Archives

1, 2, 3

Thank you for your explanation - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_PDF_software&type=revision&diff=893094399&oldid=893092012 .

I will create pages for software included in Techradars's TOP5.

2A00:1FA0:4893:8782:5549:1DEE:4526:D1D4 (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ready - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DocuFreezer

If it's OK, than I will make other articles for TOP5

Thanks

2A00:1FA0:4893:8782:FCD0:B9B5:572E:EBD8 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may be OK as a stub, even though it's debatable. Please do not add external links to the article directly, use references instead. Also, make sure the articles meet WP:N, WP:NPOV and WP:V. In particular, the General notability guideline says that a notable topic has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Significant coverage means the source addresses the topic directly and in detail. While articles like "Top 5 lists" may not meet this condition, they cover it only briefly. "Multiple" obviously means that the topic should be covered (directly and in detail) by multiple reliable sources (more than one). As for websites, a reliable source means a reputable website with editorial oversight. Ghacks says it is "a technology news blog that was founded in 2005 by Martin Brinkmann". And it is indeed basically a one-man blog. Personal blogs are generally not considered acceptable sources on Wikipedia. So, now you have one acceptable source that does not really address the topic in great detail. Which is not sufficient. So in general, when you create a new article, you really need multiple serious, reputable sources that cover the topic in detail. If they don't exist, the topic should not have its article on Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, how do you know that the "Top 5 list" is ordered by quality? That is, how do you know that being listed as "No. 1" on the list means it is better than No. 2, 3, 4 and 5? The TechRadar articles do not suggest that the numbers actually mean anything (other than, well, numbers in the list), so saying that the software is "recognized by TechRadar as №1 in TOP5" is misleading. The "№1" and "№3" claims should be removed from the article.—J. M. (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a detailed explanation. I’ve noticed that you fixed the article - thank you for that as well.

Yes, you are right - indeed Ghacks in a "one man show". Very popular (ALEXA rank 11,964) but "one man”.

Also, it's a very good point that there is no reason to think that top 5 list is actually sorted by quality. So I replaced "recognized as" by "included in".

I've found a review of this software in Techadvisor. It's a former computer magazine "PC Advisor", and has "editorial oversight". And this review is dedicated exclusively to this software. I think it might be a good source of this article.

I also added information into Infobox section.2A00:1FA0:48C6:418E:D9A1:CFDD:C8E9:3A2E (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Advisor indeed looks like a serious source. Just try to include the reference in a more natural way in the article (as a citation), not just as a link in the External links section. As the External links guideline explains, links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. They should usually only include things such as the official website. No reviews, download sites etc. in the External links section.—J. M. (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found 7-zip article and use it for inspiration. 213.87.151.153 (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The transcoding entry is full of wrong use of the term. Transcoding is the real time changing of a video codec. That's it. Everything else in the article being described as transcoding is actually just encoding or format changes. That is different from transcoding.

The entire entry needs to be fixed because it's simply incorrect and full of misinformation and the use of incorrect terminology D0x (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@D0x: No, the article is correct. Your definition "The real time changing of a video codec" does not make any sense at all. The definition of the word "transcode" is "Convert (language or information) from one form of coded representation to another". I strongly suggest you read at least the video codec, video coding format, and Digital container format articles to understand these basic terms, as you obviously confuse their meanings (you don't change codecs while transcoding, you change the coding format—and not only the video format, you can change the audio format or other formats, too). Furthermore, I can't see why transcoding has to be done in real time.—J. M. (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message regarding Tsitsipas. I don't have a reliable source. I only have a source telling that he is an Arvanite (Arvanites are an Albanian tribe that moved to southern Greece some 600 years ago), and that his surname is an Albanian word (probably: cicipas) meaning surface, peel. I know neither Albanian, nor Greek, so I can't tell, except that "Cici" is indeed an Albanian surname.

OK, I'll start the discussion then. As you were already talking about, I understand that video for DVDs doesn't have to be stored on a DVD itself, as of course it must be set up before being burned or pressed into one. But "DVD disc" is still a redundancy and removing that redundancy is an improvement. At the very least, if you two insist that "DVD disc" is supposedly "better" than just "disc," even though you just got done saying that kind of media doesn't matter, and even the article already said "or other media," then the least we should do is remove the word "disc" and just say "DVD," if that's so "important."

But why worry about what kind of disc it's on if you just said it doesn't have to be on a DVD, and if the article also already said "or other media"?

Either way, let's at least get rid of the redundancy, and since you insist that the way I was doing it -- changing "DVD disc" to just "disc" even after it followed "DVD-video," and even though the article already said, right after that, "or other media" -- is somehow "bad" despite the article's already having said "or other media," let's try removing the error another way. Rather than changing "DVD disc" to just "disc," I'll change it to just "DVD," since that's so "important." Is that a fine enough compromise?

As well, adding "another type of..." just before "storage media" is an improvement because (and you should already know this) DVDs are storage media too, so without that it's like saying they're not, which of course is false.

See me on the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.193.218 (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I added something there on that talk page. Are you watching that? Thanks for your discussion so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.193.218 (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on the talk page.—J. M. (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J. M., sorry if my edits have unintentionally appeared as spam, but I never edited the - * Track your Munro progress and keep your friends up to date. * link. I kept that the same and left it as it was as I couldn't add anything to it as I don't know anything about that website.

