Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to State-Transition Equation may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '^-1[(sI-A)^-1] x(0) + ''L''^-1 {(sI-A)^-1 [BU(s) + EW(s)]}= \phi(t)x(0)+\int_{0}^{t} \phi(t-\tau)[Bu(\tau)+Ew(\tau)dt </math>
• :<math> x(0)= \phi (-t_0)x(t_0)-\phi(-t_0)\int_{0}^{t_0}\phi(t_0 - \tau)[Bu(\tau)+Ew(\tau)d\tau</math>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Completeness may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{issues|{{refimprove|date=January 2014}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Hearing some one call out your name when no one has actually called your name is Psychological sign of a healthy mind, its Psychology time now guys"...:-) Nechlison (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nechlison, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have a good time making positive contributions to this community project. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC) yeah! whats up :-) ?Nechlison (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nechlison. You have new messages at Cyphoidbomb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Nechlison! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nechlison. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Vanjagenije (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC). (You can at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Hello, Nechlison. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui 雲‍水 15:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC). (You can at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Hi, this article does not qualify for PROD nomination, to place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form. Please read WP:STICKY, before nominating biographical articles under this criteria. Apart from that this article was nominated for deletion discussion a few days back and the result was "keep".Regards. Hitro talk 20:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC) The article lacks notable sources Nechlison (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears not to be the case. In any case, to qualify for PROD requires no sources in any form.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nechlison. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by PrimeHunter (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC). (You can at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Hey, Nechlison! I've been going over some of your deletion nominations, and I've had to decline a few. Fiber functor, while I'll admit that it isn't an exceptionally accessibly-written article, doesn't qualify for A1 (no context), as the subject of the article is clearly defined, even if it is ill-explained. Absolute theory, to be honest, isn't even close to qualifying for G1 (patent nonsense); G1 is for articles that contain only random series of letters or words (like "wpemdsoahouefw" or "frog blast the vent core"). Absolute theory is written in intelligible, meaningful English, and so G1 doesn't apply. Also, I notice that you placed an AfD tag on Snap-on but didn't actually explain your rationale for requesting deletion or create the deletion discussion page (which would've been located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snap-on); Cullen328 appropriately removed the tag from the article just before I could. I appreciate your efforts to improve the encyclopedia, and I'd be happy to help you with any questions you have, but deletion is kind of a serious thing, and so perhaps it's better to stay away from that area for now, until you have more experience, okay? Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I am trying my best and will not touch such serious things any more...:-)Nechlison (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how these articles violated Jaqeli's topic ban? As I understand it, Jaqeli was banned from anything dealing with Armenia, Armenians, etc. I have checked both articles and neither one mentions nor references Armenians in any way. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC) This page was created by him when he was blocked, he just wanted to make vandalism with different articles and he was warned many times before also. Nechlison (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that articles created by currently blocked users which were created before they were blocked are not eligible for automatic deletion. If you use page curation it is essential to check this before adding a {{speedy}} tag.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC) I'll do so. thanks Nechlison (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, House of Jaqeli was created in 2008 — so no matter what Jaqeli may have done on the page (or when), it would not be a valid candidate for speedy deletion on the grounds you cited. And even though Jaqeli was under a topic ban at the time he most recently worked on this article, his topic ban encompasses only editing on topics involving both Georgia and Armenia, and this article has no clear connection to Armenia as best I can tell, so his editing on that article was legitimate. Similarly, Georgian monarchs family tree of Meskheti (now renamed to House of Jaqeli family tree) was created by Jaqeli only a few days ago, but he was not blocked at the time (or else he wouldn't have been able to create the article!), and this article's subject also isn't connected in any way to Armenia, so he wasn't breaking the rules w/r/t that article.

