Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kylu (talk | contribs) at 02:03, 7 February 2009 (→GloMoSim: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi, Welcome to my Talk page!!!

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Miss-Pooja.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Miss-Pooja.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articHi, Welcome to my Talk page!!!

=les will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wanjara.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wanjara.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Surindershinda.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Surindershinda.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

List of educational institutes in Islamabad/Rawalpindi

Hello and thankyou for taking a look at the above mentioned article. You tagged that article with the cleanup template. I surely believe the article needs improvement i.e the list is incomplete. However, I must ask in what sense does it need cleanup? I don't see the article to be unwikified or having spellings or grammar mistakes. I could be wrong. If you saw other error/s, and tagged it wrongly, kindly inform me. Thankyou. 12:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nominating Anup Ghoshal for deletion

Hi, you have tagged the article Anup Ghoshal for deletion. Can you please explain why the article needs to be deleted? Dr. Anup Ghoshal is an eminent playback singer from India. You are welcome to expand the article and make it better.

Borfee (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)borfee

• Hi, Thanks for improving this article.

Re-write this article as per WP:MUSIC guidelines, as the references are pointing only to a single source. Add multiple & reliable references, which are reliable and do not point to offical website of Anup Ghoshal. Quality check 08:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nakkirar

Why did you add the unreferenced tag to Nakkirar? I had created the article with references. ShivNarayanan (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, Thanks for improving this article.

Please add some online and reliable references from multiple sources.Quality check 08:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of several articles

Hi, I see you have proposed the deletion of several articles on towns and villages in Kerala. Could you please explain your reasoning? Unfortunately, the PROD reason is blank on each of them, so I'm not sure what your thoughts on these particular articles are. Thanks. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, Thanks for your concerns about articles on towns and villages in Kerala. Request you to expand these articles, which are created by you with suitable information, as these articles contain almost no conetnt. Plz see Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion#A3. Quality check 13:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Um, no, I didn't create these articles. I'm just asking you why you want to delete them. They look fine to me as stubs waiting expansion. CSD A3 does not apply to them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Prodding Indian villages

Hi, I would suggest that you stop prodding Indian villages. Inhabited settlements are, by long standing convention, notable and none will be deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

yes, I know it seems strange at first, but the logic is, where could we make the cut-off? there is verifiable third party informtion about any inhabited place. DGG (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

-- Tinu Cherian - 13:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yr Arddu

Might I suggest before plastering a new site with banners that you wait just a little to how it develops. The article was only 16 minutes old before you added your templates.A significant mountain in Snowdonia is likely to be notable and if references are required (but you will see many mountain articles with few if any references) the Ordnance Survey is always a good starting point. A more constructive approach might be research the article and add content or just hold back for a while. Removing the banners would also be a good start. Velela (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

...and I notice you have behaved in exactly the same way to Rib tool within minutes of its construction. In my view this is not acceptable Wikipedian behaviour at all. Velela (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, Pasting these notices will give someone (including creator) a chance to improve that page. You can also delete these notices, if these are unnecessary or after modifying that page. Thanks for your contributions to wikipedia. Quality check 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can delete these tags. I have been a Wikipedian for over 4 years with nearly 5000 edits and having created over 150 pages. I prefer to be neither thanked for my contributions nor patronised by an editor who chooses not to answer a valid point that new articles need to be allowed a reasonable period of grace before being assigned improvement tags. Velela (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As you wish. I often patrol recently created articles on wikipedia. If i feel some page need improvement, i always give my suggestion by pasting these tags. If you are experimenting with your article, please prefer using Show preview button instead of Save page. Because its not possible for me to know exaclty, when any editor will modify that page. Quality check 18:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

Hi, there's no need to add a qualifier at the end of a title if there's no other articles with the same name; see WP:NC. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion?

You might want to try cleaning up some of the articles you tag yourself. At the end of the day you tagging them is not improving the article per se, it is simply bringing it to the attention of others who have to improve it. If you tried wikifying it/referencing it/expanding it yourself it would cut out the middle man (and also be a lot more satisfying to the user than drive-by tagging, trust me on this'n). The backlogs in those sort of areas are massive; try not to increase them where you can possibly avoid it. Ironholds (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag crazy

Actually too short is about the lead of longer articles, not about one sentence articles. By putting it in that you will categorize it and make the category huge.

Notice the article says on it that it is a "stub," that's what is used to identify one sentence articles.