I also had to edit the four locations to have the correct links to them as a Wikipedia DPL bot sent me a notification to do so via the Dab solver. I will need to edit that with the proper links without classing it as a minor edit.

My main concern was that I had to edit a vast number of Munro pages as the facts and figures on the information regarding Munros were years out of date with incorrect information.

I hope this clears things up.

TheGlasgaeJimmy (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the edits now corrected J. M. thanks for the help.

TheGlasgaeJimmy (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J.M. - hope I'm replying to your message in the right place, very new to wikipedia edits. You say my post about the windows 10 time limit needs a 'reliable source'.

How does one add new information where a source can't be found?

I've googled extensively and not found mention of this limitation. In fact the only mention is in this very wikipedia article saying "The Sound Recorder in Windows Vista and later uses the hard disk for recording audio and can therefore record audio up to any length as long as there is free space on the hard disk drive" from a 2009 reference but this is patently no longer true. I've run voice recorder on around 25 windows 10 machines now (pro and home editions, domain and non-domain joined machines), they all terminate the recording at 3 hours and ask the user to start another one. Do you have access to a windows 10 machine, if so try it yourself and see, set it recording and just wait 3 hours.

My intention was to stop others falling in to this misinformation trap with voice recorder, since there appears to be no other mention online. I had made voice recorder available to staff for some months to record company meetings to assist the secretary with the writing up of the meeting minutes later. Usually it gets stopped during the breaks but this day it wasn't and so hit this inbuilt time limit unnoticed. Some unhappy staff following that!

Is there any way forward for my issues edit with the above scenario?

Should I just post the above explanation to the 'talk' page of 'Voice Recorder' so at least others may see it discussed if they are searching?

Regards, Bryce. Bgs999 (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgs999: Hi. Unfortunately, I cannot find anything about the alleged time limit either (and for example one of the Microsoft Community moderators says there is no limit). I'm not on Windows 10 so I can't try it right now, but the problem is that Wikipedia needs verifiable information, that is, information that comes from a reliable source. So even if my test confirmed the time limit, it would still be original research. Yes, you can ask on the talk page, but please keep in mind that article talk pages are not discussion forums, they "exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article". So you can ask about the time limit, but until someone finds a reliable source, I'm afraid the information cannot be added to the article.—J. M. (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello J.M.! In regards to the change I made to Streaming Television, I noticed that the citation for YoutubeTV was YoutubeTV's website, so I applied the same logic when adding the fuboTV citation. Would you mind explaining the difference so that I can cite correctly going forward?

As I read through the History section, I noticed that it was not ordered chronologically, and decided to update the information to flow in such a manner (history did occur chronologically, after all!). It appears that is still intact. However, I added fuboTV as it was the only major live tv streaming service not mentioned. It looks like that has been removed entirely, can you help me understand why, other than the incorrect citation? Thank you, Jhb244 (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation by MrOllie was "no independent references" and I agree with it. The citation was not a citation, just a useless link to the fuboTV home page with nothing but a login form. Citations on Wikipedia directly support the information in the article. And independent, third-party reliable sources are preferred on Wikipedia, as primary sources can have a conflict of interest and tend to be self-serving. Primary sources (in this case, a company writing about itself) can only be used when they present neutral, basic facts. But please never make an edit like this again—when you reshuffle content in an article, and sneak in a useless commercial link in the same edit, it looks dangerously close to spamming, and you should not be surprised when it's treated as such.—J. M. (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

? --D-Kuru (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think my edit summaries and the big warning on the page are self-explanatory. Please do not ignore the big "Attention editors" warnings that show up when you are editing pages on Wikipedia. In this case, please do not add red links to lists that only include links to existing articles (the big warning on the page says "Attention editors: To be included in this list, the software package must be notable, which means it must have an article written first. Redlinks or entries not linked to an article will be removed."). And disambiguation pages list links to existing articles, too, so please do not add red links to disambiguation pages either.—J. M. (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HI, Thank you for your message. I have information about "List of Bengali-language television channels" page. I update this information time to time.I starting update this information part by part. So, Last night i am going to list channel name. Very soon i update more information.