In general, creation of an article by a blocked user isn't going to happen anyway, unless a blocked user has created an illegitimate "sock puppet" account and used that account to create the article (in which case an automated tool isn't going to tell you this is what's going on, that task should be handed over to the sockpuppet investigations people). Any tool which appears to be telling you "this article was recently created by X, and X is blocked, so the article should be deleted" is either misleading you, or you're misunderstanding what it's saying.

If you're going to be using the Page Curation tool, or any other tool, you must keep in mind that you are still fully responsible for what an automated tool does on your behalf, just as if you had done the automated actions by hand. If the Page Curation tools advised you to tag these articles for speedy deletion because they had been created and/or edited by a currently blocked user, then it shouldn't have done that (and the bugs should be reported), but you still need to check things yourself before blindly acting. In fact, I would strongly suggest that if you have really been on Wikipedia for only one week, you might be wise to gain more experience doing things by hand here first, before becoming too dependent on automated tools which could potentially do a lot of damage and get you into trouble. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yeah you are right. Actually I don't have too much experiance in tagging article for deletion but I'm able to review recently created articles and then tagging them and adding citations, reliable sources to orphan pages etc if they don't have reliable sources, no stub, no footness or something else. But I'll try to use things manually. Thanks for guiding me :) Nechlison (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. And thank you for being willing to help with some of the less glamorous back-room tasks here on Wikipedia. :-) — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Hitro again. :) I removed speedy tag from this article as I believe it has enough context to identify the subject. Context and Content are two different things. Please talk to me on my talk page if you have any question. Best regards. Hitro talk 18:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nechlison. You have new messages at HitroMilanese's talk page.
Message added 18:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hitro talk 18:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nechlison. You have new messages at HitroMilanese's talk page.
Message added 19:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hitro talk 19:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For your tireless efforts :) Hitro talk 19:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Digital signal conditioning (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Networking

Energy harvesting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Suspension

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this edit of yours. Please use the preview function to avoid similar mishaps in the future. Favonian (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just answered to that user on help dest , what was wrong? Nechlison (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the diff; you wiped out everything on the help desk except your own reply. Favonian (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see! Sorry for my mistake. Thanks for informing me dear Nechlison (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that. I've deleted some and posted at WP:ANI for assistance, especially as not all are tagged and won't necessarily be picked up through the WP:CSD process Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks, I got tired by nominating his/her pages for speedy deletion. Nechlison (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		for fighting vandalism (sorry, no beer available) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for welcoming me! I found some more on the guggenheim Foundation on Harvey. http://www.gf.org/fellows/15666-harvey-elliott-white Citations do take more time, since I stumbled onto Harvey's work as an Educator on public TV. But I found https://archive.org/details/IntroductionToAtomicSpectra my question now, how should I connect that to the article? It is a weblink to the Book Harvey Elliott White Introduction to Atomic Spectra McGraw-Hill 1934 Will work on the article Thank you for helping me.

I've noticed that some users are posting me their questions without mentioning his/her user name. Kindly post your question by typing four tildes at the end of your question , it will automatically show your name. Thanks Nechlison (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The No Spam Barnstar
	For doing things at WP:NPP. StudiesWorld (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot :) Nechlison (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nechlison, thanks for your review and comments on my talk page. I'm a little confused about the banner you've added as I have used the same citation style as always and I genuinely can't see what is wrong here. Also appreciate you asking me to extend the sections, but I've clearly listed this as a stub in the hopes it can be added to by others. I created the page because David Sims is referenced by 12 other people and brand pages on Wiki, which certainly seemed to justify a page (along with solid refs from V&A, ICA, and so on). However, I can't provide too much more detail at this stage as this is all I've found – he is described as very private. Could you perhaps re-check the page and just confirm what you think is wrong with the citation style so I can either amend or remove that banner. I will of course keep on hunting to improve the content of the page. Many thanks for your help.Libby norman (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the reference you provided don't contain the information you listed in article, try out new references that are closely related to the article subject. and try to improve your article by reading more content from other sources and then cite them into article in your own words.(Note- Do not try to copy the content from other websites and paste into your article). Nechlison (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nechlison, Thanks for your response and your helpful advice, however it would have been useful if you'd responded on my talk page or sent me a message to indicate you were responding on your talk page. I don't think the banner you chose was appropriate and I'm not sure I follow your response to my query. While I don't agree with most of the points you make, I'll look again and consider what you have said. I'll also ask other editors to look at the page – specifically those who can comment and possibly add to the stub, such as those involved with relevant projects listed on the Talk page for David Sims. Thanks again.Libby norman (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am new at making pages and cannot for the life of me understand what I have done wrong with the page you just nominated for deletion. How is it any different than the hundreds of pages already set up for individual seasons for various college football teams? Kentatm (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC) The page you created does not lie under Wikipedia guidelines and is not notable enough to write an article on that subject see WP:N also WP:ISNOT. Nechlison (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally hundreds of individual season pages for various college football teams on Wiki. There are many about Texas A&M as well. You can see complete season pages for the years 1988-2014.