As to only one source, did you want me to put a source for every word?

Again, by its nature as a stub, it will probably have only one sentence and one source. Find longer articles with short leads and work on the leads yourself rather than tagging articles that are already supplied with information that they are short and need work, ie, they're stubs.

--KP Botany (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding bio stub to an article, however, is VERY useful. --KP Botany (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, don't tag articles someone is writing right now (The Pubes). Give him a day, then tag it if you need to. Adding a category to that one was easy, though. --KP Botany (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your suggestions. I'll be more careful in future. Plz read my comment below.

Warning

I'm going to give you a sort of all-encompassing warning. You've been repeatedly warned for improper CSD tagging, improper PRODS and useless drive-by tagging of articles. You blanking the talkpage messages is indicative you have read them, so I'll just say it: please cut it out. You have been around long enough that you should have some element of clue, but that seems sorely lacking. Please take some time over your edits, allow users have a chance to correct themselves and consider whether tagging articles with enough tags to double the article length is really helping the Wiki, especially when some of your 'concerns' could be fixed by you yourself in a matter of seconds. Please take a step back to consider your actions or I will take this to WP:ANI. Ironholds (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I often patrol recently created articles, and give my suggestion to creator of page by pasting tags. so that any other editor may also note it and improve it. Once anyone has improved that article, anyone can delete the appropriate tags. But i cannot wait to return next day, that the article gets modified or not; You cannot predict as some articles gets modified within seconds and some gets edited rarely. Check the preview of your article before Saving it to wikipedia, when you create a new article or otherwise. But you could not say that i have wrongly used any of tags (except tooshort). Also i'm getting mature with each edit. I'll be more careful in future regarding this. You are free to do anything.

The central issue is that despite repeated warnings you dont seem to have slowed down. As noted below, many edit summaries include things like WORKING ON THE ARTICLE PLEASE DO NOT DELETE yet you still tag-and-bag. Ironholds (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Plz don't prove yourself right by quoting others. I can myself read it.I already told you that i'll be careful now.Quality check 11:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, consider mine your second warning. After Ironholds, after many more, really. Sorry, you're putting unreferenced tags on referenced articles, non-notability tags on articles that assert their notability. I've just spent half an hour cleaning up your garbage. You're tagging articles while people are writing them and have clearly stated that is what they are doing in their edit summaries.

Also, check the edit histories. If it has just been created a few minutes ago, someone may still be working on it. Stop. Breath. Read. --KP Botany (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i add tags only when i am sure about it. May be some1 had improved that article and forget to delete the appropriate tag.

No, you don't add tags only when you're sure about it, or if you do, you need to spend more time making sure, because I just removed dozens that were incorrectly added by you. --KP Botany (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have re-checked my today's edits. Plz don't mind, but you seem to be allergic to tags. You just reverted my edits, most of the tags on these articles were applicable. Many of the articles were improved, after addition of different tags by me. Try looking at some other angle. Quality check

Heres an angle you might like to look at things from; rather than adding an "unreferenced" tag to an article and other bits of makework, why not add referencing? A two-line article doesn't require more than 1 reference most times, and I'm assuming you have access to google. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, That one was for User:KP Botany. Ok, Each one is here on wikipedia to do whatever one likes, with an aim to contribute something. Some one is adding new pages, some may be modifying existing pages, some may be patroling these activities. You could not direct/advise others, who is doing his bit of work as per his/her interest to do something else. If you are so much concerned, You are welcome to add references to all pages to which i add unreferenced tag. I don't mind at all.Quality check

Uh, the reason the articles were improved after you put the tags on is that you put the tags on while authors were clearly still writing the article, like the author who put up the Netherlands article who clearly posted in his edit summary that he was preparing the space for the article.

No one improved anything because of your tags. Your tags just got in the way of editing. And, no, I'm not allergic to tags. I left the handful that were useful, such as the article that clearly needed deleted as soon as possible.

