Jump to content

User talk:122.108.141.214

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

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (122.108.141.214) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing!  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 03:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help!

[edit]

On Elizabeth M. Ramsey much appreciated! Chris vLS (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 4 December

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Few small adjustments

[edit]

Looking good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Manual Ability Classification System has been accepted

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

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

[edit]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Shan Ju Lin, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

hi

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine Wikiproject!

[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:

  • Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically requires recent secondary sources to support information; its application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
  • The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 21 January

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your work on CF. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Are you saying that I need to research critics criticizing Naruto? MCMLXXXIX 03:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because Naruto was a phenomenon, find out what academics have to say about Naruto (the character) and add it to his article. In addition to the book I mentioned, you might like to try Google Scholar and WP:LIBRARY. Hope this helps. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How much of that information do you want in the article? MCMLXXXIX 03:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you document your searches somewhere, it will be easier to understand how you have tried to find and use academic information. Broadly, it should be the same thing that's been done for ANN, IGN, the UK Anime Network and Mania (sifting through them for relevant information on Naruto himself), but for academic journals and books. Focus on fitting the FA criteria - I'm sure you can seek further guidance at FAC or the Wikipedia library if needed. Some of the information you find might also be useful for the main Naruto article. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was how long do you want the information, like a couple of sentences, a paragraph? MCMLXXXIX 04:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mainly want to see evidence that "a thorough and representative survey" of the academic literature has taken place, and that what's in the article reflects that. The length of the final product depends on how much is about Naruto himself vs. his parent series. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, your oppose doesn't make any sense. If you want something added, why can't you be bold and add it yourself? Everyone has a contribution to Wikipedia, and you're making it seem like I have to do this all by myself because of an FA nomination. MCMLXXXIX 11:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some sources to the article myself. I have also been trying to help you understand why I oppose the article being FA as it is now, without "a thorough and representative survey" of the academic literature. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean sources that are unrelated to the problem you have with the article? MCMLXXXIX 11:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. In addition to my concerns about comprehensiveness and scholarly literature use, I noticed that a citation that has been used in the article for some time could be better filled out to meet the citation guidelines. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You say you had added info to the article, but not the type of info that can solve the problem you have with the article, that's what I'm trying to say. I already responded to your citation comment. Now you're also saying that you have a problem with comprehensiveness. Any more issues? MCMLXXXIX 11:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've outlined the main ones (and some more minor issues about WP:CITE) at the FAC. If no-one has thoroughly looked through the academic literature and added relevant information, the article cannot meet the FA criterion 1c (which covers comprehensiveness). --122.108.141.214 (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What you added to the article is what I meant by being bold. You could of done that than to blatantly oppose the FA nomination. I'm guessing you won't remove your oppose despite the fact that you have just solved your own problem, I'm not even asking you to support it. MCMLXXXIX 13:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you about what sources you had consulted before I switched to an oppose. I haven't 'solved my own problem'. I have been trying to help you from the start, and have given you ample guidance on how to look for scholarly sources to add. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So your vote isn't about the article, it's about what I have contributed? That doesn't make any sense. MCMLXXXIX 13:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said before, the article shows no evidence that anyone has thoroughly looked through the existing academic literature (e.g. the half-book, scholarly journals, School Library Journal) and added relevant information. Without "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", it doesn't meet the FA criteria, hence my oppose vote. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You said earlier that you were adding academic sources, therefore, you solved your own problem. I still don't understand how your unsatisfied. How much more acedemic sources do you want? The FA criterion does not specify a limit. MCMLXXXIX 13:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have not 'fixed my own problem', because the article shows no evidence that anyone has thoroughly looked through the existing academic literature. When the article shows evidence that anyone has thoroughly looked through the existing academic literature, the problem will be solved. Why are you focusing on me instead of trying to fix the problem? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted clarification from your complaint, that's why. MCMLXXXIX 14:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at User talk:BU Rob13#Help

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:BU Rob13#Help. MCMLXXXIX 16:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession

[edit]

I see that you've been a while, and as such templating you would be inappropriate. But, may I ask what's up with this[1] edit? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 02:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The list is for people with red links (no article) - Alice Bowman has an article (is blue, not red), so I removed her. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Apologies about reverting you, then. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 03:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