How in the world are the other seasons ok for individual pages when this one is not? Your citation is not consistent with other mods views on Wiki pages such as this at all.

Kentatm (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Your page has been written in advertisement sense. And there are thousands of seasons on each game that doesn't mean all are notable. What you are trying to do is that you are making it as special one. Its not so, as I already told you that if the subject is not notable then Wikipedia doesn't have an article about it. Nechlison (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hitro again :). There is one essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. I think you would like to read it. Sometimes we come across editors who claim this page shouldn't be deleted coz that page exist. This essay helps a lot in that case. :) Regards. Hitro talk 20:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Yeah Of-course I'll read it. Thanks  :) Nechlison (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask you, how is this page any different than the many individual season pages already made for various college football teams? Have you even looked at other pages to see how it is exactly the same?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Oklahoma_Sooners_football_team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Indiana_Hoosiers_football_team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Tennessee_Volunteers_football_team

How is this an advertisement? Are those other pages I listed also advertisements?

What do you even mean by "And there are thousands of seasons on each game"? What? There is only one 1987 college football season.

Also, I find it interesting that you say I am trying to make that specific season special when it in fact is one of the most successful season in A&M history. They won the SWC, won a major bowl (Cotton) against a Notre Dame team that had the Heisman winner, and finished the season ranked in the top 10.

There are many team pages just like the one I have created that were for far less successful years. Again, how do those not violate the rules while this one does? Kentatm (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed deletion tag from your page and passing to another editor to handle it. Nechlison (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your time Kentatm (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nechlison. You have new messages at HitroMilanese's talk page.
Message added 20:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hitro talk 20:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Late Sri. alapati Dharma Rao was a former Home Minsiter of Andhra Pradesh. He also held various portfolios during the period 1985 to 1995 like being Member of Legislative Assembly consequently for 2 times of Government of Andhra Pradesh and held hon'ble posts like transport minister, higher education minister and deputy speaker to name a few.

He served the people and the country till his last breath. It would be immensely useful for the upcoming politicians to know that honest politicians existed.

I cited few references too… If you read the article you know why this person is important .

Thanks!

Thanks for your message on my Talk page re Alapati Dharma Rao. I took a quick look at that too and think the sources badly need some attention but the biggest issue is tone WP:NPOV as it's definitely not neutral or encyclopaedic. Again, no hurry but perhaps one to go through slowly and carefully. I'll also put it on my to do list. In the meantime, I've added a clean up banner and will ref this on the talk page. Libby norman (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it is amazing working with the tech sector coming initially from a non-tech background, working with marginalized people of colour.

It is a struggle for them to get their voices heard, as most faces on television are white men, as are behind the computer screen. Women are tired of justifying their existence each time there are on the internet and men funnel silly amounts of money into girls who code.

