en User talk:Bill william compton Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bill william compton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology

I've moved this article back to where it was. Adding the parenthesis adds nothing to the article, it's really only used for disambiguation. Thanks. Ged UK 22:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, i added (Orissa) along with Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology, to remove the ambiguity; as there're two articles of same name, other is Indira Gandhi Institure of Technology having incorrect spelling of Institute, the Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology (Orisaa) is only known by tag of Orissa with it while Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology (the other one) is known by this name only; which is unique in itself as it was the first women engineering college of India. If that page was renamed to Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology (Orissa) than i could correct the spelling of Indira Gandhi Institure of Technology. So, it will be better if you move back your step. You assumed it was used for disambiguation, but actually it is for removing the disambiguation. Bill william compton^Talk 13:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. I'll fix it. Ged UK 16:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM February 2011 Newsletter

The February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Yeh-Rishta-Kya-Kehlata-Hai.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Yeh-Rishta-Kya-Kehlata-Hai.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Someone did vandal work on the related article- removed the image and devastated the whole infobox syntax, article wasn't in my watchlist so i couldn't correct it. Now image has been placed on its original article, and i've removed the csd tag from the file's page. Bill william compton^Talk 07:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sam Hawkes

It looks like the situation was resolved, hopefully to your satisfaction. Maybe next time I'll be able to help. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Gossip Girl

I reverted your edit because episode summaries are not supposed to be that long. Maybe other television show articles have episode summaries that are that long, but they are not supposed to and also the other episode summaries on the Gossip Girl (season 4) page are not as long as the one that you made for "Empire of the Son". As for changing the source of the rating, I would prefer that the TV by the Numbers Monday Final ratings articles be used, but others can be used, but the information just needs to be filled in properly. Ryanlively (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply: As i mentioned on the talk page of the article, if other episodes ain't well covered than it doesn't mean that new ones won't be. The reason behind expanding this particular episode was that it is the last episode before the hiatus period of the show; previous episode's summaries are too clumsy that no one could predict what actually is happening in the serial. Wikipedia is a place where we try to make things better, not to compare old ones and presenting them as excuse to hinder the future development. But still, if you think that this episode's summary is too long than you can perfectly modify it but keeping in mind that don't miss the relevant facts which are important in the whole season of the show. Bill william compton^Talk 21:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

AKT Academy Matriculation Higher Secondary School

Hi. I've declined your speedy deletion request on AKT Academy Matriculation Higher Secondary School, because I don't think it could be described as "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" as required by the CSD:G11 criteria. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, i nominated this article not because of any single reason, but whole article has problems. Some of them are:-

Advertisement like article - whole article is written like an advertisement. It just describes - how to reach there, how many labs, air-conditioners and other facilities it has, etc.
Motive - I'm pretty much suspicious about the motive behind writing this article. If it was written because this is only just a school than in this case there are millions of schools on this globe.
Significance - Notability is in doubt.
Reliability - Why would anyone believe in the authenticity of this article, it doesn't give even a single external reference.

In nutshell what's the need of this kind of article, which is just for promotional purpose. I hit net on its name but find nothing (just name on few websites; which are even ban on Wikipedia). In this condition if you say it just need to be rewritten, than how anyone would ever able to improve it. Bill william compton^Talk 16:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I understand your reasons, but I do not think they satisfy the "exclusively promotional" part of the G11 criteria, or any other speedy criteria - for example, lack of notability and sourcing are not speedy deletion justifications, as the bar for avoiding speedy deletion is deliberately set low. You may well still be right that it should be deleted, but you should take to to a normal deletion review, at WP:AfD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

good job!

Great work with the article on Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. In particular, I liked the template which you have created; it is a very nice way to list all the constituent college. It still needs some editing to make it more aesthetic, and then perhaps we can nominate it for GA status. I honestly wish that there were more people like you (at least one for every university!); Wikipedia's coverage of Indian Univ. would have certainly been much better :) . Have a nice day! PratikMallya^Talk! 06:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pratik

Thank you, for you appreciation on my work, actually there was also your's part in it as you were the one who suggested that changes on the article. I know this reply seems a little late, but i was pretty much busy since last week.

Hey, just to inform you, i've nominated the article Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University for peer review, on which any member of WikiProject India can discuss about this article - to make it more better and affluent; as i know you're interested in Indian Universities articles, so i'd like to give you a personal invitation for the review of this article. Bill william compton^Talk 05:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Cambridge University/ Barrie Rickards

Hi, yes, it wasn't a joke edit, as you put it. I was serious. (81.152.229.6 (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

Reply: Hi, i reverted your edit because that section where you edited was Myths, legends and traditions and your edits was It has long been thought that Barrie Rickards was a nice guy, now tell me what do i interpret by such sentence?, before doing editing on wikipedia articles you've to first understand what actually wikipedia is and which type of edits are allowed on it; for this i'd advice you to refer this tutorial. Your edit doesn't make any sense at all, neither it is cited by any external source nor it could be related by the sub-heading where you placed it. Now, i think you've understand why your edit was reverted, and please before doing undo of any user's act of reversion you should first discuss him about the matter on his talk page, to avoid possible edit war, thank you. Bill william compton^Talk 16:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

not fully referencing articles

just linking to rotten tomatoes is not proof of what a critic has said, In Unkown (2011 film) you placed an opinion which has no direct support from Rotten tomatoes, for all we know it could be a primary source that you yourself wrote. A good example is the the next reference which is explicit about where it came from. If you want to use it be explicit about its source. I have rewritten these section the recognises that their is a range of opinion.

Next, one opinion does not make a general consensus, just as one swallow a summers day. X-mass (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply: First of all always keep in mind that place new section at the bottom of the talk page only. If you observed my edit summary Don't put such kind of messages in the middle of article with your open eyes than perhaps you'd understand why i reverted your edit; i didn't revert it because of your work at reception section, but i did it because you placed a malicious note on the plot summary (and reversion also apply for simultaneous edits also), which is completely against the policies of Wikipedia, you can't write here your personal opinions about the article or any of its section. Bill william compton^Talk 06:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Rollback Granted

You have been granted with the rollback permission on the basis of your recent effort on dealing with vandalism. The rollback is a revert tool which can lessen the strains that normal javascripts such as Twinkle put on the Wikipedia servers. You will find that you will revert faster through the rollback than through the normal reversion tools such as javascripts and the undo feature, because the rollback feature does not require fetching the data from the page history and then sending article data back to the Wikipedia server as the javascript requires, therefore you could save time especially when reverting very large articles such as the George W. Bush page. To use it, simply click the link which should look like [rollback] (which should appear unbolded if you have twinkle installed) on the latest diff page. The rollback link will also appear on the history page beside the edit summary of the last edit. For more information, you may refer to this page, alternatively, you may also find this tutorial on rollback helpful.Mifter (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)