emon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md Moniruzzaman Emon (talk • contribs) 12:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU FOR INFORMING ME. PLEASE CAN YOU ADD TWO CHANNEL 1. Nagorik TV 2. Ananda TV WITHOUT RED MARK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md Moniruzzaman Emon (talk • contribs) 16:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Md Moniruzzaman Emon: The channels do not have their own articles on Wikipedia, that's why the links are red. As the big warning on the page explains, the list only contains links to existing articles on Wikipedia, it cannot contain stations that do not have their own article.—J. M. (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your last edit about MP3 player. I provided three reliable, independent sources stating Tomislav Uzelac is inventor of MP3, I can and will provide more if needed. If you have reasons and proofs to undo my edit again, please discuss on talk page before claiming I do disruptive edits when all are reliably sourced. Thank you. --Sheldonium (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it explained numerous time and why is total nonsense if official source states he was inventor? Please explain. --Sheldonium (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so fast at warnings and threatening to block me when I provided sources and you deleted them without explanation. --Sheldonium (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has been edit warring in the article for years (and received a couple of blocks for it), you surely know why I reverted it—and even if you wouldn't, the archives are available. I won't repeat it here for the 100th time. If you add it again, I will ask for an indefinite block for you.—J. M. (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey J.M., I'm really really sorry for causing all that disruptive editing on the Edward Glen article. I'm just not use to seeing celebrities birth dates info getting deleted and that was why I kept on restoring it over and over again, I just like seeing articles and infoboxes just the way they are. But now after those notice messages you left me on my talk pages, I will try my hardest not to restore it again, I don't wanna let this editing back and fourth issue get worse between us, because you already took this to the "Request of Protection" page. Please forgive me. 174.242.65.20 (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's good to hear. By the way, while regular articles on Wikipedia can include unsourced information (which can be tagged with the "Citation needed" template and removed later if it stays unsourced for some time), biographies of living persons are very strict about verifiability. If there is some contentious, questionable information in BLP articles that is unsourced, it should be unconditionally removed right away, without discussion. So when the page protection expires, you are welcome to add the birth date—but only if you can find a reliable source. IMDb is generally not a reliable source, as it is user-generated (like Wikipedia), and it used to say his birth date was 1953 ([3]), while it now says 1966 ([4]), and who knows who changed it and why. So what we really need is an authoritative, definite source. Or, even better, multiple reliable sources.—J. M. (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, plus I already took it to the talk page just now. 2600:1000:B045:DD9:B5D8:5934:DB5F:382C (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize to this guy. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well i want to know you better!! I amnjew in here n it's my first time in here so can you welcome me warmly? Madikane (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look: I am updating ALL the player's data (prize money, rankings, best ranking etc) and you and other users are undoing EVERYTHING I did just because of this strange and tangled "rule" that you all invented out of nowhere, which for me is exaggerated, complex and without sense. When I update the ranking of 500 players, I don’t have TIME to keep checking this useless preciousness of "when the player got the ranking". For the love of God, this just delays my work. There are player files that are out of date for ONE YEAR and you undid my edition because of this bullshit. Honestly, the wrong thing here is not me. 2804:14D:5C83:81A0:0:0:0:2 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rule actually makes sense. If you think that doing things properly "delays your work" and you do not want to follow guidelines accepted by the Wikipedia community, may I suggest you refrain from editing Wikipedia?—J. M. (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understand that it's impossible to "check" this "rule", because all of you are saying that a player has been in the same ranking for months and is reversing me for that. The ranking changes all the time, a player may have left the n.8 of the world and come back after weeks or months, that doesn't mean that he was in the same ranking all these months (which is what you are saying, with this rule), so this rule is TOTALLY CRAZY.2804:14D:5C83:81A0:0:0:0:2 (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. I already explained to you how to check the ranking history on your talk page. Again, look at the official ATP players' profiles. For example, go to the official ATP profile for Matteo Berrettini and click on the "Rankings History" tab. That's all there is to it. A single mouse click.—J. M. (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the definition of Help:Minor edit. I thought items of a long list were considered minor. Will know, regards. Xerti (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EWLwiki (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Thank you for reminding me. I was not aware of Minor Edit definition. User:EWLWiki EWLwiki (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC) December 27, 2020[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I have been reviewing how to properly edit pages and I guess hadn't yet gotten to this. I assumed (wrongfully) that this would be a minor edit. I will take this into account in future edits(StrohDa (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Hey, I did edit deadlink with appropriate source link with https://www.milesweb.in/blog/website-design/complete-guide-to-dynamic-programming-language/

What went wrong, can you elaborate?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahapravin (talk • contribs) 9:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Three things. Wikipedia should not use e-commerce websites as references. Spamming is not allowed here. Second, it is not a reliable source. And third, the linked article has nothing to do with the associated content, that is, the "Real Native Application File". Replacing a dead link with an irrelevant link is not an improvement.—J. M. (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, for the MP3 Player article, should there maybe be a new section for software players? As both Hardware and software players are termed “MP3 Players”? Thanks, OyMosby (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OyMosby: No, the article only covers hardware players. That has always been its sole purpose. Software MP3 implementations are covered in other articles on Wikipedia. Generally, software audio players are very rarely, if ever, called "MP3 players". In fact, MP3 player should probably be merged to Portable media player, which covers the topic in more detail.

Furthermore, please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia. Your edit was a verbatim copy from the source, which is strictly forbidden (unless the source is explicitly licensed under a compatible license). Contributors who post copyrighted material may be blocked from editing. Besides, this website should not be used as a source in technical articles. Articles on the website are not written by experts who really understand what they are writing about (and it's very clear from the text that the author is indeed clueless—using terms like "invented" the software MP3 player etc.) The website cannot be considered a reliable source in any sensitive, technical area. You can see more details on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.—J. M. (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I’ve seen the AMP program described as an “MP3 Player” also was wondering why software was not mentioned on the page. However the Software page seems more like a list rather than an article so not sure how to tie it in.... As for copyright I’m a bit confused. As editors in the past have told me not to modify wording from a source but to preserve it when bringing it into an article.OyMosby (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may only use brief quotations from copyrighted sources, that is, very short excerpts from the original text included in quotation marks and/or blockquote tags, with inline citations following the quote. See WP:NFC, MOS:QUOTE and WP:QUOTE. Apart from that, copying text from other websites (unless the text is licensed under a compatible license) is strictly forbidden and, if repeated, will surely lead to an indefinite block. Wikipedia takes this extremely seriously.