I do not know if wiki supports using Arabic sources as this is an important figure in Yemen's press and the Arab spring. If you have been reading Arabic newspapers, you wouldn't have marked it for deleting. I saw this: Reg. alapati dharma rao article[edit]

Hi Late Sri. alapati Dharma Rao was a former Home Minsiter of Andhra Pradesh.

As a person of colour and advocate for people of colour, this frustrates me greatly. Just because you don't read our languages and our newspapers doesn't mean brown people don't exist.

Seriously, in Yemen the literacy rate among women is 35%, the fact that one of them achieved something is a big deal. Voices of women of colour barely squeek through the internet, and when they do, their stories are met with a barrage of hostility, as if to erase their existence. Bullying of Arab and Muslim women of colour if they dare speak online is common place as are attempts to silence there voice. Here http://raquelevita.wordpress.com/ and here are examples http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/stopthiscultureofhate-abuse-on-twitter-113121900236_1.html

Intersectionality - the concept- is that women of colour are not just treated different and targets of abuse because they are women, but because of also their race, and a combination that makes them even more a minority, more powerless and easier to take on and crush than a privileged woman of the right class and race with strong men behind her.

So for reasons of race and gender, I do have a problem with your edit. You didn't even click through the English links. They were in English so you can understand. I see you did this as well to the poor cabinet minister. You realize there is a digital divide between privileged people like you, and people like us who are struggling to breath, to have a voice. I look at your edits and feel sad. Colonialism should have ended long ago.

How can you begin to understand you are privileged, and for you it is easy to write prefect while people at the other end of wikipedia struggle to write english, let alone perfect format and code to get their stories through. I understand for you its normal not to feel privileged because you don't see people like us on a daily basis, you have gated communities, and haven't heard our struggles. Your family is alive and well and you don't have to worry about their lives, healthcare, safety, food. You just don't understand what it takes to bridge that digital divide, while for a privileged person like you its easy to play wrecking ball. What you don't see is how much hunger the World Bank and failed aid programs have caused in the developing world. How colonialism and neocolonialism reinforced misogyny.

It is essential that women of colour see other women that they recognize so that they feel this is their internet too, not just of digitally wizard from the future white men.

Again, I know you mean well, and just don't understand what you did or what it signified, nor the power dynamics that come with race. The reason I picked up on race, colour is your editing style. Its subconscious. You know what you are familiar with so you don't take it down. Something isn't familiar, you take it down, because that is normal for you. You have no idea what is behind your move or what damage it causes. You have no idea how it affects people. You mean well I am sure, but think before you act. If something isn't familiar to you, please think before you flag.

I also support the struggle of LGBTQ (queer) friends. If I or they post person vital in the movement, in perhaps a novice way... and religious fundimentalists try to take it down, I think gay and lesbians have a right to their history, to their struggle. If there was someone well documented in the civil rights movement in America and you removed it because the Black Americans who wrote it were not that educated ... you are silencing the marginalized with your privilege. Your main privilege comes from your education, which is why you have this page and are so adept in technology, and have the time for it, while others struggle not to be evicted and not to starve and can barely write or write in another language. If I had an Arabic service, and there was pressure on me to remove an article on how people in the Gulf mistreat their servants of colour, I would never do it. If there was religious pressure to remove an article on LGBTQ brothers and sisters, using whatever pretexts, I'd not bow down, even in the face of bomb threats.

The key about quality information is that it isn't always elitist but comes from a variety of backgrounds, that differ in wealth, digital development, race, language, religion, sexual orientation and understanding. I wish some days I was a white heterosexual cis-gendered digitally and financially privileged man without a care in the world, but the rest of the world doesn't look like that. The rest of the world doesn't speak perfect english, doesn't write articles perfectly. That is what editing is for. Editing, not banning.

Editing is how we collaborate. People who are privileged enough to go to a good English school in the west edit in English. The rest of us, we tell our stories as we can. That brings the developed and developing world together, women and men, and brings peace. Everywhere women of colour turn to in the digital world doesn't have to be a brick wall, this could be a beginning of creating a bridge of understanding between our worlds.

