User talk:Paisarepa/Archives/2020/June

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

Toni Montano

Description lacks Citations. Didn't you notice? Read the part I erased First.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toni_Montano&oldid=928698228

comment added by Jtb1917 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Paisarepa, you are invited to the Teahouse

Teahouse logo

Hi Paisarepa! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Freighthopping, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Runaway Train (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm Fraggle81. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Polaris Industries because it did not appear constructive. 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. Fraggle81 (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops. I thought the vandalism reversion was the actual vandalism. Thanks for catching that! Paisarepa (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
No worries, happens to us all. Good work on the anti vandal edits you've been doing. Fraggle81 (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I also came here to ask you to not vandalize but clearly it was a honest mistake. However you still inadvertently missed one of the vandals edits here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polaris_Industries&diff=prev&oldid=612036032 Do not worry I corrected it. 2 other IP's who corrected some of the other vandalism also missed it. Please remember that IP's do much of the hard work here and do contribute greatly. A very strong case could be made that some of the "official" registered editors spend more time criticising and arguing than they do contributing. This example illustrates the work of IP's well. One vandal is first corrected by 2 IP's and the article is finally properly repaired by another IP 2 months later. All the regulars missed it. So be kind to IP's and assume good faith as they have constructed much of wikipedia and have much to offer in expertise. Not all editors are joiners (I have been an occassional IP editor since 2005, my IP has unintentionally changed thousands of times due to moving and wifi use) and could care less about some edit counts or imaginary or contrived wiki persona. Many IP's do not want to be involved in all the petty bickering among some of the regulars or be subject to the contempt and abuse they toss at IP's. Welcome to the wacky world of wikipedia from the dedicated IP's! 208.54.40.188 (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion of Megastoreinc

Hello, i'm actually new to creating Wikipedia page and i do like to know the reasons for tagging Megastoreinc for deletion, so as to correct and avoid future errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netwrkx (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Netwrkx, Megastoreinc was nominated for deleltion because the article was promotional, and did not explain why the subject was notable. For more information, please read at least the introduction to the following articles: WP:YFA, WP:N. Paisarepa (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Paisarepa. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Paisarepa. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Paisarepa. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Vidya (disambiguation)

Paisarepa, hi, it's Superbrickbro. Please try to understand that Vidya Shankar is a real person and not some made up thing. Please do not delete Vidya Shankar from the page because every time you or anybody else deletes Vidya Shankar, you are vandalizing the page. Vidya Shankar can be there and isn't being a virus to the page. Stop deleting Vidya Shankar or I will report you and everyone else as vandalizers. This is all I want to write: *Vidya Shankar, a South Indian Veena player, and musicologist who was a member of the Madras Music Academy in Chennai, India. Please believe me: Vidya Shankar is a real person and was a veena player. she was a very well known member of the Music Academy in Chennai, India. If you want to delete this because there is no article for Vidya Shankar, please also delete Vidya, a bimonthly journal published by the Triple Nine Society as said above as there is no article to it as well. Here is the Hindu article link proving that she died in 2010: https://www.thehindu.com/arts/Vainika-Vidya-Shankar-no-more/article16204888.ece. please don't delete Vidya Shankar as she was still a real singer. Also, this isn't vandalism as I'm just telling other editors something. if you don't believe that Vidya Shankar is real, go look up the Hindu article proving that she died in 2010, please.

Superbrickbro

Andrewstroth (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)User:Andrewstroth|AndrewstrothAndrewstroth (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

We are a group of people that recognize stroth as a civil rights attorney for the work we have seen him do on TV. We are currently adding more citations that are extensive in length and legitimate. We do not understand why everything was taken down before checking the legitimacy of the sources we inserted which are good. The entire page ( Andrew Stroth ) needs an overhaul. How can we do this?

(talk)

Vidya (disambiguation) and Disambiguation pages in general

Paisarepa, Why are do some other disambiguation have people with last names? Sincerely, Superbrickbro —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Most likely they are in violation of the MOS. Can you give me a few examples? Thanks, Paisarepa (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

World Hijab Day

Hi, please keep in mind that

Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi ToBeFree, the disruptive IP I most recently reported for vandalism is unquestionably committing vandalism, he's just mixing in valid information as well to make it appear that the edits are legitimate information. I will provide the evidence with the original request. Thanks! Paisarepa (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    I see, thank you. Searching for this, I have now found [1] (which does not explicitly attribute the title to one person, as the article has been written by multiple people) and [2], which perhaps only quotes the article – but I guess these could be good enough. That is, if the article did not have a clearly undue weight towards the "Criticism" section, which is already as large as the whole other text of the article. Re-adding one person's specific criticism quote may not be a good idea until the article is larger and better balanced. I recommend not to undo my edit at this point, but I won't stop you from doing so either. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you! I have no preference either way, I was just reverting the change so it still matched what was in the source. Paisarepa (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Martin Concepcion