As for software audio players—some very old (1990s) audio players could only play MP3 plus maybe some other basic formats (like PCM WAV), and some people may have called them MP3 players, as MP3 was basically the only viable option at that time. This is certainly not true today, and nobody calls software media players or media centers (which can not only play files in a huge number of audio and video formats, but typically manage the user's collection as well) "MP3 players" anymore. Of course, calling a hardware music player an "MP3 player" is not accurate either, but the name stuck for a while in the 2000s for those hardware devices, as MP3 was still the most popular option at that time. Of course the name is not meaningful nowadays for either a software or a hardware player, and the Portable media player article reflects that. Anyway, the MP3 player article has always, from the very beginning, been solely about hardware devices. Software is beyond its scope. There are many other, software-related articles on Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into pointness arguments and edit wars, but some folks are still lamenting if Wawrinka was not exhausted from the 5 setter semi-final with Murray, who knows what happened?

You are gonna argue that his 2014 win over Nadal was because of Nadal's injury. But for many, the first 2 sets + look nothing wrong to many people, and it affected only his serve *after* that, and not his topspin FH anyway. AO WAS high bouncing in 2014 too, but it did not seem to affect Wawrinka.

So what gives?

Bottom line: the unforced errors of Wawrinka's BH in these 2 matches was not even high. So your point of Nadal always trashed Wawrinka's BH is unfounded. Try do a tally, and you will see you are biased against Wawrinka for no good reason.

The BH stroke similarity between Wawrinka and Thiem was long established by many folks as the same "open chest" school on online discussion forums. Because before these two guys, not many players were doing the same thing. Guga may do this every now and then, but not often.

The trivial "straight arm" or not difference was not even critical to the stroke production, if you study their bio-mechanics.

As much as you are a big Thiem fan, you should acknowledge that without Wawrinka, Thiem may probably hit like a straight-armed Federer without opening up the chest to allow for a complete powerful follow-through as he is doing now.

So at least give Wawrinka credit for reviving the 1HBH without all 1HBH guys all become Fed fan boys. Stop trash talking against Wawrinka's BH technique.

I still don't understand whats your deal, if you learned Thiem's BH, you must appreciate Wawrinka as a pioneer who revived 1HBH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.135.201 (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Open is not played on a high bouncing surface (not now, not even in 2014). It is the second lowest bouncing grandslam after Wimbledon ("Australian Open has been played on a Plexicushion since 2008, a medium-paced hard court with lower bounce and less spin than the US Open"[5]—they switched to GreenSet in 2020, but that is rather low-bouncing, too). That's why Nadal is not so successful there. One-handers do not have such a hard time playing against him at the AO and it was a big part of the reason why Wawrinka (and Federer in 2017) won the match. Wawrinka's backhand was visibly troubled by the height of the bounce in the 2017 FO final. Court Philippe Chatrier is one of the highest-bouncing courts in the world (if not the highest-bouncing), and very few players (one handers and two handers) can deal with it successfully at the FO. In fact, Thiem has won only one set against Nadal during his whole career at the French Open, even though he can repeatedly beat him at other, less extreme courts.

While there are similarities between their backhands (there are similarities between Wawrinka's and Federer's backhands, too, but nobody really says they're similar), there are big differences, too (Wawrinka's backhand is much more "classic", old-school backhand), their cross-court backhands in particular are very different. Both are unique, stand on their own and hardly stand comparison. Nobody plays backhand like Thiem.

I won't reply to the rest of your post, as it has very little to do with reality (I have nothing against Wawrinka, I am not interested in any fan talk, trash talk or anything like that) and it is off topic here, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Thanks for understanding.—J. M. (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info re: AO surface 2014. I did think that it was still RebounceAce. My bad.

Then again, according to your logic: every player is unique and hence incomparable.

Just an FYI: Many articles, printed or online about Wawrinka, attempted to point out his BH technique is DIFFERENT from the the classic old school ones like Federer's. (and hence all the hoola and hypes for Stan's BH) Check them out when you have a chance :)

Shalom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.135.201 (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe constatus is an appropriate link under the "See also"-section. It has great overlap with motion and zoneminder. I would say; if constatus does not apply, then neither do zoneminder nor motion. Flok 21:18, 7 June 2020 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flok (talk • contribs)

@Flok: Please do not ignore things that have already been written. I already pointed you to MOS:SEEALSO and WP:EL. It is a waste of time for everyone. The only purpose of the See also section is listing related Wikipedia articles. No external links. I also recommend reading WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Please do not link to your own websites on Wikipedia. Thanks. P.S. You have been editing Wikipedia since 2006. You should at least know how to sign your posts on talk pages.—J. M. (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q and A for the following:

Saw this- 13:40, 2 October 2020‎ J. M. talk contribs‎ 26,945 bytes -117‎ Undid revision 981463657 by Thedued (talk): copied verbatim from Wiktionary, not adjusted in any way to fit the encyclopedic article (wording or formatting)

Considering most Dictionaries will display the same, Now I'm Highly curious as to How!!!?????????