[edit]

Hello, I'm Yoshi24517. I noticed that in this edit to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Yoshi24517Chat Online 02:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoshi24517:, I was removing filled requests (with blue links that lead to articles on the person) from the page, to make it smaller. The top of the page has something saying it's too long to read, so I was helping. Thanks for your understanding.--122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my apologies, I did not mean to revert that page. Sorry about that. Just put in the edit summary that you removed some requests. (I need to watch for the Wikipedia header more...) Yoshi24517Chat Online 05:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider registering an account

[edit]

Creating an account is quick and free, doesn't require any personal information, and offers many advantages, such as:

  • The ability to edit semi-protected pages
  • The ability to select a username of your choice and, optionally, to use the same username when working on other Wikimedia projects
  • The ability to view a list of your contributions and the use of your own personal watchlist to let you to keep track of articles that interest you
  • Your own customizable user page and talk page
  • The optional ability to receive e-mail messages from other users without revealing your e-mail address
  • The ability to rename pages, upload images and other files, and use advanced editing tools
  • The ability to customize the way Wikipedia pages appear on your monitor
  • The eligibility to become an administrator (a user with special tools to help make Wikipedia run more smoothly)
  • The ability to develop an identity and trusted reputation without risking being confused with someone who shares your IP address

For more information about the benefits of creating an account, click here. Or click here to create an account now.

Whether you create an account or prefer to continue editing from your IP address, we're glad you're here. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! RivertorchFIREWATER 14:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Uzumaki

[edit]

I received the chapter that you referenced in your comment on FAC. I was able to add some information from the source. I don't think there's anything left, so the research of the topic is completed. If you think otherwise, please reply. MCMLXXXIX 22:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the whole thing. Nothing much about the character, as it mostly talks about the series in general. MCMLXXXIX 22:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. MCMLXXXIX 23:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. MCMLXXXIX 23:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since I addressed your complaint at FAC, could you withdraw your vote? MCMLXXXIX 23:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scholar information

[edit]

Greetings. By any chance do your books mention the series D.Gray-man and its cast? I ask because I think it could be added to its articles. I doubt it though considering how little popular is the series worldwide. Anyway, good work in the Naruto articles. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found only one scholar information about the character Himura Kenshin. By any chance do you have more information about him? Anyway, keep going with the work in Naruto's articles.Tintor2 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anime isn't very popular in my country (Argentina) so there are not books that discuss the series. Anyway, thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Naruto#Pre-FAC feedback

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Naruto#Pre-FAC feedback. MCMLXXXIX 10:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gâteau nantais has been accepted

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

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Naruto/archive2

[edit]

I added the sources you requested. If there isn't anything else, may I ask for your support? -- 1989 14:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:FAC page doesn't say anything about IP not allowed to vote support. Yes, the article didn't really have much information. -- 1989 22:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinged him. If your comments are resolved, could you edit your section on the FAC page and put {{subst:rc}} at the top? It's collapses the discussion and states your problems were resolved. -- 1989 20:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tetsuya Nishio has been accepted

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

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

97198 (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Book chapters

[edit]

I actually owe it to google books :D. Thanks for formating the reference. Tintor2 (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Shark Arm case has been reverted.
Your edit here to Shark Arm case was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://vimeo.com/24453141) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Sasuke Uchiha

[edit]

I finally found an interview with Sasuke's Japanese voice actor from the magazine Da Vinci. You can see the transcript here. Here are the scans. By any chance, do you Japanese? I don't know if I put the correct month or other stuff to the reference. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another good Naruto interview

[edit]

Also User:1989 I've just found this interview in the wikia where Kishimoto reveals more information about how he came up with the series. He also mentions Naruto's relationship with Jiraiya, Iruka and Sasuke and more creation about Gaara. The book is named Naruto Meigen Shū – Kizuna but I can't find the book as it would be necessary to include the pages for the FAs according to something a fellow user once told me. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, a user from Youtube who had the book gave me the page numbers. Already added some info to Sasuke, Gaara and Jiraiya's articles.Tintor2 (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nantes copyedit

[edit]


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Redemption

[edit]

