User talk:Nairspecht

Sara Arjun

...and why is this article being put up for deletion? The actress is an award-winning, notable person who has starred in lead roles for mainstream films in several languages. Editor 2050 (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Editor 2050! I agree, but the article is being put up for deletion because of WP:G11 and also WP:G4. I was the one who tagged it for deletion before, and now you have just copied the content from Google cache and paste-created the article. It serves no purpose other than promoting the child actor. It needs to be written from scratch from a neutral point of view. If you can do that, please go ahead. We want editors like you in Wikipedia, but please let's not make this a promotion platform. Best, Nairspechtive Talk 13:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! But how exactly? The sources back up the content and the words in inverted commas are very much quotes (which are also sourced). There's nothing wrong with this article - it merely gives an overview of her career till date, so not a G11. Also where is the deleted discussion as per G4? Editor 2050 (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, there's no G4 as reminded by GB fan. Just because the statements are quotes from sources doesn't make it encyclopedic. I'd suggest you dumb down the article's adjectives which make the actor look like a wizard or something. For example, in the lead: "...opened to critical and commercial acclaim, with Sara's performance receiving unanimous praise from film critics. She has since worked on Tamil and Hindi films, winning positive reviews for her portrayals..." and "..."jaws drop when they would see the Sara perform"...". What are these sentences if not promotional? Best, Nairspechtive Talk 13:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Funnily enough those are quoted in the sources provided. Either way, it was ridiculous to delete an article from 2011 without discussion or even attempting to clean it up yourself. I'll do it. Editor 2050 (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Overall, the article still looks promotional to me. Let's discuss it on AfD. Best, Nairspechtive Talk 16:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sushant Sing Rajput CSD

Please stop putting "speedy deletion" notices and putting them back when other editors remove them on articles like this one and on ones like Sushant_Singh_Rajput. The Rajput article has existed for over 5 years and has over 1,800 edits, not a likely candidate for a speedy delete I would think. Also you wrongly inserted a warning message on editor Kennedy34's user page. Your message said "Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself". Kennedy34 did not create the page, in fact he or she has only 1 edit out of the 1,800+ edits on that page. Best, JS (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not care how many edits the page has gone through nor about the age of the page. I CSD'd it because it looks like blatant advertising to me. Thats all. You can share your thoughts on the article's Talk page. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 08:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

request

Please dont spoil Dhanak Palmygluts (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Palmygluts! Please check the article's talk page. Best, Nairspechtive Talk 06:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	It was great working with you on the BBC's 100 Greatest Films article - glad to see it finished up today! Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)']] Talk 17:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Comatmebro. It was pleasure working with you, too. Please do tell me if you need ANY help with similar articles on Wikipedia. Best, Nairspechtive Talk 06:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Janatha Garage screen credits

Hi,

I am not sure about any other available source for the crediting order. But the movie released only today, and Mohanlal's name is appearing first in the credits. I am not sure, whether this will come (or even has to come) as a news item in web portals.

What has to be done now? Shouldn't we be sticking to the order in the screen credits? Even the current casting (which credits him second) order would require a 'source', doesn't it? Else it would just be P.O.V.

The official casting order has to be followed. Please help. Thanks in advance Sauerstoffliebe (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I'm not sure how billed cast members should be listed as nothing is specified in WP:FILMCAST. Maybe, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 08:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Mohenjo Daro (film)

this is regarding the additions that i made that were reverted.

- the source at sepiamutiny blog that i gave is extremely reliable, it is by a geneticist named Razib Khan who focuses on the subcontinent. u can look him up by name. his credentials speak for themselves.

- the swarajyamag article is well written and references are given there for the inferences drawn. do go through the article if u have the time.

- the other article i cited involved ashutosh's response. not sure why that was changed.

