken WP:3RR at Manjushri. Take care! I'll take a closer look. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The other editor keeps deleting sources without reason or discussion. Dammitkevin (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. Nevertheless, let it rest for today. The article is also on other editor's watchlists. And/or start a discussion at the talkpage! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks. Dammitkevin (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Crazymonster

Hi, Dammitkevin. I saw you revert all my added links from Popnable. I do not understand why you assume it's a spam. Popnable is reliable source. Singers (very popular) from all around the world cite the popnable charts in their official profiles. Here is examples that I know: https://facebook.com/papaijociofficial/posts/1491244094284122 (Pápai Joci, Hungary, ESC 2017) https://www.facebook.com/mhamdsalem/posts/1327506270652639 (Mohamed Alsalim, Iraq) https://www.facebook.com/MzunguKichaa/posts/10154154526821189 (Denmark) https://twitter.com/bradi03/status/817019672411389952 (Finland) https://www.facebook.com/AmineAminuxofficiel/photos/a.1490642284595574.1073741829.1487392494920553/1629086207417847 (Morocco)

Also, I have seen citing from Bulgaria, Serbia, Latvia, Russia, UK and many others.

Perhaps, I did not mention the source as well as, so could you please help me to understand how to cite correctly. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazymonster (talk • contribs) 12:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much every edit you have made has been to add that website into articles. It is not a reliable source and your actions are spamming. Dammitkevin (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Wax Play & Temperature Play

Dammitkevin, you have undone an edit to the page that consisted of changing 3 bullet points (vague wax melting points) to a 20 point chart with specific wax melting points. Each header was also linked to the relevant wiki page. A source was cited. As this is specific scientific information, I am unclear on how this constitutes a violation for promotion? - Addled User (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

On the Temperature Play page, the old information was vague, overly personal and unsafe information. Many of the edits were done to make a meandering and vague page more scientific and specific to use. -Addled User (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Your source was a self-published book from Lulu (company) and you were adding it to multiple articles. It isn't a reliable source and your edit even stated "This article derives heavily from the book "Playing With Fire" by Henry (Lulu press, 2013)" You cannot take text from a book and add it to an article. Dammitkevin (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Lost Squadron

You have left a warning on my talk page regarding nominating Flight 19 for speedy deletion. I am not even sure I have ever edited this page, nor does it appear to have been speedied (based on a cursory glance), at least not any time recently. You may want to adjust some settings if you are using a script, or maybe just watch what you are doing a little closer. Thanks! OrbitHawk (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

What happened was you created a redirect (Lost Squadron) to Flight 19 and then X62225 then made it into a hoax article. It was the latter hoax article I was tagging for deletion but since you created the initial redirect the script sent the notice to you. I'm sorry about the confusion. Dammitkevin (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Are you aware of Sodium Ion batteries? How is adding entry about anode free architectures promotional. It has a valid reference in a high impact peer reviewed journal. Are you familiar with the literature at all? Nitin-Nitin (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You are solely adding papers authored by the same person to articles and that is reference spam. You can remove the warnings from your talk page but continuing to make the same edits will only lead to more warnings. Dammitkevin (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I will add multiple sources then!

Your edits are geared to promote a team of researchers from Vanderbilt University School of Engineering so adding more of the same is just more reference spam. Dammitkevin (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

More references from multiple sources from multiple universities then! Information is important. You assess it by its credibility. Without consideration of anode free architectures, the page on sodium ion batteries is incomplete!

@Nitin-Nitin: Your credibility directly correlates to whether or not your benefit from your edits. In this case, you do benefit since you are a member of the team you keep attempting to promote. Dammitkevin (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Why you are deleting my grandfather wikipedia details

Why Zeeshan Shafee (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a Facebook page. His interests and random photographs aren't encyclopedic nor are any of your edits sourced. Dammitkevin (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Right Shears

Hi Dammitkevin,

Sometimes new products and services are a part of history, as are Right Shears a part of the history of scissors. What kind of references do we need: patents or other publications?