Maybe your editing will begin to look like less of Gulliver vs Lilliputions of colour, and more like fine content that is discerned from collaboration and understanding. The way you edit, you may not understand how it looks to anyone who has worked extensively with women of colour or is a woman of colour. Its not like marginalized people make it onto editing wikipedia often. You aren't exposed to them. What you consider okay, is in our eyes beyond rude to painful demonstration of privilege. If you never suffered the way we do, you would simply never understand. I hope this opens your eyes to the world around you, and that we can develop a friendship and collaboration on better editing.

Let's collaborate, let's be positive and become ambassadors of understanding. Lets deal with how can we include voices of colour instead of shutting them down because they aren't as privileged as us to have perfect English or tech formatting. If we think inclusively, we don't say this article on that person of colour is just wrong because a white university educated person in a developed country would have written it differently. If we think inclusively, we help each other and say, they sourced their articles, good. Their grammar and English is atrocious and they have zero tech skills, so we'll help them by editing. Not deleting. Editing. And here is the objection. Forgive me for being so passionate after seeing so much ignorance and injustice for people of colour, especially women of colour. I knew stories that almost shattered my heart from what they go through so I decided I should be a super-hero about it and defend women of colour, defend the disabled, defend those who barely have a voice. To be a super hero is to give a voice to the voiceless in our world. I hope you will join me in being a hero to those who need a hero the most. Mostawesomesuperhero (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Mostawesomesuperhero[reply]

Hi there, just to let you know I'm also taking a look at this page to try and sift through good sources, etc and get it into style so it can be reviewed again. I've also put a note on the Talk page to that effect and notified Mostawesomesuperhero Libby norman (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been doing same as you. But the article needs to be divided into sections as the article is about person's life and carrier. Not so ? Nechlison (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes all articles need to follow an accepted structure whether they are BLPs or not, and categories and talk page headings are still to be added too. My first concern is sorting through the refs to establish good from bad and then we can reorder appropriately. I'm envisaging working on it over the next few days when I have time to see how it stands up as an article and evidences notability. Thanks Libby norman (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing links given in the references into external links if possible. I think many of the links are taken from blog, forum, free web hosting service, then author should have taken care about the the information on the external site also. since these sites are not included if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright.Nechlison (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linking straight out from text with a URL is definitely not good (link rot and messy), so these can be converted to a reference or a Wikilink (using double square quotes before and after the name) where appropriate and deleted altogether otherwise. Blogs and forums are problematic as refs – unless they are respected such as New York Times, Huffington Post, etc – but it's not a hard and fast dictat (no rules on Wiki, etc), so a judgement call based on the subject area, value of the post and what other information is provided through refs is usually the best course. I didn't instantly see any problems with copyvio - but will obviously also check as I go through the copy in more detail. Libby norman (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Happy editing :) Nechlison (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nechlison. You have new messages at HitroMilanese's talk page.
Message added 18:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hitro talk 18:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Thank you so much, really.It looks amazing! The article looks amazing like what it should look like if my English and editing were better. Thank you for your formatting, making it excellent. I wanted to tell a story of what is in the news in my part of the world, but am limited by language and technical skills, so I am glad you all made it a reality. Thank you! -Mo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostawesomesuperhero (talk • contribs) 18:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nechlison. You have new messages at HitroMilanese's talk page.
Message added 18:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hitro talk 18:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is awkward, i was surprised to see that i violated some copyright. But if you click to see what its suposed to be, its just the product description, which i cannot write in any other way. Thank you. Clamad (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC) You haven't cleared License of software and it is unclear yet, and the content is copied from mentioned link on tagged page. Nechlison (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I changed the first sentence, i guess now it is not so clear, but I hope this won't trigger the copyright notice. I don't quite understand the "License of software" part. What am i suposed to write. Thanks in advance. Clamad (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC) the site from you copied line and information is not clear about under which license the software is registered. Nechlison (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC) ok I'm removing deletion tag but provide more reliable sources and do not copypaste anything otherwise it will considered for deletion in future Nechlison (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	A Barnstar for you for your efforts  :) Keep on doing good work. Hitro talk 19:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your encouragement :) Nechlison (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nechlison. You have new messages at HitroMilanese's talk page.
Message added 21:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hitro talk 21:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll pick them up as I go. Note that articles created before a block may not be speedied as breaches of the block, although they obviously can be if they fail on other criteria. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In posting your last comment on my talk page, you inadvertently blanked all the rest of the page. I've therefore reverted your edit. I've not reposted your edit befor creating any article, please read Wikipedia guidelines. Thd content you put was just promotional and Wikipedia is not for what you are trying to do. See WP:ISNOT also if the subject doesn't have indepedent third party reliable sources then Wikipedia will not have article about it see WP:RS also for notability see WP:N Nechlison (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC) because it's clearly wrong. The person who posted the message you were responding to was not the article's creator, but an experienced admin who is aware of the guidelines. Anyone is entitled to recreate an article as long as they follow the referencing/notability/spam guidelines, and the admin concerned will be more than capable of doing so appropriately if he goes ahead. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the page, but it doesn't appear to have been created before under that name, and the creator has no deleted articles other than this in his logs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC) when i looked at user's talk page,[reply]