Now, this long addition by me to the Mohenjo Daro film's page, although correct, does seem in retrospect, a bit too long. My problem with the original version is the way it is mentioned in the BBC article, which presents some peoples criticism based on perceived theories as valid - remember here that the "proto-austroloids" is a theoretical group, and the presence of this theorised group in India is also a theory! while with genetic data, we know that these theories are wrong. so fringe theory based critcism has been presented by BBC as valid criticism.

so i propose this - i am removing the BBC article and giving another which mentions the criticisms that have been more substantial and valid, and includes ashutosh's response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prototypehumanoid (talk • contribs) 18:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Prototypehumanoid! I understand your point, but I do not think that some historian's blog can be considered reliable. The best way to do this is discuss the issue on the film's talk page, which is what I'm going to do now. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 06:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Come First

Hi Nairspecht,

I'm just here to inform you that I have boldly made the move to redirect Come First to Terror Jr for the time being. Everything in the song's article can be/was already mentioned in Terror Jr, and the song itself doesn't quite pass WP:NSONG at the moment to warrant an article. If you have any questions about this, feel free to message me on my talk page. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Derek, thanks for your work on the Terror Jr article. Agree about the single. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 06:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gokul Suresh, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I happen to believe that I have all the right to remove them when I am successfully addressing them. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 07:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

About talk page of Ae Dil Hai Mushkil

I give my opinion in the talk page of Aae dil hai mushkil please check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tupur16 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Tupur16. Will check it. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 09:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

You are too kind, and I too undeserving. Thanks very much for the hardware - it will look nice on my desk once I've polished it up a tad. :-) Happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You are too modest, my friend. Keep up the good work. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 13:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sushant Singh Rajput

Hello Nairspecht, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sushant Singh Rajput, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not unambiguously promotional, speedy was declined once before. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 10:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Spaceman, thanks for letting me know. Will take care of this in future. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work)

Hi Nairspecht,

Your message reverting my removal of the speedy delete said "only admins can review speedies. Warning you." Where did you get this from?

The template of speedy delete says "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." There is nothing here that says non-admins can't remove speedy deletion notices.

I think you are confusing the deletion of an article (which only admins can do) with the removal of the speedy deletion notice from an article.

Best,

JS (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

HI JS! Sorry for that. I was not all myself when I was dealing with that page. I apologize for being a jerk. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 06:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thank you for your other contributions and be well. JS (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

official URL

What's up with this revert? [1] -- GreenC 14:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Green! It's always better to provide a hyper text to the URL. Don't you think? Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 15:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently the creators of {{Official URL}} thought it would be a good idea to have a central location at Wikidata which all wiki's could use. That way if the URL changes etc.. it only needs to be updated once, across every wiki. Seems reasonable to me. Is there some kind of unstated campaign of adding/removing this template due to conflicting ideas of what is best? -- GreenC 15:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I have observed that not all pages have multiple entries on different wikis, which makes this function useless. However, for the article in question, THAT would work. You may revert my edit if you want. Additionally, I have seen countless times that folks come here and add whatever they want in the name of official URL. So, yes, this function works for all those instances. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 15:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

On the flip side, {{official URL}} makes it impossible for dead link bots to add archival links which is a significant drawback given how often link-rot happens (probably 20% or more of official URLs are dead links); and no link-rot bots are setup to work on Wikidata; and there are no dead link fields in Wikidata anyway. For that reason I would support the old/simple way of a bare link. -- GreenC 15:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense, yes. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 16:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'm going to copy this thread to the official URL talk page for archival purposes as I think we both brought up good points that could be useful in other discussions in the future. -- GreenC 16:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Template_talk:Official_URL#Use_of_this_template. -- GreenC 16:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Very well. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work)

Copy editing help with Cliff Clinkscales

Hello, could you please consider helping copy edit the Cliff Clinkscales article? It is under featured article review and still needs some work with making it sound better, and you have a lot of experience in the field. The nomination can be found here. Thank you. TempleM (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello TempleM! Thank you for getting in touch with me. And congratulations on improving the article so far. Please give me a day or two (if that's not too late; pardon me) to go through it and provide my assistance. I will definitely ping you by 11 October 2016. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nairspecht: Thank you and take your time. TempleM (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nairspecht: Please also post that you are copy-editing the article at the featured article nomination here. TempleM (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