How can The etymology be adjusted to fit the Article?

Thedued (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Thedued (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Confused........ As I've seen it thus far on Wikipedia that's what the etymology section looks like. So I copied what I saw.

Is it bad editing I'm not a book Editor so I have no clue!??? If you or if you know someone who could fix it that would be Awesmeo! 14:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Thedued (talk)

Please note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Your edit did not consider that Video is an article, not a dictionary entry (an article, among other things, uses sentences to explain things). Your edit did not even take into account the fact that the article has separate sections, and started the section with the word "Video" as a separate line, forming a redundant pseudo heading. You simply copied and pasted the whole Video entry from Wiktionary, including the formatting, unchanged. That's not how we work on Wikipedia. Wiktionary is not Wikipedia, the two projects have different goals and styles. You cannot just copy something somewhere, paste it randomly somewhere else and be done with it. Next time, please put at least some minimum effort into your edits. Always read what precedes and follows your addition and put your edit seamlessly into the context of the article. You may want to check Help:Getting started to see how to contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks.—J. M. (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above entry-talk is missing some wiki code. If so please forgive me. Thedued (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Thedued (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Thedued (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! Information noted!

btw Learned to bake yesterdy here have a cookie

Thedued (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is, without a newsartical or official statement on their distribution sites, I can't make an edit. Even if the email is clearly made from a developer working for this company. I doubt that a screenshot can not be envidence enough for a summary change. The current page states "it leaves the question whether Fraps has been abandoned." Which is false in this case, because a new version has been announced by request via email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheey (talk • contribs) 15:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. A screenshot of an e-mail posted on Imgur is definitely not an acceptable source on Wikipedia. In fact, it cannot be used as a proof anywhere at all, and just having a discussion about this is absurd.—J. M. (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DTR - discussion should take place on the talk page where I will add the source. It is not contentious material Lightburst (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: No. First of all, I did not template you, so WP:DTR is completely irrelevant. Secondly, you are clearly unfamiliar with the most basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so even a template would have been appropriate. Please read WP:BLP and WP:BRD. When you add something, you have to be able to provide a source, and when someone removes the unsourced information, you just cannot add it back without providing any source. A quote from WP:V: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material".—J. M. (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk page Lightburst (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I warned a user for making a personal attack here. As you've been warning this user for other issues, I'm letting you know. Cheers. BilCat (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the warning and the information. I can see the user has removed your warning, too. You see, it's not the personal attack that I'm most concerned about, it's the general attitude of ignoring everything and everyone. But this is a very common problem.—J. M. (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the heads-up that I was using the "Minor Edit" tag wrong. Best Regards. WhoNeedsUsernames (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you revert a new editor who has taken the trouble to register rather than edit as an IP such as you did here [6] when they give signs of being a young editor, could you also add a welcome message to their talk page? I have done so on this occasion.SovalValtos (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the welcome message. I wasn't sure about this particular edit and editor at all (that's why I didn't use any specific edit summary either). It looked like silly vandalism to me (and there are indeed thousands of silly vandals on Wikipedia who take the trouble to register rather than edit as an IP), but yes, it could also have been a genuine effort by an inexperienced, very young editor…—J. M. (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J. M.! I am so, so incredibly sorry for all of this confusion, it was not my intention! To clear thing up for you, I was in the midst of cleaning up the missing punctuation and spelling errors when my daughter threw up. It was probably then when I accidentally deleted a template, which I know is not something to do without addressing! In regards to the inaccurate edit summaries, that was my fault but with good intentions!! I made four edits to Maxim Baldry, and my third edit was making a new awards section. I accidentally published my edits without adding an edit summary, so I went and found a spelling error, and in that edit summary, said that I added an awards section. And lastly, my unsourced addition of the awards is completely my fault. I absolutely forgot, for some reason, to put a source even when it had been in my head the whole time I was making the section. Would it be okay if I went back, with your approval, and made those edits again properly, when my mind isn't thinking of my sick daughter :) !! Thanks so much for the warning :) Coreykai (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Yes, it's OK if you make the edits again if you provide a source. I hope your daughter is OK, too.—J. M. (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, and sorry for the confusion! Coreykai (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J. M.! I just wanted to let you know that I redid the edits to Maxim Baldry! It would be appreciated if you could go check them out and see if they are OK. I used proper edit summaries and referenced any new information I added. I saw that there was an unreferenced birth place, and I added it to his early life as well, but that can be a problem so if you'd like to remove that entire piece of information I would agree. Coreykai (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I already removed the unsourced information. The Biographies of living persons policy is very strict—unsourced, contentious information should be removed immediately, without discussion.—J. M. (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, I know! That's why I just wanted to inform you that the only information I added was the awards and nominations, which I sourced. I just felt the need to tell you this so you didn't think I was the one that added the unsourced information :) Coreykai (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EWLwiki (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Thank you for reminding me. I was not aware of Minor Edit definition. EWLwiki (talk) 8:27 pm, Today (UTC−6) December 27, 2020[reply]