the page were nominated for deletion before me, then i looked at the page, tag were missing there. Then I tagged it for speedy deletion again Nechlison (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your suggestion to include references in the post mentioned above and i have done so.I request you remove your suggestion for the deletion of the post.Thank you for your understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminu241 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC) keep on improving your page and provide independent third party reliable sources see also WP:RS. If the subject become encyclopedic, the tag will be removed. Page needs still more verifications as it is about WP:BOLP Nechlison (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved one page to the above title, and deleted the others apart from the sandboxed version. If the content is true, he's probably notable, and this appears to be a newbie's good-faith attempt to write a proper article. I've cleaned it up a bit and added some tags. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty good. But sources are unclear yet. I'm going to inform author to search reliable sources and references. Nechlison (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC) But did you noticed that author himself removed the tags that you put in the article. ? Nechlison (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC) I've reverted the edits Nechlison (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the page for three days to get him to pay attention, and posted the welcome page with links. I'm going to be on holiday soon. If he creates similar articles during the three days, try redirecting to the protected page. If he doesn't learn, it might have to be nominated for AfD. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try my best. Thanks Nechlison (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nechliso,
I have to ask if there is any connection between yourself, user:Miller Henry and Asif Ali Laghari? I really think that a person of 22 years would be unlikely to be notable, simply because they have some 'theory', attended a conference and had some scientific paper/s published.

Remember that the bio page has to demonstrate the persons notability. If it doesn't do so then it may be deleted, even if the person is notable, wp:verifiability must be done.

I note that you have 'borrowed' a photo from Laghari's Facebook page and put it on his biography page. I am not sure if this is allowed. Laghari says: "Any one can access my theory and photos.", but that is not the same as permission to use it on Wikipedia. Strongly suggest you check on this.

In any case I assume good faith, but if there is any connection here then you may have a conflict of interest, that you should declare. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 03:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

100% agreed with your comments on my talk page, I know about WP:Notability. I don't have any connection with Miller Henry and Asif Ali Laghari. My job is to tag the pages for deletion and removing copyrighted material from Wikipedia. I saw the page during editing when Miller created it, I go through Laghari's contribution that purely show significance of the article since he is young researcher. The article written so for is about the person whose notability can be judge by his contributions, Reliable Publications at this age. I just uploaded his photo on Wikipedia when I go through his Social page and there were clearly written that he himself gave permission to use his photos and I clearly declared Licensed on File. Hope you got the point clearly Nechlison (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nechlison, I have copied your reply to this page, please answer on this page so the conversation is kept in one place.

