Username Mato on hr wiki is free, please be fast as you have not given your username for hr wiki so I could finish the process. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Mato (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mato. I'm sorry for the very late reply but I've been busy. I've renamed you on eswikibooks as requested. If there's any problem, please poke me there or at meta where I'm more active. Regards, --m:dferg 18:58, 08 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you! Mato (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mato. You have new messages at OlYeller21's talk page.
Message added 18:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OlYeller^Talktome 18:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

How do I keep my edits from being deleted when the information you keep reverting too is biased, negative, and misleading, whereas what I'm trying to add is true and accurate information?AndreaEstar (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The information you have been removing is well sourced, with references. You are adding information without clear, inline references, most of which appears to be based upon personal knowledge. If you have read WP:COI (which I have linked you to twice), you will see that Wikipedia strongly discourages people who have a close connection with the article's subject from editing the article, as your edits are prone to bias. Instead, you should voice your opinion on the article's talk page, Talk:Jonathan Wright (physician), so that editors in a neutral standing can assess your proposed changes. I hope this helps. Mato (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mato. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of McBee Presbyterian Church, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Author has not requested deletion, or other users have added substantial content. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Author requested deletion here. Mato (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

How does removing someone else's G11 template and a malformatted infobox constitute the "author request[ing] deletion?" Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't scroll down far enough, I thought the author had blanked the page. My bad. Mato (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

why are you taking off the images of sofia hayat i put up?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.25.172 (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The images of Sofia Hayat you uploaded provided no detailed explanation proving that the image was a free-to-use image (and therefore no rights are reserved). The other image on the article is a free image. If the image you uploaded is a free image (and you can prove it), then follow the instructions I left here in the red box to prove that the image is a free image. I hope this explains - please message me back if you have further questions. Mato (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, please don't remove the free image from the article - there is no reason to do so. Mato (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The image you are using is not a very nice one and does not represent her as an actor. She does not like it. Please can we cooperate on this matter.

Ok, please remember the following:

1. This is an encyclopedia. We don't tailor the contents of our articles to personal preference.

2. As far as I'm aware, the picture I added is the only free image available, and will be used, unless another free image is found (and proven to be free).

3. If you have any connections with Sofia Hayat, you are strongly discouraged from editing her page: see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Unfortunately, Sofia's (or your) preference over which image should be used has no authority on Wikipedia. The users of Wikipedia will decide which image is best to use (out of a selection of free images). At the moment there is only one free image available, so it will be used. I will restore it now, please do not remove it again without discussing further. Mato (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I have covered Sofia a couple of times, and I have more images of her's, let me find it and I'll release it under free license, I hope that resolves the issue of this representative dude. Besides, Mato, I removed the 'year of birth missing' category from Sofia Hayat page, am I right there? Please guide me on that, thanks. Fanofbollywood (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your photographs. We will use whatever free images we have - obviously having a choice is better than just having one, so if we end up with a choice of free images then we (Wikipedia) can choose as a community. Removing the birth date category was the right thing to do, but we'll try and find a reference for her date of birth if possible. Mato (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made a start trying to re-organise the article, but the more important focus should be getting as many sources and in-line citations as possible - that way we can get rid of the sources tag I've added to the top of the article. Mato (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, that guy should have his rollback removed from him. i read on here you cant use it unless its vandalism otherwise it will be taken away by an admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.135.91 (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You are right that rollback should only be used in instances of vandalism. The editor in question made a mistake in identifying your edits as vandalism - everybody makes mistakes, but if they become frequent then rollback rights can be revoked. Mato (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Come on dude. This was just one misconception. Even admin's make mistakes! BTW... I have already apologised to the IP regarding my misconception. GaneshBhakt (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Re. Scottish Goalies stub, mistakingly thought it was a category — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.167.196 (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Mato (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove my external links (gringoguidetravel.com/peru/paracas and gringoguidetravel.com/costa-rica/nicoya-peninsula, respectively) to the Paracas Bay and Nicoya entries? Both contain information and photos at greater depth and comparable quality to the wikipedia entries. Also, Wikipedia's Paracas entries are poorly organized. There is no mention of the town of Paracas, though (aside from the national park) this is probably the most common thing people are looking for when googling the term "Paracas".