Answer to your question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Redemption. I got them from Factiva. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sutherland Shire Libraries (July 2)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DrStrauss was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please see WP:42. Affiliated sources need cutting
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
DrStrauss talk 08:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! 122.108.141.214, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DrStrauss talk 08:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sutherland Shire Libraries has been accepted

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

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

petscan:1212572 - French-language anime/manga translation requests

Tai Kamiya

[edit]

I've been working in the article Tai Kamiya so that it manages to pass notability. However, I've been wondering could become mid by adding big writers considering Tai is the first protagonist in the franchise. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried asking there but they told me I have to provide important information to backup the fact that Tai 's article deserves to be more important to the project.Tintor2 (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks nevertheless.Tintor2 (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How are you doing? By any chance, do you have a book that talks about Sasuke's Kusanagi sword considering even a replica was made? Kusanagi is present in Japanese mythology like Susanoo but I can't find any information about it in google books. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I go to that page? Still, I think the request must provide the source.Tintor2 (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well call User:1989 since he is good at this.Tintor2 (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Found one small but still effective reference.Tintor2 (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm kind of stucked with Orochimaru's article. It's obvious he is based on Japanese mythology but I can't find a single book about it. Any ideas? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tintor2:, I'm sorry to hear that you're stuck with Orochimaru's article. Luckily, it is so obviously based on the mythical Orochimaru that there's the need for a prominent disambiguation link/see also link in both articles, and so you can tie those two articles together in that way, lacking any explicit acknowledgement in an obscure interview. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find something about his Kusanagi sword and the Yamata no Orochi but nothing about the original Orochimaru from the Japanese tales. What was the page where I could find information from other users? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the hint. I found one article from Japan Today but not exactly a review.Tintor2 (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.  
Your edit here to Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/AustralianMarriageLawPostalSurvey/photos/a.113574786011165.1073741828.111768819525095/113628622672448/?type=3&theater, https://www.facebook.com/AustralianMarriageLawPostalSurvey/videos/10155822073124684/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

That's the official Facebook page with the official ad campaign, having trouble fixing this... --122.108.141.214 (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Australian constitutional crisis

[edit]

Hi, this is the second occasion on which I have undone your good faith edits at 2017 Australian constitutional crisis. The article concerns members of parliament who have actual or possible dual citizenship, which does not apply to Stuart Robert. Questions as to whether he is disqualified may belong on the page Stuart Robert, as occurred with Bob Day. If court proceedings are actually commenced or otherwise raised in parliament, then Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia is likely to be appropriate. Find bruce (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article concerns section 44, and Roberts case has been noted to be like that of Bob Day, with financial benefits. I don't understand why you are taking such a narrow view of who should go in the article, as section 44 covers both citizenship and financial interests. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim1138: - I expanded the article with material from the SBS article, as I noted in the edit summary. It is not unverifiable, it is not unsourced, it is reliable. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Optakeover. I noticed that you recently removed content from Cerebral Palsy without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 04:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Interested in making Sasuke Uchiha FA?

[edit]

As the Boruto: Naruto the Movie article is currently a GAN, I've been thinking if Sasuke Uchiha could be become a FA in the future similar to Naruto Uzumaki. That article has a lot of information about the character's creation, role in every media as well as a lot of reception with some scholar mentions. Of course, I believe it would first need a peer review to prepare well. This message is also directed at User:1989 and newcomer User:Flowerpiep (who is partly responsible for making Sarada Uchiha a GA and improving most of Mitsuki (Naruto) as well as revising the prose of Boruto: Naruto the Movie). Of course there is no need to rush considering Boruto's movie article still hasn't been reviewed. Regards and merry Christmas.Tintor2 (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried doing all the things you wanted and left a request in the guild. By the way, why didn't you create your own account? I think it would be the best considering all the contributions you have provided to Wikipedia.Tintor2 (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we could leave the entire discussion here. Just use mentions like this "Tintor2" or pings like @Tintor2:.Tintor2 (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2:, thanks, but I spend too much time here as it is. :) --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After a copyeditor revised the article, I requested a peer review for Sasuke Uchiha. Still, it's a busy date to edit for many people so I hope you enjoy a Merry Christmas.Tintor2 (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on my user talk page

[edit]

Hi there! Just letting you know that I responded to your message on my user talk page. You can read it by clicking here. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cashless Welfare Card has been accepted

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

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! 220 of Borg 04:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Cheers, but I don't really see the point in edit summarying when I make edits I consider minor/non-controversial. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

[edit]

Please be aware if that you continue attempting to suppress sourcing per WP:PSCI you are liable to be topic banned at AE. Do as you will.