However, you appear to only have an accuracy rating of about 5% with tagging, meaning you're creating more work than you are doing. I will ask that you be blocked if this pattern continues. --KP Botany (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point an interesting one out; an article about a man called Jimmy Higgins who, aged 16, comforted a polar bear without being torn apart (blatant inaccuracy) the polar bear was then treated by EMT's (blatant inaccuracy) and the child was offered a $1000 scholarship to any college in the area. A simple google search would have shown the article to be WP:BULLSHIT but your action? Tagging it as 'unreferenced'. You're completely missing problems right under your nose and doing makework that simply isn't neccessary. Tagging deletable articles with 'needs to be referenced' isn't helpful to anything but your edit count; in the words of Aesop Rock you are 'washing the trains the same day the graffiti artists bomb them'. Ironholds (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's like tagging stubs, "too short." First, that's what a stub tag means, that the article is too short. Second, that tags isn't even for articles. It's for the introductory sections of articles, only. And, if you had read the tag, instead of just exploding it all over the place you would have seen that.

Also, you don't need to put uncategorized on stubs, because the stub IS a category. These are just a few of the many instances in which you have inappropriately added tags, that simply made unnecessary work for other editors.

So, you have put a couple of good and useful tags on articles. But you've been wrong far more often than you've been right, so, please, read the tags, read the articles, read the article histories, tag at the appropriate time (not 10 minutes after the article was started, while it is still being written, and while the editor has clearly indicated it's in process), and tag articles with appropriate tags (not unreferenced on totally deletable bs, not too short and uncategorized on articles labeled as stub).

But, yes, you've got some right, and done a bit of good work. Focus on that, and do more of that. That's all. --KP Botany (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What both of you are doing now is, to justify yourself. You just want to prove that you are on right side, and i'm on wrong side. That's why you restored my talk page, which was blanked by me. To just show that i was erred earlier, is not a good spirit. THE BETTER IS that you should start a debate on not-using any of the tags on wikipedia at all or favour to reserve it for administrators/seasoned user only.
In future, whenever i'll come across any of the pages, which need some improvement. Then i'll definately offer my assistance either by adding the content to that page or i'll add tags which will be applicable (that is improving the page too). I'm doing some postitive contribution on wikipedia (there are only few instances of mistakes also along with process of learning) and i don't need certification/rating from anyone about my work. Only some wikipedia foe can nominate me for a ban. I suggest that you should close this debate (which you should have done it earlier) by blanking my talk page. As i told you earlier that i'll be careful now.

I know, KP Botany's comment was meant to be a sort of 'chin up, lad, you're doing better' comment, not further criticism. Blanking talkpages does not end a debate; in fact, it goes against the ethos of wikipedia by hiding information and giving only a partial view of any given situation. If you have problems with your talkpage being too long I suggest you instead archive it; if you don't know how, you can give me a poke and I'll show you. Also, could you please sign your comments by typing ~~~~? I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'wikipedia foe', and actually anyone can suggest blocking you if they have due reason. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to add a pint of elucidation here, it was I who reverted the blanking of the talk page so that other editors would have a complete view of the concerns and issues that have been raised by numerous editors, myself included, over your particular style of tagging which I found to be unhelpful, and, frankly, downright annoying, especially on very young articles which were very obviously work in progress or development. I apologise if my earlier comments may have seemed harsh, but I see a number of other experienced and respected editors making very similar comments. I am sure that your enthusiasm and attention to detail can have a very useful part to play in Misplaced Pages, but your effort really does need channelling in a different way and rather less contentious way.

As things stand I too would be inclined to give a third warning but I will hold back. It is a new year and perhaps things will now change for the better. Velela (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagging articles

Instead of tagging articles as uncategorized and unreferenced, could you please spend time adding relevant categories and references to articles instead. It's a much more productive use of your and our time. Nick (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry,i could not understand how your time gets wasted? If you see any unref. or uncat tag, and know about proper category/reference; plz add that and that's all. I add these tags if im not sure about cat/ref and instead request other users to do it by adding tags. Quality check 12:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

His time is wasted because rather than having 1) user sees uncat/unref page 2) user refs/categorises page it turns into 1) user sees uncat/unref page 2) user tags page as such and 3) page gets shoved in an absolutely massive backlog that someone else then clears at a later date. How can you not understand how categories and references work? If it is an article about a building in Brisbane, stick it in Category:Buildings and structures in Brisbane. If it is unreferenced, google search the building name and find references to add to the article. I discussed this with you before; if the article is, say, two lines long, finding references for it does not take much time. Tagging the article and then waiting for someone else to do it, on the other hand, does. Ironholds (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Good example, sorry; Mark Jerrum. You tagged it as unreferenced and left it for someone else to clean up when a google search would have found his personal home page at the university, the pages he maintains at institutes he lectures at and a list of his publications as the first four results. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Then, why these tags are on use in wikipedia??? These are just a request to the other user, to add proper ref/cat if you are not sure about them. And your reply does not answer, how does anyone else's time get wasted. But in my opinion, other user's can productively use their time by looking at tags (instant attention to deficiency in page) and then adding ref/cat. Otherwise other editors, have to scan full page to find shortcomings in that page. Quality check 13:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The tags are in use for informing editors when there is a deficiency in the article that needs to be corrected. You waste other editors time by adding articles to a massive backlog when in many cases you could have solved the issue yourself in the time it took to add the tag. The tags are there to highlight areas that editors can be improved, but the way you use them is silly. It is like me calling in the Thunderbirds to clear up the mess a dog has made in the park; a lot of effort on someone elses part for a problem I could have corrected with minimal effort myself. Ironholds (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

