This user may have left Wikipedia. Akamad has not edited Wikipedia since 12 Setember 2019. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Looks like you're a really busy guy. I haven't heard from anyone else that they think the article was POV. So, I guess it's just one of those things.
Maybe the person that tagged it just doesn't like Van Morrison. I can't tell you the number of hours I've put into the article. I'm working towards maybe getting it rated at least a GA. More work needed though, I know.
Thanks,
Agadant 20:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Agadant. It's not that I'm a busy guy, it's just that I've been overseas for the last few weeks and haven't had too much internet access, so I haven't been looking at what's been going on with wikipedia. So I missed what happened with the whole POV business. But I've read through the posts on the talk page. I have to agree with you that it definitely was POV, it's a good thing you spotted that and have worked to fix it. Keep up the great work (you're definitely a big asset to the Van article)! - Akamad 00:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you probably saw on the discussion page for Van, I'm working on the footnotes for the article as was requested by HeavensWrath.
This is the 1st article I've worked on so it's been a process of learning by doing. ( I work better that way anyway.)
I want to get the article rated higher and everything verified so there won't be any questions about POV or accuracy.
I'm willing to try to find sources to footnote for what has been entered over the last few years, but I'm not sure exactly when something
has to be referenced. Can you give me some general rules. I've read the Wiki articles on footnotes and references but it doesn't always seem clear.
I checked history and sent a message to one person who entered something asking for a reference, and will wait before removing it or try harder to find something on it myself. (Is this the right way to handle it?) ........
If something: for instance Van receiving an OBE is easily verifiable, does it still need a reference?
If one whole paragraph can be sourced in one book, can only one footnote work for the paragraph by using the multiple page numbers?
(As I noted on the article talk page the footnotes and citation numbers will be out of order until I get further along.) Hope this is okay.
Thanks for any help or advice....(whenever you get a little time)....Agadant 02:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If something is easily verifiable, it generally does not require a reference (Van is a singer for example). It really comes down to personal judgement, if you feel people will dispute any material on the article, cite a source for that material. Any and all negative comments about a living person have to be referenced, as per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. When it comes to entire paragraphs, I would say it's fine to put multiple page numbers in the footnote and only reference it once. Like I said, it really comes down to whether or not you feel people will question any of the material on the article, if they do question it, or you think they will, then it needs a reference. Hope this helps. All the best. - Akamad 19:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
pls stop vandalising gwenno, she looks a bit like becki but not much if u no the difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The reason I deleted that line was because it is clear from the picture on the article that she has light blonde hair and doesn't wair glasses. Thus there is no need to say so in the text. - Akamad 12:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC) PS: For any bystanders, the the edit in question is this: [1][reply]
Thank you Akamad, I also received a vandalism comment on my talk page for removing that vary line. --Cody.Pope 22:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is her third block now. Hopefully, she'll understand our reasoning for deleting that text. - Akamad 05:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was feeling a little nostalgic and remembered you as being the person who welcomed me to Wikipedia back in January, 2006. That's a lot of edits ago. Thank you again for being so kind. You, and persons like you, are what make Wikipedia so very special.
Hope all is well with you. -- Michael David 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear from you again Michael. Indeed things are well with me, likewise with you, I hope. Having a quick glance at your talk page and contributions, you certainly have come a long way since last year. Congratulations! I'm glad I made you feel welcome.
Thanks for the kind words and thanks for dropping by to say hi. - Akamad 12:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And hello to you too! I hope you're having a good time here on Wikipedia. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to ask. - Akamad 03:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it OK that I don't edit wikipedia? It's because lots of other people have done it but I don't want to so can I still go on? Goodgirldv9898 20:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Your account will not get cancelled if you choose not to edit. Even if you don't login for years, your account will still be here. All the best. - Akamad 21:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free use disputed for Image:CanYouFeelTheSilenceCover.gif[edit]
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Maya Guez, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Dhartung | Talk 08:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are You Tube videos allowed on wikipedia articles now? I've encountered them several times in song articles I've browsed and removed them, but noticed some administrators have edited the article before and not removed them. You're always so helpful, thought you might give me some feedback on this issue. Thanks, Agadant 16:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a wide range of opinions on this matter (my personal opinion is that there is no problem with them so long as they meet the external links policy). The external links policy page states that "There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would be infrequent). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights." There was also this failed policy on youtube clips (the policy never came into effect because of the lack of consensus). So in general, if the clip meets the other needs of the external links page (such as copyrights), there is no issue with youtube links. Hope that helps. - Akamad 23:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply Akamad: I'm still kind of mulling this one over. Seems like the policy would be taken advantage of (like everything else is by some) and would get out of control. One of the videos I've encountered was "very" unflattering to the artist featured and therefore unfairly posted. But I also saw one that was really educational for a better understanding of the subject. Anyway, Cheers! Agadant 15:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, two things. One, I'm sorry I haven't been on Wiki for a LONG time. I had to get another computer, because my old one got a virus. And secondly, I'm in to anime. What anime you ask? Naruto!
Orphaned non-free media (Image:CliffRichard-DressedOccasion(cover).JPG)[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:CliffRichard-DressedOccasion(cover).JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:VanMorrison-WavelengthCoverMay2005.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:VanMorrison-WavelengthCoverMay2005.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WavelengthAlbumCover.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:WavelengthAlbumCover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This. I would have beaten you to it if he hadn't added his spam and edit conflicted with me. :P --GraemeL(talk) 00:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up redirecting to Loss mitigation instead of Refinancing, since the former page talks about loan modification. - Akamad (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ways to Aviod having to spend eons studying Wikipedia syntax[edit]
Ways to aviod:
1. Look at it, give up, leave and never return
2. Do some vandalizing
3. Stick to editing articles instead of creating them.
Fortunately, you don't really have to study the syntax, you'll end up picking it up as you go along. So no need to be discouraged! - Akamad (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ahamed! Remember that User_talk:Resident_Mario you helped a month ago? Well, he's made a lot of progress into that darn HTML code. So thanks for being the first person I met via Wikipedia! Also, can you help me in a small way? I've spent quite a bit of time studying other user's pages (notable, User:Example) and working into my own User:Resident_Mario:Userpage(s). Can you please give me a peer review of my results? Thank you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I herby give you this barnstar for your support of a newbie at the beggining og the Wikiholic cycle! Thank you for your support,a nd being the first person to help me on Wikipedia. You're one of those people that make the world go 'round! Resident Mario (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very fancy userpage! One suggestion I can make though. You know the pictures you have on the bottom of the page (with links to your talk page, sandbox, etc.). It is possible to link the images to the articles you want, such that when you click on the image, you go to the article's page as opposed to the image page. I've seen it done in two different ways:
The first is on the Reference Desk. You'll note that when you click on the image, you go straight to the page. You can see the code for it here.
The second method is visible here: User:NuclearWarfare. The code for that one is available here.
But really, that's only a minor thing. Other than that, like I said, it's a very fancy looking userpage! Well done!(Oh, and cheers for the barnstar!) - Akamad (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Veedonfleececover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting an IP block exemption. I am using a VPN provider as I am currently on an unsecured WIFI. Thanks. Akamad (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept reason:
IP block exemption granted. Kinut/c 17:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading Image:CliffRichard-DressedOccasion(cover).JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