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Goop (company) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest policy

[edit]

Information icon Hello, 122.108.141.214. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This does not apply to me. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nice to have that out of the way.
You've continued to use edit-warring rather than discussion to settle disputes. Would you please stop? --Ronz (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took your criticism on board and reworded. I was editing, not edit warring. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was elaborating on the talk page as you were making your edits [2]. Can we continue there? --Ronz (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick note. In many ways I think your (122's) edits on Goop have been pretty good, even sophisticated, with respect to writing about a business in WP. You have had in mind core business concepts (eg market demographics, etc) and have written about them for the most part neutrally and with OK refs. You have added some criticism along with that.
The overly fierce pursuit to get rid of Ernst is something I cannot explain, as I noted on my Talk page - the only way Ernst will be coming out, is if a more recent review comes out, and I looked and there are none. That is just how things work on this kind of topic. I know that because I have been editing in this territory for years (as have the people who came from FRINGEN). (This kind of thing is discussed in WP:CLUE which I hope you will read, if you have not read it before... it is probably the most important little essay in Wikipedia - CLUE is understanding how things work). I hope you learn some stuff about community consensus around PSCI/FRINGE from this and improve in that way.
From some things you have written I am a bit worried that you are going to become yet another "anti-skeptic" editor, and that would be unfortunate on a bunch of levels. But only you can determine what you will take away from this. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging the nature of my edits to the Goop page.
I have explained at length why I think Ernst is inappropriate, but there is a clear consensus for retaining it.
I would appreciate an apology for your characterisation that I was "attempting to suppress sources", because that's a serious claim. I can understand getting me muddled up with the American IP hopping editor, but I did add the source to the main page on coffee enemas early on and used it to describe what was occurring in the 90s. "Attempting to suppress sources" is more an interpretation of my motives than a description of my behaviour. Thank you for the pointers towards the relevant WP: things. I have no interest in becoming an "anti-skeptic" editor, and in general, if I'm unsure about something medical-related, I ask at WT:MED. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sasuke's FA

[edit]

The FA review of Sasuke Uchiha was going well until the last days. Due to some issues with critical response, I tried rewriting that section while Flowerpiep kept copyediting it. Since you are skilled with this, could you give us a hand with the article? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You see Mike is the one opposing it so even after a skilled editor gave it a hand he still says it doesn't reach level FA prose.Tintor2 (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering if this user at least has the scans of the Boruto movie where the former protagonists are now adults (we already got the info about the new trio). However, when I tried asking there comes a message of error that I can't make one question. It might be necessary for both Naruto and Sasuke's articles since at least one of them is FA. Since requests are not allowed, I would ask at least just give us the scans so that then we can have Tranquilhope translate it. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in case you are interested I created an article for Mikio Ikemoto.Tintor2 (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Last and The Scarlet Spring

[edit]

@DragonZero:@Flowerpiep: Since Sasuke's FAC failed, Flowerpiep and have been cleaning up The Last: Naruto the Movie and Naruto: The Seventh Hokage and the Scarlet Spring to see if they can become GAs. Any suggestions? Still, we have just nominated Mitsuki (Naruto) so we don't wanna hurry. You are welcome to join and edit. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Added all trans-titles. Still, when I asked for Japanese review of the Boruto film, I only got a preview which was suggested to be removed during the article's copyedit.Tintor2 (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Mitsuki became a GA, Flowerpiep and me nominating the Scarlet Spring. I tried looking through the sites you linked me but I only found Japanese articles and English articles focused on a Japanese city named Naruto.Tintor2 (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lavi's actors

[edit]

