User talk:Teleomatic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia and to WikiProject Persondata! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Thank you for joining the project, I'm glad you've decided to help out. If you have any questions or anything you want to ask, please feel free to get in touch on my talk page or the project discussion page. Again, thank you and welcome! Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hajj Amin Elahi
Teleomatic,
Hajj Amin Elahi was the greatest Kurdish musician in history. There are many article and books in which he is mentioned as one of the greatest masters of the Tanbur, but most of them are in Kurdish. It is very important to keep this article and would be an academic crime to delete it. All obituaries in the New York Times are paid for. Just because a person dies does not mean they get a free obituary. They are all paid for! Even the biggest names in history. This person lived outside the United States and not in New York, but was still in the New York Times. Plus the New York Times is used as a source and citation for the date of his death. This is not a paid add to sell an item, get your facts strait.
Also, just because the entire book is not about him is not a good reason to try to discredit the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octavian history (talk • contribs) 08:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please see my comment on the deletion page about the source that you cited – I think it can be discredited as a source that establishes notability. As for what you said about New York Times obituaries, it simply isn’t true. Celebrities and well known public figures do not have paid obituaries – they are researched and written by respected journalists. The obituaries that appear in the paid death notices section can be written and submitted by anyone, and no fact checking is done. That is why paid obituaries, regardless of where they are published, are not valid as references for an encyclopedia. Teleomatic (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] January 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to George Thompson (abolitionist) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 15:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Left response at User_Talk:Compwhizii. Teleomatic (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 16:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Left response at User_Talk:Compwhizii. Teleomatic (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pancake Parlour
The edit you reverted here [1] was not vandalism. While it was unsourced, and "front" is probably the wrong word, Pancake Parlour is in fact owned by Scientologists, which means the edit was in good faith. Any good faith edit is not vandalism. RB972 04:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah - I can definitely see what you would think it's vandalism. I see from your contribs page that you've been doing quite a bit of vandal fighting - keep it up ;). It's only natural to make a mistake every now and again. Cheers RB972 04:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nailed
Hello, thanks for reverting the vandalism on the Nailed page. It's not the first time the article has been vandalised, I can only assume that the perpetrator has either a personal grudge against them or has entirely too much time on their hands. I don't know why so many are keen to waste their time vandalising Wikipedia when it can be so easily reverted. Their problem I suppose! Thanks again. Mojowibble (talk) .... I'm not getting a time-stamp here for some reason.... 26th Feb, 2008 @ 14.14GMT.........