Hi J. M.  You notified me that my edits are not minor, so as advised I checked the Wikipedia definition and I understand. Is there a way I can go through my edits and remove "minor edit", so that document owners are notified? or is there some other way?  --12think (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@12think: You cannot remove the "minor edit" tags. Just do not use them in the future if the edits are not minor (any edit that adds content to an article, even a single word, is major).—J. M. (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J. M.  Dated articles: Many articles I looked at or edited are very out of date, several with Talk comments dated 2008 without response or edits reflected in the article, the articles are useless to anyone who would go looking for them. Some of the articles need restructuring too. I would like to help to bring these articles up to date where I can, I would take care, can I message you to discuss changes that I intend to make when changes are large?  --12think (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the changes you make are uncontroversial (bringing the articles up to date, using reliable sources etc.) just be bold and go ahead. If you feel you have to consult someone, of course feel free to ask me or anyone else (for example, at Wikipedia:Teahouse)—J. M. (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J. M.  Advertising: Some of the articles I looked at also appear to have been edited for advertising purposes. Is it OK for me to fix these too? If this is allowed because they are financial donors to Wikipedia, then I guess it is OK, but should that be made clear?  --12think (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you see promotional content in articles, you can remove it or add one of the cleanup templates like Template:Advert.—J. M. (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J. M.  New article, I am volunteering to help add a Wikipedia article for Open Source Software (OSS) project; It is notable for being architecturally special and also used by ~100s of millions of people; However, most people who use it will not know it. OSS is not marketed like Intel, Microsoft or Google. Seasoned IT professionals will know what it is and will look for information on it, and it will sparkle interest for many. But for it's users, their eyes would glaze over, and it is not notable to them. Is it possible to work with you on this, I am aware that it has been turned down in the past due to notability.  --12think (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Wikipedia must meet the notability requirements. If you can find multiple reliable sources that cover the project in detail (no passing mentions, no download sites, press releases etc.), then you can create the article. But I can't help you if the project is not notable. Notability on Wikipedia does not mean the project is interesting, useful, architecturally special or even popular. The only thing that matters is significant coverage in reliable sources.—J. M. (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VVC content was translated from German wiki

There are many very fast useless deleters, and you are one of many.

You could have repaired YT dead link, just by changing:

Capital letter V to small letter v:

.com/watch?v=EwWhRqgxSAk

But useless deleters put only poor effort in writing if any.

Encoder (VVenC) und Decoder (VVdeC) are important step of official development.

End Linked software was Open Source.

You could have amend style, English is Global language so style can be very different.

Mentioning about broadcast in DVB-S2 is signal that codec is placed as next generation broadcast codec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.187.202.138 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J.M. I wanted to ask which links you removed from my edit of MultiMedia, I choose all of my citations carefully to support my edits. Also why were the edits themselves removed from the page, not just the links? MJV107 (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The citations were clear, unambiguous spam. The only purpose of the links, and the edit itself, was advertising, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, please do not try to fool me or anyone else with these messages about "carefully chosen" citations. I wasn't born yesterday and with 15+ years of experience with Wikipedia, I am immune to these tricks.—J. M. (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, my intent was not to advertise, I wanted to bring the use of multimedia by car companies in the form of game engines into light. How can I fix my edit so it is not considered biased/advertising. Should I find a different/another source? or just not use the links themselves, and only use a more general adaptations. This is my first wiki edit, and it is for a class, I have read the tutorial page, but could you give some advise? MJV107 (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ways to fix this. First, do not link to a commercial source advertising or selling a particular product. See Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Second, the edit itself should be about the general idea, not about a single commercial product. There is no reason why an edit that pretends to present a general idea, such as multimedia in cars, should in fact covertly focus on a single commercial product.—J. M. (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you, so if I were to remake the edit, and like you said be more general and without the direct links to one company or another would be ok? Naturally I would probably have to include the car company brands, since different companies are doing different things. Would this be accepted? MJV107 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if the edit itself is about multimedia in cars in general and not about Unity and its products, then yes, it should be acceptable. Different car brands can be mentioned if the information is somewhow relevant.—J. M. (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thanks, so would this "Multimedia is also allowing major car manufactures, such as BMW, Lexus, Honda, and Volvo to expand their design, and safety standards of their cars. Both Volvo, and BMW are using Game Engines to run simulations for their self-driving cars. By letting the AI in the car run thousands of simulations virtually, they can test, and hone their system with near infinite scenarios, all without endangering human life. Lexus, and Honda on the other hand are using multimedia to design cars virtually. The virtual environment allows the designers to change a cars design in real time, changing the shape or texture, without having to make a totally new car. Multimedia in car manufacturing saves time, and lowers cost." be accepted as an addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJV107 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If all of this, including the claims about expanding safety standards, lowering costs etc. is supported by reliable, neutral third-party sources which really cover this topic in general, not specifically Unity products, then yes, it should be.—J. M. (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J.M. I wanted to ask if you could take a look at the “Limitations” section of the Mega (service) page if you have some time to spare. The section criticizes my employer for relying exclusively on citations to our own website. @SacredGuy: said he wanted a different editor to decide. MichaelFriedberg (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Greetings from me As you are a very old Wikipedia editor , so it's a request please make a Wikipedia article for Abhishek Nigam. (I tried to make an article of him but couldn't do that)