Thanks, -Shane

@Shanerv: I replied on your talk page. Dammitkevin (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

David Dinkins

Hello dammitkevin, I see you are new to Wikipedia. Welcome! I wanted to bring to your attention a few things about your reverting my edit to David Dinkins. First, you edited it one minute after I posted it that means you didn't check the facts in the source I mentioned in my edit summary. Second, you did not give an edit summary yourself as to your reasoning, as you should do. Like I said in my summary the source does not mention Dinkins or safe streets safe cities one time. Wikipedia is based on verifiabilty.Aceruss (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't make assumptions about my actions. I did check the facts. The reference itself has a quote and I looked over the PDF itself. I read your edit summary and I didn't find it to be factual and your edits show POV edits towards David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani all of which were reverted with the note that you are editing against consensus. Dammitkevin (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

assumptions? How could you possibly see my edit, read it, and read the whole source and revert me all in ONE MINUTE? That's not an assumption, that's a question, answer it. Also what page of that source is David Dinkins mentioned or his safe streets safe cities program mentioned?Aceruss (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I already told you I read the reference quote cited and scanned the PDF to find that your interpretation is not what the PDF says. The dates are given which overlap with Dinkin's tenure as the quote shows. Your edits are incredibly non-neutral which is why you have been reverted by many other editors. Dammitkevin (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You did all that in less than one minute? AMAZINGAceruss (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm amazing. If you don't have anything other than passive aggressiveness to share, please stay off this talk page. Dammitkevin (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Disgruntled former "wannabe" employee posting misinformation a Wikipedia Page.

Is there a formal way to delete untruthful misinformation on a wikipedia page?MichaelSamuel (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't alter text to say things the sources don't say. You use the article talk page. Dammitkevin (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

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

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

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Dammitkevin (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

'Salem's Lot

You said that I copied the information from http://www.thefullwiki.org/%27Salem%27s_Lot but you are wrong. I copied it from the history of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=%27Salem%27s_Lot&oldid=539640194 I finally got a copy from this edition and verified that all the information deleted was not false and added it back. It seems important enough to readers. Plain and simple. HÊÚL. (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It is unsoured original research and it is trivia. If it was in the article earlier it was removed for those reasons. Dammitkevin (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Kings Island

Hello. My sources are quite reliable. Regarding Kings Island deaths, I have over 200 pages of newspaper articles alone, along with investigation reports, etc. Please change it back. Thanks, E.P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.117.217 (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC) EDIT: I have changed it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.117.217 (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You are removing reliable sources and changing text to say the opposite of what the sourced versions say. Your information is not verifiable. Dammitkevin (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Check my sources. Police reports and area newspapers are quite reliable. ---E.P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.117.217 (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The existing sources were reliable and verifiable to anyone. You are replacing them with police reports that aren't available online and therefore aren't verifiable. Dammitkevin (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete Branham information?

Kevin, Much of the information on Branham is written by Weaver, a Baptist, who is very critical about Branham. Why can't documented positive information be put here? There are 2 newspapers plus a couple of historians who tell what happened in Durban and it deserves to be told. This is a very important happening in Branham's ministry. To make it fit better, some of Weaver's comments should be deleted. How do you suggest it be told? [user: danpeanutsDanpeanuts (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)] 09:10 8/17/2017

I noticed that you also deleted the added information that I put in about the halo. In David Harrell's book he said the picture "upon development showed a supernatural halo of light over his head". Read it for yourself. The halo picture is on the top of the page too. Also, instead of saying the picture was going to be checked, it needs to say it was checked by an expert: George J. Lacy, Houston, Texas, to be exact. Please put my changes back in or give a good suggestion how they may be made better. [user: danpeanuts16:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)] 09:50 8/17/2017

The primary problem is that followers of William Branham wish the article to be hagiographic in nature; in essence, an apologetic for William Branham. They refuse to accept the secondary source material of Weaver, who is the author of the only secondary source book on Branham. Weaver's treatment of Branham is quite fair but when you refuse to accept any criticism, then his views are unacceptable. Harrel's discussion of Branham is much shorter, but Harrel wrote the introduction for Weaver's book. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You know good and well that Weaver is a deceiver: Why did he write that the halo picture was obviously a badly scratched negative when you have a signed statement by an expert of questioned documents that the light struck the negative. Also, he puts a negative slant on many of the statements that Branham made rather than give him the option that he may be telling the truth.