All tags are very much useful becuase they instantly alert other editors about deficiency in that page. Otherwise all editors have to scan full page to find shortcomings in that page. No backlog is created, otherwise if they are not pointed out by anybody, the article may remain without ref/cat. Also, adding a tag automatically put that page into specialized category of articles with same deficiency. And editors, which have special interest/liking in adding cat/ref can work on them in their free time, without first finding uncat/unref pages. Adding a tag is just a first step in improving the page. Quality check 06:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, they're not all useful. When you put the wrong tag on an article, you simple confuse or irritate an editor. Only the correct tag on an article alerts the editors to shortcomings. If you, for example, put that the lead section is too short, and they click on the link and find out the lead section is part of a long article, and you've mistakenly put the tag on an article with only one sentence, they'll just think you're a vandal. Which is what a lot of people may think when someone comes by and puts a totally incorrect tag on an article.

You also put uncat tags on articles that are categorized. Again, since the category is sitting there at the bottom of the page, screaming "category," but you say it's uncategorized you may be perceived as a vandal, and you've wasted the time you spent tagging, plus the person who is actually working on the article now has to waste their own time removing your incorrect tag.

Tagging is only useful when done correctly. Because most of yours are wrong, it is not useful. And, it is not the first step in improving anything--it's just a waste of time. --KP Botany (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Request you to continue discussion @Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Quality check 06:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Need Help

I question what I should change on this page N.N. Rimzon in order to avoid the stub tag? Please help me on this Pingu (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No need; the article was incorrectly tagged. Ironholds (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread

Hello, Quality check. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ironholds (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Some examples, ALSO use edit summaries

Use edit summaries, also, please, if you really want to help, as you keep saying you are.

Here is a useful edit you did to an article. Notice, you provided useful information by categorizing it as an airport stub. Of course, you also tagged it as unreferenced within an hour of it being created, but that's just annoying, not necessarily wrong.

Here is a pointless tagging. The list or article is not even readable. It's just a paste from somewhere else and will be deleted in minutes. A "news release" is not a single bad sentence in a completely unreadable article. If the article cannot be repaired tag it for speedy deletion, don't waste time with a tag that implies it can be rewritten.

This one is also pointless. Users are not allowed to advertise on Misplaced Pages. A speedy tag is appropriate, but no editing will improve an advertisement that is an advertisement! An ad can't stay on Misplaced Pages.

This was again, partially useful, because you categorized it. However, the article wasn't unreferenced! And you should have easily seen that there was a reference in the very first line.

So, look and think, and tag appropriately. You sound like you want to contribute, and tagging can be a useful contribution, particularly when you categorize along the way. And, frankly, I don't search for categories, but most of the time you can guess an easy category.

So, please, as requested, tag appropriately, only. That's when tags are useful. But if you can't tag appropriately and some other editor has to follow you around to remove your inappropriate tags, or do the work of tagging db because you haven't bothered, it's using up other editor's time, and it's not helpful.

And, use edit summaries.

--KP Botany (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As given by you above, point 1 is a good contribution. In point 2, I was more careful in using WP:afd,because i got many warnings. but that news tag was applicable there. About point 3 and 4, i want to say that it was impossible for Ironholds to reach and modify that page, if i hadn't made an edit there. So my each contribution resulted in improving the page. You can check all my edits.