EduardoCachua (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed your gringo guide travel links from all articles - these were your only edits and hence it appeared promotional. Some other Wikipedia editors reverted your additions as they didn't add much to the article and I finished the job, but didn't look at the Paracas Bay page so didn't notice there were no other links. I have restored the link. On more elaborate articles, your links are unlikely to be needed. Mato (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I put up a new image and you deleted it, we can carry on playing this game, you obviosly have a credit with that photo, why wont you leave the nicer one up, she looks better in it and its a better reference..same page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.25.172 (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

When did you put the new one up? Today you've made three edits to the page:

1. You removed the current image ([1])

2. You undid your own edit above, re-adding the original image ([2])

3. You removed the image again ([3])

4. (another user re-added the original image) ([4])

So you haven't added any new images to the article today. Regarding adding a new image, I believe you are in contact with OTRS team about having the permissions to this photo and offering it under a free license, but until you confirm all this with them, the current picture will stay as it's the only free image we have. Mato (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

YOU OBVIOUSLY OWN THE RIGHTS TO THAT PICTURE, YOU DO NOT OWN WIKIPEDIA, WHY ARE YOU BULLYING, ME!! WHY CAN YOU NOT WORK WITH ME? I DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR RUDE WAYS. THE IMAGE IS LISCENCED IT IS AVAILABLE TO USE. WHY CAN YOU NOT LEAVE IT UP THERE. DID YOU TAKE THAT IMAGE, IS THAT WHY YOU WANT IT UP THERE, WHY ARE YOU SO OBSESSED WITH IT, YOU DO NOT RULE WIKIPEDIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiahayatfanclub (talk • contribs) 11:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we work together on this or not. The image has a lisence..its on the link that was provide..so why can we not just leave that image up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiahayatfanclub (talk • contribs) 11:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I also put up a nicer image from the same site filmitadka and you took it down, why this hitler approach..why wont you work with people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiahayatfanclub (talk • contribs) 11:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.filmitadka.in/celebrities/sofia-hayat/sofia-hayat-hot-5225.html

does this have a liscence, yes because its from the same site and yet it was removed by you why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiahayatfanclub (talk • contribs) 11:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If you could refrain from attacking me with false claims I think we can work together, yes. I know I don't rule Wikipedia. There are just some (very simple) rules we have to follow with images - they're not hard to understand! I'll try and explain them one more time:

1. Photographs of living people have to be released under a free license. This means that the person who owns the rights to the photo gives up (most) of the rights. The person who uploads the free picture to Wikipedia (you) has to prove that the photo has been released under a free license. You do this by sending an email to OTRS. I believe you have done this already, but it has not yet been confirmed by OTRS that you released it under a free license.

2. I don't have any affiliation with the current image. I agree with you, it's not the most flattering photograph. I also agree with you that the ones you proposing we use are better. But we can't use them until we have proof that they have been released under a free license. Again, this has to be done via email with OTRS. OTRS will update the image page once they are satisfied that there is enough proof.

I hope you are somewhat more satisfied with my answers - once you have proven the images are free to use, I have no hesitation in using them, but I will always ask that pictures without proof are removed, because it goes against Wikipedia's rules. Just so you know, I can't actually remove pictures, I'm not an admin - all I do is let the admins know of my concerns, the admins then delete the image if they think I have a fair point. Mato (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mato, Why didn't you accept my article on financial management. I am Masters in Banking and Finance and i have written what is relevant to financial management. My points were very valid. and your definition is not relevant to the subject,i beg your pardon. but i can't change your definition only because you are the authority. This is not fair. You have made an argument that my material was little and poorly written. What about your material is it sufficient enough to describe even the theme of the subject? if you criticize on someone than be ready for their reply. I can't do anything just because

and

your definition of financial management is "Financial management may refer to: Managerial finance, a branch of finance that concerns itself with the managerial significance of finance techniques. Corporate finance, a type of finance dealing with monetary decisions that business enterprises make and the tools and analysis used to make these decisions."