Abhishek Nigam is an Indian Actor (born 13 September 1997) who works in Indian Telivision and Films. He is mostly known for his role in Panipat and Hero Gayab Mode On . He is currently seen as Veer / hero in Indian fantasy show Hero Gayab Mode On

Why am I telling you to make his Wikipedia article? = He is quite popular Indian Television Actor and has more than 1.6 million whooping followers in popular photo sharing app Instagram. But still he doesn't has any Wikipedia article . He is also the brother of popular Indian actor Siddharth Nigam.

How many films and shows has he done? Shows - Akbar Rakht Se Takht Ka Safar , Chandra Nandini , Hero - Gayab Mode On Films - India's Daughter , Panipat

And has done many music videos such as Tum bin, Sun Le Saathiya , Hasdi Reya Kar , etc.

So it's will be good of there's a Wikipedia article of his too. Famous Personalities should have an Wikipedia article so that people can know more about him. Kishmish Hu Main Ok (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for calling me very old. The Abhishek Nigam article is currently creation protected, because it has been repeatedly deleted and recreated. In particular, the deletion was discussed in February at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhishek Nigam. This means that you should not just try to recreate it again without proving that things have changed and he really deserves an article now—that is, you have to prove that he is notable. Notability on Wikipedia does not primarily mean the subject is popular, that he has many Instagram followers or that his brother is famous, for example. The general principle is always this: a notable topic has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are also additional criteria for biographies of living persons, which you can find in Wikipedia:Notability (people). For actors, this means that they had significant roles in multiple notable films, TV shows etc. "Significant roles" does not mean he just appeared in them, and "notable" films or shows means the films or shows themselves are notable. So if you can provide reliable, independent sources that demonstrate notability, you can try to improve Draft:Abhishek Nigam first, and then ask for feedback from experienced editors. If the feedback is positive, the draft can be later moved to mainspace. As you can see, the draft submission was declined, too, because the references do not establish notability. You should always try to achieve consensus first when you try to create a repeatedly deleted article. In this case, you have to address the reason why the draft was declined.—J. M. (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JM ,

it looks wiki pretends that all pages are created here (esp celebs/movies/brands etc) out off goodwill and not by dedicated PR agencies. Now my promoting MG as academic is that he is already widely cited across wiki without my contributions. As world leading expert, faculty and PI on several NASA missions, the educational content he is creating is meant for masses to clarify concepts that otherwise are very foggy on wiki. This requires effort and motivation -- which you are killing for your own righteous and confused ideals. I am not sure about these warnings either...then every few days you ask us to contribute in both money and content --but proclaim you are FREE!

Btw the first external link on molniya page is also by MG, not added by me ! this is was a followup video for further details !

Moreover, I am only editing MG because I know the field/domain and peer review it. I am not editing justin Bieber because I dont know music .--its logical!

Hey J.M. hope you are doing good. You recently removed all the links from the page. I understand that it was not a minor change after reading the minor change documentation you have attached. I added the link to the web-based PDF software section, which you removed maybe because it is an external site. I will keep improving on it, thanks for the reply mate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oiknave (talk • contribs) 12:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove all the links from the page. And your links were removed by Anton.bersh, not me. Anyway, when you edit the page, there is a big "Attention editors" warning that clearly says you should not add external links. You cannot ignore these warnings when you edit Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock—J. M. (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Hello how are you? I am from Bangladesh I recently editing Bangladesh Womens Football League and others clubs. As a Bangladeshi citizen I have right to edit Bangladeshi football article in Wikipedia. If is there any law for editing for let me know? Also I would like to know where must I edit. As a Wikipedian I can edit any article? Much regard. God bless. Tigers Football 365 (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Tigers Football 365: You can edit any article.that is not protected (see WP:Protected pages). ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 11:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Qwerfjkl: This is a sock puppet of a banned user.—J. M. (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Shouldn't the sock be blocked, then? ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 11:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Yes, (s)he should. The sock is checkuser-confirmed. Unfortunately, things often take days, weeks or even months now at SPI and many other places on Wikipedia. That is, if we're lucky—many requests never get any reply. Wikipedia has been desperately understaffed in the last year.—J. M. (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Finally blocked. Vandalising admins' user pages (and my user page, too) really accelerated the process.—J. M. (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hiii, sir the article mention Stefanos's father name and this is English WP