Hi, I've declined your G4 nomination on this article. Technically, it is eligible as the article was deleted at an AfD debate and reposted in a similar shape. However, the debate was more marginal than first appears; there were a mix of "keep" to "delete" votes, and the remaining two "delete" votes after relisting didn't seem to have much substance behind them. I'd prefer either a second AfD, or for the original AfD to be taken to deletion review; I don't have any real preference which. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333. I'd be comfortable with either of those options. I'm not familiar enough with WP:NBOX to form an opinion for keep/delete; the reason that this came onto my radar is that I am concerned that the creator of the article is the sockpuppet of a banned user, one who happened to be an active opponent of deletion in the AfD. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qualitee123 Paisarepa (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I submitted the AfD for review here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Martin_Concepcion Paisarepa (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

BPLP Page deletion

Hi Paisarepa, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alis Rowe (3rd nomination) the request is genuine. You can verify this by contacting the subject of the page at talk:Thegirlwiththecurlyhair. Essayist1 (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

How do I know Thegirlwiththecurlyhair is actually Alis Rowe? Paisarepa (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for fighting back against the blatantly-disruptive reversion going on with Fred Martin (Idaho politician). I would be taking care of it myself with my account, but the subject of the article is known for silently getting back at locals who go public with disparaging or inconvenient information.134.204.65.97 (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The horrible racism of Jim Cornette

Jim Cornette is a confirmed vile racist that likes to make fun of starving Africans and any future wikipedia articles about him should reflect that fact Paisarepa please read these four articles about him so that you and your fellow wikipedia editors can be informed about who this guy is here are some links for you to copy and paste into your search bar https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/jim-cornette-nwa-power-1203410568/ and https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/20/jim-cornette-fire-making-racist-remark-nwa-power-11188748/ and https://www.cbr.com/jim-cornette-nwa-power-resigns-racist-joke/ and finally https://whatculture.com/wwe/jim-cornette-resigns-from-nwa-power-amid-race-row thank you Paisarepa for your time and understanding


"RC Vandalism"

Hi, I am in RC, and many things on the page are incorrect, and many contradict others on the page. I would like to make it clear that plenty of people do not understand RC. I am attempting to correct it. Daddy is Right (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Editing "Salami" Article

I am an activist of the understated fact that cats can have a little slommy.

Please stop vandalising. Paisarepa (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a vast amount of scientific evidence that point towards the now widely-accepted hypothesis that cats can have a little slommy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.95.117 (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

CSD:A4

Hi, I'm just letting you know that I have declined your CSD at Mundre ko Comedy Club per WP:A4 instructions. As this might well be a work in progress, I have moved the page to draft space. If you are interested in patrolling new pages, you may wish to review the instructions at WP:NPP and once you are fully familiar with WP:DELETION, you could consider applying for the New Page Reviewer user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Terre Blair

Hi. Please check out WP:BLPPROD and familiarise yourself with its use. If you have any questions regarding our deletion policies and guidelines, don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

.

Why u keeping deleting my edit relax Hanabanana2387 (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

None of those sources link to the claim.

There is no evidence Peter Stzork worked on investigating Hillary private emails. None of the sources provides evidence for that claim and yet it is on the first paragraph. I don't understand... I often make edits simply writing in the edit notes that the sources don't provide evidence for what is claimed and ALL of my edits are reverted despite them being entirely true. Why is removing untrue wording or content so fiercely protested?

Is it such torture to simply read the source and decide if I'm correct or not before reverting my changes? I don't believe this would occur if these pages were not political. There was really no reason to revert my changes and I stated precisely why I made them. This website seems to have based on my current experience - a rather fascist hue that undermines the supposedly "decentralized" structure. I mean shouldn't someone - with a record for being unbiased - double-check what you revert? How is that not built into the system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.29.74 (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I did read the sources, and both the New York Times article as well as the CNN article explicitly state that Stzork led the investigation into Clinton's emails. The New York Times article states: "Along with overseeing the Trump investigation, Mr. Strzok had been the lead agent on the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s email account." The CNN article states "Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division...." Paisarepa (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates without fixing the issue

Hi Paisarepa,

I have removed the template after fixing the issue, I don't see any other issue in the article. Could you please help me to rectify any issue if it still exists?