Hi there. Sorry to upset you by this - let me explain. Before you edited the page, it acted as a redirect to the articles Managerial finance and Corporate finance. You then appeared to decide that the term Financial management deserved an article of its own. Upon reading through your version of the article I decided (in my opinion) that Wikipedia probably didn't need an article solely on "Financial management". I based this upon a few reasons, roughly consisting of:

1. There were no references on the page

2. Information was poorly laid out and disorganised

3. The style of writing was not encyclopaedic, for example, questions were asked within the article

I therefore decided the article didn't meet Wikipedia's standards (I am often of the opinion that 'no article' is better than 'a bad article') and so decided to nominate it for deletion. Anyone can nominate an article for deletion on Wikipedia if they read the guide here and file the request correctly. I have no special privilege or 'authority' here - I am just another editor. Those who have commented so for at the articles nomination deletion have agreed that the page should remain, as it was, before you edited it. You are more than welcome to comment in the discussion, or to open a discussion on the article's talk page, giving reasons why you think the term "Financial management" deserves it's own article - you would need to make sure that the information you wish to add is unique to Wikipedia (i.e. not covered in the other finance-related articles) and can be fully backed up by external sources. I hope this explains things further - feel free to get back to me if you have further questions. Mato (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but then I also uploaded an image from the same site with the same license, why was that removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.25.172 (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right, that image was a free image, but there was no proof of its license linked by the uploader. It is the uploader's responsibility to prove the file is free. Hundreds of copyright violations are uploaded everyday and neither copyright taggers like me nor admins have the time to search each website for the license info. If proof of the free license is clearly linked by the uploader, I can assure you that I (or anyone else) will not suggest that it be speedy deleted as a copyright violation. Again, I'm here to help, I'm not here to stop people uploading anything to Wikipedia, just to make sure copyright is respected. Mato (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Please can you help me put this image for the page Sofia hayat, I would really appreciate your expert help, as you have shown I am a complete novice. As you are aware this image is under the same liscence ofthe image you keep putting up, so please can you put this one up. I really appreciate it. Thankyou so much. http://www.filmitadka.in/celebrities/sofia-hayat/sofia-hayat-hot-5225.html THIS IS THE LISCENCE THAT YOU ASK FOR http://www.filmitadka.in/static/filmitadka-creative-commons-attribution-share-alike-license.html AUTHOR FILMI TADKA What do I have to do to get this on wikipedia, can you do this for me please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.27.6 (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am always happy to help, but upon closer inspection, I'm sorry to say the license says as follows:

All photographs from FilmiTadka http://www.filmitadka.in/page3-parties.html...are available freely under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license.

The license therefore only covers photographs in the specified link, the "Page3 Parties" album, which the image you linked is not. This image therefore appears to be non-free. Sorry. Mato (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

hi :) I'm new to this signing into wikipedia and changing information. Somehow, whenever I change Scotty McCreery's and Lauren Alaina's profile just a tad, it keeps on disappearing! And then a few messages said that I'm not supposed to change their profiles or something..... i have no clue what's happening! Can you please explain? And the changes I made was saying that Scotty and lauren are Christians which is true (definately true) and that scotty goes to the First Baptist church in Garner, North Carolina. You see, know where on wikipedia says that he is a christian, and it is obvious to all the God is a part of his daily life and that God was the one that brought him this far. Please reply :) thanks so much for the help! God bless you and have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22046024769264ev (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please make sure that all info on living persons' articles meets our biographies of living persons policy.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello there. As Jasper has said both above and on your user talk page, when editing pages about people, especially living people, it is important that all additions are supported with references, proving the claims. If you are noting that someone is a Christian, it is important to say how you know this - and your source must be reliable! I hope this explains why your edits were reverted - feel free to ask any further questions. Mato (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks! Yes, I do have references in saying that because I can give links where Scotty Mccreery HIMSELF is saying that he is a Christian and why he believes, etc. But where do i write down the links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22046024769264ev (talk • contribs) 21:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. The simplest way to write down the link is to put the following code directly after the sentence you are referencing:

<ref>http://yourlink.com</ref>

For example:

Person A has stated that he is a practising Christian.<ref>http://person-a-confirms-he-is-christian.com</ref>

It would be even better to place a description directly after the URL (with a space separating them), for example:

Person A has stated that he is a practising Christian.<ref>http://abc.com/12434523 Person A's interview with ABC</ref>

The reference will then appear in the 'References' section at the bottom of the article. I have left you an example of how this would look here. I hope this explains things clearly enough! Further explanations of referencing can be found at WP:CITE. Mato (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

thank you! I figured it out! Thank you so much and may God bless yoU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22046024769264ev (talk • contribs) 17:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to message me again if you have further questions :) Mato (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)