Wikipedia is supposed to be open to the public to make corrections and add information that gives the whole picture. It should never be used by someone who wants to defame anyone. Please let the truth be known. I want to start by putting back in the information about the halo picture being checked by an expert and found to be authentic (not that it was going to be checked). I can list George J. Lacy as the expert if you wish. Let's be honest. Also, Donald Gee is the only historian that comes the closest to the eye witnesses. Two newspapers in the same city usually don't conspire to tell a lie to the public. User:danpeanuts 06:16 19 August 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 13:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Weaver is a university professor and his book was published by a Mercer University, a respected educational institution. Furthermore, the preface to his book was written by David Harrell, the author of the only other significant secondary source on William Branham. Both Harrell's and Weaver's works, because they are books published by university presses, must be given due weight. Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. I understand that you disagree with some of Weaver's and Harrell's statements, but they are the only significant secondary sources on Branham.

I have repeatedly provided you with links to the Wikipedia policies on the issue of reliable sources and no original research, but you do not appear to have read or understood them. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I provided a reason. Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view and sentences like "Perhaps the largest number of mass healing miracles in the world" and "The photograph showed a supernatural halo of light appearing above Branham's head" push a particular view (that supernatural events are real and actually happened) and are not neutral at all. You also provided no sources for claims that the photo was investigated and found to be genuine. Dammitkevin (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It is ok to list 2 people who didn't believe God heals people. There are also people who believe that no one set foot on the moon. The healings were true. The newspaper articles weren't made up. In fact, there are other newspaper articles that are readily available of the healing that God did in this ministry that I could add. I will try to tone it down a little, but both views should be allowed, the same as in Harrell's book. In fact, Harrell's book tells more about the healing than the doubters. Please leave the additional documented information alone if you would be kind enough; or tell me how to make it less offensive to you. User:danpeanuts 9:08m 22 August 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

That is not how WP:NPOV works. As the guidelines state

• Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

The newspaper articles report what people claim they didn't say it objectively happened as you are writing. You are using non-neutral sources to push a specific view that isn't verifiable. And if 170.248.145.117 is you as well, logging in and out to edit war is something that can get you blocked. Dammitkevin (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Kevin, You are the one who is warring. The Branham page on Wikipedia gave an honest report the first time I saw it a few years ago--now it is very much changed and filled with Weaver's opinions. You continue deleting everything that is different than your own opinion--even though it is well-documented. You are trying to paint an untrue picture. That halo picture was examined by an expert and the examination paper is on the internet for anyone to see if you would let them (I listed the URL.) Why does it need to say the picture was going to be examined when we both know it was examined and found to be genuine. The "supernatural halo of light over his head" is a direct quote from the historian in his book Also, the many healing miracles were listed in Historian Donald Gee's book as well as Harrell's. Here's a short piece from Gee's book (Quote from an eye-witness): "God healed thousands all at the same time. Those with club feet, others paralyzed, some that had never walked from birth, that were closest to the platform climbed the steps to show the audience what God had done for them. A sea of people in all directions stood to give their hearts to Christ, thousands of Indians and natives among them. Many times the 3,000 converted on the Day of Pentecost." The local newspapers gave similar stories and I have dates and page numbers. You should know it isn't honest to only allow what you think to be on Wikipedia and not allow any other opinion--even though historians have written it. There was a reason why Branham filled the largest auditoriums in the world. I assume you are an athiest or something like that. You are welcome to your belief, but don't stand in the way of those who aren't and please stop warring against the Historians and newspapers that don't agree with you. Wikipedia isn't to be controlled by any one belief system. User:danpeanuts 16:00, 22 August 2017 Template:Admin Help

You may consider it "honest" to claim that supernatural events happened but it isn't neutral because the vast majority of people disagree that supernatural events happened. You have to use reliable sources that are verifiable so "well-documented" doesn't matter if the documents aren't valid. Dammitkevin (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Kevin, this article needs to show that the scientific evaluation of the photo was made and it was genuine plus the Delphi Forum URL so that others can see it too. I wish to add it and delete the saying that it was going to be scientifically checked. If you delete it again I am ready to report you for warring. I really don't know why it is so important to you to hide the facts in this matter.danpeanuts (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2017

As another editor told you forum posts aren't reliable sources.

Through-silicon via

Hi there, while I understand your concerns, also regarding the other page I revised (interposer), I'd like to know why you simply delete all the content? Please keep the technical details; they are truthful and can be verified against the sources I had put. Moreover, I assumed that an open-access article (which I had compiled together with other expert researchers) would be particularly appreciated? I don't mean to promote any/our opinion; note that there are more than 150 further references in the open-access paper I gave.