Both of you (KP Botany & Ironholds) seem to be biased, especially Ironholds, who unwittingly taken the matter to WP:ANI. As you can see my contributions that after ppl. pointed my tag errors, my edits are more careful now. As my edit errors are getting lowered each day. You have to be somewhat patient, as no one can be perfectionist in one day. If my errors are getting multiplied each day after you pointed it out, then you should have the right to report the matter elsewhere. What Ironholds pressing for is to make big contributions, but i say that each contribution count, however small it may be. As one editor can not turn a page into Good article, it require the collaboration of many editors. Quality check 10:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

@Actually I dont believe that is so. As mentioned after you had been warned by five editors for varying errors and still failed to see there was a problem. Eventually you admitted there was and said you would get better, I left it and you then get warned again. The issue isn't that you are not getting better but more that you are getting better so slowly that you are still doing more harm than good and yet refuse to drop the stick. It is the same as driving; if someone is an appalling driver they should learn the theory before jumping into a car. If they jump into a car and end up running over five people then a plaintive 'but it is alright! There are some I didn't run over, and I'll run over less people next time!' isn't going to work. Bad example you're using, by the way; this isn't about one person turning an article into a good article. If the requirements for a good article were that it be too lines long and referenced then it would be easy, easy work, yet that is the sort of thing you say you need 'collaboration for. I am not pushing for 'big contributions'; do you really think referencing a two-line article, or learning how to use tags properly is 'big'? I am not against minor contributions; hells, I used to consider myself a wikignome. The problem is this; a wikignome fixes a minor error. You make an edit to an article, one that is most of the time improper, that does not fix that error when fixing said error would take ten seconds of your time. I am sick and tired of being accused of bias for taking any action not laced in chocolates and rainbows, but I'll be nice. Show me one piece of evidence that I am biased and I will drop the case. Ironholds (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You quoted a very good example, but all my errors are minor, that they cannot damage a page. In context of your example, my errors are similar to like driving car at slow speed, not parking at proper place, or talking to fellow pessengers while driving etc. You are just making a mountain out of mole. And if i am admitting my minor mistakes, you are treating me like an errorenous editor. I have done good editing on wikipedia and most of my edits are positive contributions. Check all my edits uptil now and tell me when i run over others??? Quality check 18:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually KP Botany's estimates of your edits say that around 95% of your contributions are incorrect. If we're using your example, then; parking incorrectly is frustrating to other drivers, against the rules in some areas and generally annoying. When confronted with the fact that you are parking incorrectly and frustrating people your reaction should not go from 'no, I'm not' to 'yes I am but i'll get better' to 'alright, i'm not better at the moment, but I will be'. If you refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem with your driving and drive incorrectly that much of the time then you should have your damn car taken away until you know the theory behind using it. Letting you keep it and drive around 'so you can get better' fails when you're getting better at such a slow pace that you still frustrate other drivers for a long period of time. Thanks for dodging my comment about my alleged 'bias', by the way; nice to know people have no problem throwing that word around willy-nilly. Ironholds (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Teji Bachchan

A tag has been placed on Teji Bachchan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Misplaced Pages guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DGG (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

She is the wife of a notable person, and the mother of another. that does not make her notable. I seem indeed to have neglected to save it after typing the speedy delete. I will do so now. Feel free to place a hangon and another admin will decide. DGG (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Interview GKainth.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Interview GKainth.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Good !

Good to see yourself creating village stub articles like Bhadson after yourself once artibarily tagging such articles for deletion earlier. Keep up the good work . I have improved your article a bit -- Tinu Cherian - 06:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for your edits. At that time i tagged your article, as i thought that these village stub articles created by you are very similar (almost an exact copy) to each other. And are just one liner mostly. You can say that I thought like a bot. But now, i understand that in long run these are really very useful for improving the scope of wikipedia.

Plz check that, references given in your articles are not working now.

You really deserve praise. Thank you for being here. Quality check 17:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

PigLatin (programming language)

Please don't remove speedy deletion tags from articles, as you did at PigLatin (programming language). More importantly, do not insert copyrighted material into Misplaced Pages. For more information, see Misplaced Pages:Copyrights. Thank you. faithless () 06:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of GloMoSim

A tag has been placed on GloMoSim, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. §FreeRangeFrog 05:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

GloMoSim

Per your request, I've restored the previously deleted article GloMoSim into your userspace.

While not a firm requirement, I would appreciate it if you would request that some other editors review the article for appropriateness before moving it to "article space". Failure to ensure that it is written in encyclopedic style may result in another administrator deleting it again, so it'd likely be in your best interests to do so.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. I apologize for the amount of time it took me to respond to your request. :) Kylu (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)