I recently created the article Lavi (D.Gray-man). I think you are not into the series, but I'm need of sources in regards to how find something how Chris Patton replaced Jason Liebrecht due to a car accident. It appears to be common knowledge but I couldn't find it anywhere.Tintor2 (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is already done? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The citation doesn't state what happened to the actors though.Tintor2 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pity - why is the car crash in the article if it's not in the source, though? Have you tried the Wikipedia:Reference desk? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was already there before I made the article but the reviews I have seen of the anime don't mention the actors' change. I'll try asking in the desk.Tintor2 (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tsubasa Oozora

[edit]

Hello. I'm trying to expand the character article Tsubasa Oozora, popular ever since 80s for inspiring people to try association football. Are there any resources that might help with it? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. There are a lot of Spanish interview about the manga's creation from the original to the 2002 series so I'll see if I can create a creation section there.Tintor2 (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I managed to tackle most video games but I can't find anything about the 80s and 90s anime series. The Captain Tsubasa wikia has information about each one-shot but most of them were never collected into volume format sadly.Tintor2 (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to expand a bit the article Digimon Fusion. However, it seems the series lack reviews. By any chance, do you know of reviews that might help? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banking Royal Commission

[edit]

Hi 122, thanks for clarifying that edit. JennyOz (talk)

Fullmetal Alchemist

[edit]

You think there might be scholars' work involving the series Fullmetal Alchemist? I mean, the series has a strong following and both medias follow some philosophies. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Goop (company)

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Goop (company) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Goop (company) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bishonen | talk 10:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@Bishonen:, I am not engaged in an edit war but am simply editing. I explained my reasonings at all times, including my concern about the insertion of a spurious source which wrecks the WP:INTEGRITY of the article. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are engaged in an edit war. Even on the most charitable interpretation, you have reverted three times in less than twelve hours. Did you click on my link to the three-revert rule? Stop now and wait for consensus on talk, or you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 10:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: I am not edit warring because I am editing: I accepted Jytdog's point that the entire C*O team is perhaps overkill: and the Materialscientist edit was just a robot false positive. However, Jytdog introduced an error when he moved the LA Times citation down, breaking the WP:INTEGRITY of the article. I have explained every single step of my edits as I have been editing. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

into vs in to

[edit]

Use in to, two words, when in is part of a verb phrase. In instances when in is part of the verb, it is acting as an adverb and to is either a preposition, which takes an object, or part of an infinitive, such as to run. For example, The firefighter ran back in to save the girl.[3] Timeshift (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho-Pass

[edit]

Long time no see. I've been wondering if there are good schoolars article that analyze the series Psycho-Pass as it is famous for the way it handles society and the main characters. In case you don't know, this anime is kind of like a mix between Blade Runner and the book 1984 and attracted a lot of attention for the handling is psychological themes and the handling of the cast: potential criminal wroking as a detective Shinya Kogami, inspector Akane Tsunemori and the antagonist Shogo Makishima. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not to bother you again but how was it that you could request to find more scholars articles? I'm looking for another Urouchi series titled Fate/Zero but I can't find information about it not even in Google Books. Maybe the series doesn't offer too much analysis as Psycho-Pass though. Anyway, Thanks Giving Day.Tintor2 (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. What I am searching for is this:

Piatti-Farnell, Lorna (December 2013). "Blood, Biceps, and Beautiful Eyes: Cultural Representations of Masculinity in Masami Kurumada's Saint Seiya". The Journal of Popular Culture. 46 (6): 1133–1155. doi:10.1111/jpcu.12081.

In what part of Wikipedia can I get it?Tintor2 (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've just realized through Google books that the visual novel Fate/stay night and its characters (most notably recent GA Shirou Emiya) are often explored by other people besides reviewers. I'm not good at finding sources through Google scholars and thus made a mistake in regards to an analysis not fitting for the articles. If you could find some to request I would appreciate it. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ingress

[edit]

Thank you for providing clarification in your most recent edit to Ingress. It's much appreciated! – The Grid (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Libraries ACT concern

[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Libraries ACT, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Libraries ACT

[edit]

Hello, 122.108.141.214. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Libraries ACT".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! 大诺史 (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Craig Kelly (politician) have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.  
Your edit here to Craig Kelly (politician) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:122.108.141.214&oldid=1142530554"