I've followed all the guidelines, Kindly don't add any templates. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayjha89 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

First, are you associated with ZS Associates in any way? Do you work for them, are friends with the founders, are being paid by them to edit, etc? If so, you need to disclose that on your user page. See WP:PAID for more information.
Additionally, past editors of the article are suspected to have edited it for payment without disclosing they were doing so which is against the Wikipedia terms of service. The tone of the article is highly promotional, to the point that the article reads like an advertisement. In order to remove that maintenance tag, the article needs to be rewritten with a neutral tone, and the overly-promotional language, tone, and content needs to be removed. Thanks, Paisarepa (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


Hey Paisarepa, No, I'm not associated with them at all!! For my learning, can you please highlight which sections look overly-promotional? [User:Jayjha89]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayjha89 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

For example, the 'awards' section which was copied off the company's website is overly promotional. If you aren't associated with them at all, why have you spent the last month adding hundreds of words of highly promotional material to their article, much of which is copied from their website, but you haven't edited any other pages? Paisarepa (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, it may seems to you like that but I have just started. I have checked the version history, it's not only me who has edited this article so this doesn't apply that I'm associated with them. Anyway, what would be the best practice to update any article page? If I share the researched reference with you, would you help me to update the page? --Jayjha89 (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Jayjha89 (talk

Great, good to hear you don't have a conflict of interest. I have posted on your talk page several links to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the five pillars, and more. I recommend you read those linked articles and then go to the Teahouse (WP:TH) as you have questions. Thanks, Paisarepa (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Well that's a lot of links to read!! Can you please tell me what would be best practice to remove the "undisclosed payments template" on the current article? It's still appearing on that page. Once it's removed, I'll share the revised draft with you for proofreading. Does it sound good? Jayjha89 (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The easiest way to have that template removed is by the paid editors disclosing such on their user page. Same with editors that may not be paid, but have a conflict of interest.
I recommend you at least read WP:5P and WP:HOW. I'm not a copyeditor and proofreading is not what I do here. Thanks, Paisarepa (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to track back the user who had admitted for paid editing and I don't feel he or she is active anymore. What is the alternative? Jayjha89 (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

/* Paid COI */

Please help me to remove the maintenance template on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZS_Associates article as it's hard to track the user who had admitted the paid editing. Thanks in advance Jayjha89 (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Please only use one method of seeking assistance, to avoid duplicating efforts. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Disputed content

Please do not restore content against consensus.[3] QuackGuru (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I am sure you're already familiar with the content of the talk page discussions, since you've contributed to some of them, and hopefully you looked at the edit history immedialtely preceeding and following my restoring content. Consensus is clearly for keeping the content, and only a single disruptive editor has been removing it (along with insterting a bunch of pseudoscience into the article). You may want to read WP:OWN. Paisarepa (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Multiple editors disagreed with including the content. Consensus is clearly for deleting it. QuackGuru (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's an interesting way of interpreting the talk page discussion. I don't think you'll find many other editors who agree with you. See WP:CON. Paisarepa (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
There is not "many" editors who even commented about this. But readers continue to delete it. IPs and new accounts are part of consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
It's no longer relevent anyway. The source you had an issue with has been replaced with a regulatory source. Paisarepa (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Readers and I also have an issue with the content. There is no confusion between a chiropractor and a medical doctor. How come the article on medical doctors does not state "Medical doctors are not chiropractors."? Has anyone walked in a chiropractor's office and thought they were a medical doctor? QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
"Readers and I"? Speak for yourself and let those weasely "readers" speak for themselves if they actually exist and have something to say. Paisarepa (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
If the editor is new just accuse them of vandalism and get the article semi-protected. QuackGuru (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Straw man Paisarepa (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

(moved)

You’re violating Wikipedia’s terms by blindly undoing edits you don’t agree with — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsteopaticDoc (talk • contribs) 03:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Charlotte caniggia

Dejame actualizar la informacion Charlottediosa (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Debes usar inglés aqui. Gracias, Paisarepa (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I am infuriated at your innappropiate actions.

Why was my edit removed? The "Winnie the Pooh" incident is very well documented, and is one of the most important Chinese political events of the 21st century. Stop unnecassary removing edits or I will be forced to report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PapaJohn'sBiggestFan (talk • contribs) 02:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

My edit has been removed-again! UNbeliebable behavior. wow. ):< — Preceding unsigned comment added by PapaJohn'sBiggestFan (talk • contribs) 02:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:John Nicolson#2015 General Elections and Page Protection

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:John Nicolson#2015 General Elections and Page Protection. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 13:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

More unpleasantness at Fred Martin (Idaho politician)

If you have a look at the recent history for Fred Martin (Idaho politician), you'll see somebody is trying to change it back to the way it was before you edited it. Maybe you should seek some kind of protection on the article... 2600:100E:B117:4BC4:3900:5E3D:50D3:F886 (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

How to disclose Paid Contribution?

Hi There, Could you please help me to add the Paid contribution template on my page. Since, I've marked as paid contributor for updating the ZS associates page and I left with no option to add the paid contribution template. It will be really helpful if you can add this for me. Kindly let me know if you need more information for the same.

Thank You! Jayjha89 (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Jack Brittain concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Jack Brittain, 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.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

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) 01:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paisarepa/Archives/2020/June&oldid=1067266168"