I am sorry, it was not "clearly written that he himself gave permission to use his photos", 'access' can just mean that you can look at them, 'use' and 'copy' are very different things. If you take a look at User talk:Princeneil you will see why we think Miller Henry is a wp:sockpuppet of that editor, who is currently blocked from editing.

As far as tagging pages for deletion etc., at only ≈461 edits you are fairly inexperienced to be doing such tasks.

Did you notice that the first 2 references on the Laghari page made no mention of him in any way? They were merely links to the webpage of the universities he supposedly attended.

While I'm here, why did you have icons on your userpage falsely indicating that you were a rollbacker, reviewer, autopatrolled, and of all things an Administrator? Also a newish account claiming to have been on Wikipedia for years, similar to what Miller Henry did, funny that! - 220 of ^Borg 11:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about editor user:Miller Henry and there is no any connection between me and the page about which you all are talking [1]. I am here to improve Wikipedia articles and uploaded file under desired License. If you want to delete the page, you can delete it simply if it is making to much trouble. Nechlison (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should try using : to indent your replies, see wp:indent. There is a connection between you and the Laghari page in that: you have edited it, you uploaded a picture and added it to the page, and you removed a wp:speedy deletion template from the page.

I notice that you have avoided answering any of my questions. You had an icon on your userpage that indicated you were an Administrator, how did that happen? You put it there yourself at 13:28, 23 March 2014! (See here). Why would you do that? - 220 of ^Borg 13:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing Laghari's page normally as I do with all others. I am surprised after looking at User talk:Princeneil, huge number of wp:sockpuppet !. But it wouldn't be necessary that if neutral editor created the page always be sockpuppet of some one else created the same page before. And yes there are thousands of other editors who used user boxes that are not verified, Yes I did so, and the edit has now been reverted. But I am again on my same point and being honest, I don't have any connection to that page or page creator, I didn't know that the page I am editing or file I am uploading had already done by some one else as User talk:Princeneil did in past. If there is still anything wrong, you can delete that page. I have got my plate full at the moment so I am leaving this discussion. Thanks Nechlison (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page indicated that you had some user-rights which you do not have. I corrected the problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a conversation with another editor above, you said "... there are thousands of other editors who used user boxes that are not verified ..."

If you want to verify if an editor has a particular user-right, you can search their names in the following lists: administrators, rollbackers, reviewers.

I would be very surprised if you find that false claims of permissions are common, particularly false claims of the administrator user-right.

Because you have not been around very long, I'm going to ask you not to go around correcting other people directly - leave that for more experienced editors. If you find someone who is claiming to have the administrator user-right but they do not have it, consider talking to another administrator or to another more experienced editor. If they are claiming "reviewer" or "rollbacker" user rights and they don't have them, just consider leaving well enough alone until you have more Wikipedia experience. The "rollback" user-right is a "convenience" user-right: There is nothing someone with rollback rights can do that you can't do, it will just take a few more steps for you to do it. With the exceptions of "approving" edits by non-logged-in editors to those relatively few articles that have where such approval is required before the edit is seen by non-logged-in editors, there is nothing that someone with reviewer can do that you can't do. The auto-patrolled user-right does not give you anything special, it just marks any new page that you create as "automatically patrolled" so those who are doing new page patrol don't have to waste time reviewing your work. In other words, you get this right for the benefit of others, not yourself. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC) I got your point clearly. Thank you Nechlison (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nechlison (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hey Why you blocked my accout? Had I ever created the article related to princeneil's sock? I would like to informe you please See my contributions and history. I am fully against princeneil who violated rules, I am part of this community and performed positive contributions always. Take a look @ my history Nechlison (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is abundantly clear that you are the same person. The more often you post unblock requests containing lies, the less likely it becomes that you will ever be unblocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.