TempleM - Done. Best, Nairspecht (talk)

Nairspecht - One more thing. Another user brought up the issue that the references are in day-month-year format, while the article has the dates in month-day-year format. During the copy editing process, could you please make sure that this is made constant? The subject is American, so I think month-day-year should do, but you can do whatever you feel is correct. TempleM (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi TempleM! Yes, I saw that at the FAC discussion. I think it is best to stick to the MDY format. Also, there's no need to have this discussion here. I am watching that discussion page, and I think it will save you time and effort if we continue this there. And, pardon me, for taking a lot of time with the page. I'm sorry. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Nairspecht - You previously stated that your goal was to finish copy editing the article by October 14, so I was just wondering when you would find time to do so. There is no hurry and you have been doing a great job, but I think more people would start supporting the featured article nomination once the copy editing is completed. TempleM (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi TempleM! It's done. Sorry I took longer than usual as I'm going through some IRL happenings. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion regarding content deletion.

As you informed about the changes that I made to Shivaay, I have to clear that I done it right because according to reliable sources, there is no such artist contributing to that track. You can see references at: [2], [3]. ❤ TrendSPLEND ^✉ 16:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear TrendSPLEND, I request you to mention that in the edit summary during such cases so that there's transparency. Thank you. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear administrators, I don't know how this has come to be. I have never used another Wikipedia account, or engaged in IP edits. I have been following all major Wikipedia policies and have never engaged in editing from other accounts for any type of gains. I have been making constructive edits and additions to various articles which interest me. Additionally, I have no information about the suspected other accounts. I am here on Wikipedia to contribute, and not engage in illegitimate activities. I often use Wikipedia at work, which may be a reason why CheckUser threw up suspecting results. But, I'm still not sure how or why or from what this originated. So I request you to please consider my block request. This is deeply unsettling and has affected the nature of my day. I am here as a fellow community member and not as a disruptor, which can be confirmed through my contributions. I will try to address any questions or doubts. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Reviewed and agree with Bbb23 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

User:Bbb23 trying to find the SPI for this one. Seeing nothing [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There is none.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

::::User:Bbb23 So to clarify does this mean their is not public data to support the block? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind found it. Everyone at your work needs to follow [5]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hot Milk

The article Hot Milk has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nomination for prize does not suffice under WP:NBOOK notabiliy criteria.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Do Not Say We Have Nothing

The article Do Not Say We Have Nothing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nomination for prize does not suffice under WP:NBOOK notabiliy criteria.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Schooldays of Jesus

The article The Schooldays of Jesus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nomination for prize does not suffice under WP:NBOOK notabiliy criteria.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Second request. As recommended by Doc James, I agree to use WP:PAID template as I move ahead. I will mention which articles have a COI effect on from my side and disclose all info. However, I would like to reiterate that I have not abused usage of multiple accounts. How can I continue editing while complying to all WP policies? Thank you. Nairspecht (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Second request. As recommended by Doc James, I agree to use [[WP:PAID]] template as I move ahead. I will mention which articles have a COI effect on from my side and disclose all info. However, I would like to reiterate that I have not abused usage of multiple accounts. How can I continue editing while complying to all WP policies? Thank you. [[User:Nairspecht|Nairspecht]] ([[User talk:Nairspecht#top|talk]]) 10:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Second request. As recommended by Doc James, I agree to use [[WP:PAID]] template as I move ahead. I will mention which articles have a COI effect on from my side and disclose all info. However, I would like to reiterate that I have not abused usage of multiple accounts. How can I continue editing while complying to all WP policies? Thank you. [[User:Nairspecht|Nairspecht]] ([[User talk:Nairspecht#top|talk]]) 10:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Second request. As recommended by Doc James, I agree to use [[WP:PAID]] template as I move ahead. I will mention which articles have a COI effect on from my side and disclose all info. However, I would like to reiterate that I have not abused usage of multiple accounts. How can I continue editing while complying to all WP policies? Thank you. [[User:Nairspecht|Nairspecht]] ([[User talk:Nairspecht#top|talk]]) 10:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}