User talk:Uzma Gamal/Archive 3

Just to note that an admin has clarified things. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Uzma, I was grateful for your recent contributions regarding edits to Institute of Recruiters article and User:Azmatmohammed here. Unsurprisingly, User:Azmatmohammed has not come forward to declare any connection or otherwise. Given the likelihood of Wikipedia:IMPERSONATE being an issue here what steps do you advise I should initiate regarding this user and his edits on Institute of Recruiters?, thanks.Tmol42 (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You participated in a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Sigma Omega Phi that was halted, pending an AFD result. The AFD is now closed, if you'd like to make further comment.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You recently deleted almost all of the Creators Syndicate page. I was wondering why this content was removed and how it could be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicreate91 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that Wikicreate91 is affiliated with Creators Syndicate and there was discussion at WP:COIN about his edits related to Creators Syndicate. Cresix (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I suggest you copy your comments from Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Simplified English, over to the article's talkpage (Talk:Simplified English) where they'll be seen by editors of the article (both now, and in the future, when that noticeboard thread has been archived). Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davao Light & Power Co., Inc., please add some of those sources (the ones that meet WP:RS) to the article itself. While it's true that adding them to the AfD prevents deletion, it doesn't actually solve the real problem (providing verified, reliable information to readers). Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the really helpful links about San Diego's tuna industry that you put on my talk page! --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Your wording here: Riley_Schillaci contains a copy and paste of "one of few professional female sword swallowers in the world", "moved on to swallowing drum sticks and glow sticks". Can you please rewrite it in your own words and paraphrase more. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, recreated the above article with references at Talk:Kagapujandar/Temp, please review. And move it under the article name Kagapujandar. To be more clear Sri Kagapujandar Dharamalinga Swamigal found in Wikipedia reliable resources is the reincaranation of Siddhar Sri Kagpujandar(Ref: http://www.kagapujandar.com ) Arulraja (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Arulraja

I noticed some errors in your corrections of the Richard S. Newcombe page. Creators Syndicate is located in Hermosa Beach, Ca not Huntington Beach. Also, Richard is not the author of any of the rock climbing books listed. In addition I have pictures of Richard with Hilary Clinton when she became syndicated with Creators and a picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger with Richard when he became syndicated as well. I can upload these pictures to wikimedia; can I insert them onto Richard's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicreate91 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Because you were a participating member of the Deletion review for Category:Gay Wikipedians, I've contacted you to let you (and all others involved) know about and participate in the current category discussion. Thanks for your participation! Ncboy2010 (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Template:Talkback (pretend you have the generic template here : )

Thank you for your cordial note on my talk page. I've responded there and at the CfD. - jc37 17:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in this discussion. I'm notifying you because you participated in the first deletion discussion and/or the deletion review. LadyofShalott 16:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infrantumi's talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Even though it didn't affect the outcome, I wanted to let you know that you !voted two times in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Svartalvheim. I know that you are heavily involved in the AfD-process, and leave comment in a lot of discussions, and your contributions are valuable, but sometimes we all make mistakes. Have a nice day. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I didn't see my original posting in that AfD when I made the second one (which probably was from a blurry-eyed state to begin with). For something like this, feel free to edit one of my two posts by striking one of the "deletes" and note that only one iVote per person. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I would if the AfD wasn't closed. That's why I came here. :) Mentoz86 (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Your right. Close is close. I undid my correction.[1] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Uzma Gamal, please forgive our intrusion, we are writing on behalf of a small community to praise your excellent work on behalf of the LG Williams wiki page. We were watching this wiki-charade from a distance as a case-study, and we were pleased to read that you (and only you) unearthed the real motives behind this faux-debate: this was another attack upon the counter-culture artist named LG Williams.

By charade, we mean:

• Removal and dismissal all the links to verifiable resources BEFORE the debate began, namely: personal history, articles, exhibitions, museum and private collections etc. Throughout the whole process we enjoyed the various editorial calls for verifiable resources from editors personally responsible for the deleted information -- in fact, one editor described the wholesale destruction of the webpage's verifiable information as a "trim" but "please look in the history" to find the verifiable linked sources. Of course, no editor did. Another editor deleted the sources before the debate claiming NO:RESUME then NO INFORMATION and then finally SPEEDY DELETION. How can this be allowed? There was not one editorial objection to these biased actions.
• Deleted link articles (which can be found in the history) include: Japan Times, La Stampa, San Francisco Chronicle, Artforum, Artweek, et al)
• Deleted personal history (which was called a hoax) includes MFA at UCDavis (at the time was considered #1 grad school in the country); BFA from the Kansas City Art Institute; membership in the Rat Bastard Protective Association -- with no objections
• Removal and dismissal of the artist's vital and verifiable visual arts exhibition record -- which is after-all everything in the visual arts -- like his inclusion in The 2010 Venice Biennial, Stephen Wirtz Gallery (San Francisco), Lance Fung Gallery (New York), Christopher Grimes Gallery (Los Angeles), Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, di Rosa Art Preserve, etc etc -- with no objections. One editor said they could not find an official link to the 2010 Venice Biennial, but nobody failed to reply because "that link was deleted" before the debate process.
• Outright dismissal of all dissenting comments against the charade -- with no objections
• Allowing editors with disclosed conflicts of interest to usher along the charade -- with no objections
• Deleting accounts of any dissident voices -- with no objections
• Outright personal attacks and utter speculations about the artist's presumed personal life and suspected girlfriends kept (if not encouraged) in the record with no objections
• Dismissing primary supporting evidence as "mere paragraphs" by editors with no experience or knowledge of the visual arts -- with no objections. In fact 4 of the 7 discounting voices spent a total combined time of 7 minutes, according to the combined factual times once can confirm on their contribution histories.

All in all, this is another excellent case study for Keen's The Cult of the Amateur, but it is important that one voice spoke out. Thank you again --149.169.59.202 (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you agree that this [3] is clearly significant coverage in a reliable source, based on what is written in the article as well as the coverage on their television news? And Bizjournals is a reliable source used in over eight thousand Wikipedia articles already. Do you agree those two alone would meet GNG? Dream Focus 14:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)