May I further ask how you/Wikipedia in general determines what's promotional and what not? Are people checking all the individual sources and drop them once the username and the author match? I'm not sure whether that would make sense, as somebody else could post on other people's behalf as well. I'd appreciate clarification here, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jknechtel (talk • contribs) 16:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jknechtel: There are conflict of interest guidelines which state "COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead." Everyone who is asked to stop adding self-promotional links claims that their edits are different because they are informative which is why the WP:COI guidelines exist: editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing. Dammitkevin (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dammitkevin: OK, thanks for these links. I'm new to WP editing, so I appreciate that feedback. I've also checked WP:SELFCITE which seems relevant, and I think I understand this. Now, coming back to the specific edits of mine -- I'm just sad that the truthful technical content has been removed at once by you. I understand that citing my tutorial paper as reference may be too biased, but I'd like to ask you to reconsider regarding the actual content, i.e., the classification for via-first, via-middle, and via-last TSVs. Again, this is truthful and I can also truthfully declare it's unrelated to any of my own work, as this is related to microelectronics whereas my research focus is Electronic design automation. These are mere technical facts which I had noticed are missing so far. I can happily provide further references for that. I did already so in the last edit, where I added an PDF to the relevant section of the ITRS roadmap. However, that file/version of the ITRS is outdated, and I'm not sure how long it will remain online available. My sole intention of putting an archival reference to my own paper was to facilitate readers with an Open access, tutorial-like paper which is, however, peer-reviewed and provided by a third party (Information Processing Society of Japan). Again, my own work does not touch upon these technical facts, but I'm aware of them and found them to be missing so far. How shall we proceed from here? I understand that taking this very discussion to Talk:Through-silicon_via might be a good idea? Jknechtel (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jknechtel: Discussion on the talk page would be the best course at this point. Dammitkevin (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Carry Fire

Hey there, I noticed the redirection of yours on the Carry Fire page and just wanted to let you know that WP:CRYSTAL isn't applicable when a topic meets WP:GNG. Also, reviewers' code is that we should give new page creators time to fix the issues on the page before tagging with anything. Undoing their good-faith edits after just few minutes may be considered biting. — Zawl 16:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

When I redirected it the editor had already added the same information without reference to the Robert Plant article and been reverted. The Carry Fire article, at the time, had no valid reference because the facebook reference didn't work. There was no way to know if the met WP:GNG because the album may not have actually existed without verifiable evidence to say so. I understand the WP:BITE aspect though and you are correct. Dammitkevin (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

madhan

madhan (writer) created by me ,I don't like to join madhan page and my article not yet finish so dont join madhan to my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditorchoice (talk • contribs) 15:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wikieditorchoice: You don't own the article and anyone can edit it. Your username is also misleading and you should request a change. Dammitkevin (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

i am not own but actual the article not finish yet because the orginal name of madhan (writer) is maadapoosi krishnaswamy s/o govinda iyengar here in tamilnadu,india everybody called madan not madhan but i have the ref only madhan so i created as madhan (writer) after i thought to change but the madhan he is a actor notable person in our place so the wrong thing not to enter in wiki my thought.if you can change my article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditorchoice (talk • contribs) 16:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wikieditorchoice: The article is already listed at Madan so people can find it using either spelling. Dammitkevin (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

madhan

ok thank you , i change my article as madan

How Madhan and writer madan in same page sound of both name is different — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennaiboys (talk • contribs) 17:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Chennaiboys: Similar spellings and pronunciations are often used on disambiguation pages. Dammitkevin (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Kasay

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Kasay. As you've restored the redirect and reverted again you may want to participate in this AFD. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 17:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

madhan (writer)

pls help me to change the page madhan (writer) to madan (writer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.192.84 (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

i think you donig right thing wikieditor and thats good choise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennaiboys (talk • contribs) 03:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Wiki What?

Thanks for your message. The video you referenced in my edits of T.J. Miller is not promotional but a series whose sole goal is to fact check individual's Wikipedia pages. Thank you

@Mrazzle: The edits promote a non notable facebook page. Please read WP:RS. Dammitkevin (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The video is unequivocally notable per the Content Rules—T.J. Miller is fact checking his own Wikipedia page; a new page on 'Wiki What?' was not created. The video is merely cited as a verified and objective reference source.