So we can write his name - Stefanos Apostols Tsitsipas. Huge Earth (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think essentially sports is a reliable sports website. Huge Earth (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Huge Earth: Everybody knows his father's name, and the Wikipedia article already mentions it, there is no need to link to EssentiallySports for that well-known fact. However, your cited article at EssentiallySports does not say anything about Stefanos' full name at all. You cannot use fake sources on Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that website is well known and tells about Stefanos's father ? Huge Earth (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Huge Earth: Please read my explanations (I already gave you several explanations) more carefully. This is not about Stefanos' father or the reliability of EssentiallySports.—J. M. (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem sir, I will not write his full name. Huge Earth (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that source I provided on that article, I actually thought it could be used as a source for his birthdate. I didn’t know that it doesn’t count as a source, because you and C. Fred said it’s just a copy of info from Wikipedia. Now I know, hope you can forgive me? 173.209.107.49 (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one big mistake a person can make (on Wikipedia or anywhere): repeating the same mistake over and over. I'm happy to see that you now understand what was wrong with your edits and won't repeat them again. It took a bit longer than I or C. Fred would have liked (we should always try to understand what others keep telling us), it ended literally at the last minute, but all's well that ends well. So, happy editing, thanks for the message, and if you have some time, reading guidelines and policies like reliable sources, verifiability, biographies of living persons, consensus or BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (this one in particular applies here) is never a waste of time for any aspiring Wikipedian.—J. M. (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

must be capitalized as it is a name. Jepz11 (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jepz11: No, it's not a name, it's a general concept. See free software movement and open-source-software movement.—J. M. (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir. I am Hriyut Pant I was saying that the edit you reverted was done by mistake. Sorry & Thank you Regards, Hriyut Pant Hriyut Pant (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hope everything is well. There is a new account that is obviously here to fight Tesla war [[7]], not sure that they understand what reliable sources are, so just wanted to let you know, cheers. Theonewithreason (User talk:Theonewithreason) 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to keep an eye on the user, too. These new accounts are often old users under new names. Croatian (and generally Balkans-related) nationalism is one of the biggest problems on Wikipedia, and these new accounts and IP addresses making disruptive pro-Croatian edits still keep appearing.—J. M. (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again J. M., I remember how you successfully discovered connection between filipz123 and other different accounts, so I wanted to ask you is there a possibility that this new account [[8]] is also connected with them? I am asking because their arguments are similar to this one [[9]] and the new one uses the same tactics of WP:BLUDGEON the page with their own agenda [[10]]. Thank you. Theonewithreason (User talk:Theonewithreason) 07 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I do think it's him again. The arguments are the same, again it's a new single-purpose account that is surprisingly familiar with the page and Wikipedia, even if they say they are not, and their request was preceded by a virtually identical request by 174.2.186.119, which is, again, as always, a Canadian IP address with a person identifying themselves as a Croat, pushing Croatian point of view again. I've been thinking about reporting the user at SPI again, but the problem is that the SPI has been more or less dead, abandoned for a long time. Administrators don't reply anymore, they still haven't blocked his previous checkuser-confirmed account reported more than a month ago. So why should I report another one? Plus of course the evidence this time is weaker, and I usually report him when I'm sure it's him. This time, I only think it's probably him. But anyway, you can report sockpuppets at SPI, too (when you think you have sufficient evidence, please do it). I may do it later, I'm still pondering the most effective course of action. I think the most serious issue here is that Wikipedia administrators need a serious wake-up call. They should either start doing their job, or they should resign. They don't do their job anymore and really refuse to do anything these days. It's often better to contact selected admins directly.—J. M. (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm thanks for the info, I think when it is so the best way would be to report to one of the admins too (maybe Oswah who is experienced with SPI check), I am personally not so experienced with previous edits of that User so I do not know are those evidence enough. But thank you for response. We will see how this will develop in the future.Theonewithreason (User talk:Theonewithreason) 07 September 2021 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your excellent work. Theonewithreason (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try to learn how to behave politely with a gentleman. Your language shows that you have come from a low origin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shish Mohammad Jakaria (talk • contribs)

There is nothing impolite about pointing to your disruptive editing. Adding four "keep" votes to a deletion discussion despite being asked to stop is not acceptable.—J. M. (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Just wanted to discuss the undoing of my edit. Is it a rule that all items on the list are to have a link to their own article? I see two other items on the list with no articles and they're still on the list. If that's the case, I apologize but I did not know this rule. If this is not the case, do you mind if I undo the undo? koel seems to be a small, not well-known piece of software (which is why I assume it has no article) that I think deserves a bit more attention so I figured this was a good place to start.

Thanks for reading this, Karasuhebi (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes, the article only lists items that have their own article. As the warning at the top says:

IMPORTANT NOTE – READ BEFORE ADDING AN ENTRY

**** All entries that point to non-existent articles or external links will be deleted ****

This is true for many other lists of products on Wikipedia, it's the most common selection criterion for stand-alone lists. It means you should write the article first, but only if the software is notable. Notability on Wikipedia means the topic has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. If that's not the case with koel, I'm afraid you'll have to wait before it changes.

I have removed the item with no article.—J. M. (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for clearing that up and for pointing out the note. I did not see that! Karasuhebi (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , I want to ask that in Siddharth Nigam's page why you have removed the line that he has launched his own music label even though when it was true? He is the owner of the Music Label BonBros Records along with his brother Abhishek Nigam. Kishmish Hu Main Ok (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove it because it wasn't true, but because of the inappropriate external link.—J. M. (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the best wishes to you, your family and friends !!! Hope that you will continue contributing. Theonewithreason (talk) 31.December 2021 (UTC)