This user may have left Wikipedia. Onthegogo has not edited Wikipedia since 2 April 2011. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Welcome!
Hello, Onthegogo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Cargo tie downs, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cargo tie downs, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
wikipedia is not a dictionary
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please do not place a notice with me that you intend to delete such an article on the "living person" due to lack of references. You are wasting my valuable time. Such action, quite frankly, given the content, is absurd and not helpful to Wikipedia in any way. If you believe it urgent to have more references than those which exist then by all means let me know. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you. My editing behaviour is responsible and benificial to the wikipedia project. The article Douglas F. O'Neill is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. And please, do not remove the AFD Notice from the article as you did here [1] and here [2]; and do not empty the ADF disccusion page as you did here [3] And here [4]. Onthegogo (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No discussions have yet occurred. I placed the mergeto tag to open discussions to weigh the pros and cons of merging the articles, and to find if there is a consensus. Your input is welcome and encouraged. Onthegogo (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to pop by and leave a similar link. If you don't check that discussion out, a quick explanation is that only articles describing a taxon should have a taxobox. Cultivars or commercial breeds, such as the grape cultivars you tagged, should not receive a taxobox. Would you be so kind as to revert the recent tagging on those articles so the Category:Missing taxobox category is more easily browsed? Thanks! Rkitko(talk)13:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your efforts to undo my tag placements may have been well-intended, but it was not helpful to improving the articles. I wish to thank User:Tomas e for his work to add a “grape variety infobox” to the pages that I tagged as needing one. Onthegogo (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you Undo my proper warning to User:Handicapper's talk page that he is to not remove AFD Notices from articles? I placed that warning for a valid purpose, and if Handicapper wants to remove it after reading it, then of course, that would be his prerogative. Onthegogo (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prods
Your prods on the Liberian politicians and influential civil society members are misguided and I'd suggest you do not try to bring them to AfD. Each of the articles you tagged were improved (mostly by me) and sustain their notability beyond simply being presidential candidates. Leaders of churches, national Senators and influential activists are notable. Did you even read the Tubman article? If you care, look at the source on the Tubman article which cites his position. It comes from a table which states the careers of each of the candidates. You will see that each of them was notable beyond being candidates for President of a country.--TM21:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are delaing with living people, it is very important that the principles of WP:BLP are strickly followed. The current wikipolicy is as follows: "We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] As of January 2010, a push to source all material about living persons is under way. A discussion of how to accomplish this is taking place at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people."Onthegogo (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? The articles in question had a source to back up their original claim (presidential candidate status) and sources added to back up subsequent claims. This is not a BLP issue.--TM22:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my reasons for nominating this article for deletion over again, and please take note that I did not take part in deletion discussion. This article had remained basicly unchanged from its very basic stub form as created several years ago. Other editors had attempted to flag the possible notability problem, but such efforts were negated by other editors who would rather undo a properly placed tag [6] than address the issue of notability by improving the article. I am pleased to see that the article has now been improved to the point where the notability of the subject is at least stated within the article, and I am satified tha my contribution to this article has been benificial to the wikipedia project. Onthegogo (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So go edit it yourself! Nominating an article for deletion is not the way to improve article quality. All of the improvements were generated by simply google searches.--TM23:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "References Needed" tag was first added, but YOU removed such tag without adding any references - effectively impedeing the improvement of the article. Per WP:BLP, the burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, it is you who needs to able to demonstrate that the content of the article complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Onthegogo (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Onthegogo, with these edits you indicated that you consider that the List of VDQS wines lacks context and needs the attention of an expert. Could you please provide some information about what context you think this list is lacking, and which needs to be provided by something else than a wikilink to the main article on subject Vin Délimité de Qualité Supérieure. It would also be good to know why you added the "expert needed" template - did you for example detect any factual errors? Regards, Tomas e (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article requires English-language references and the attention of an expert would be helpful to locate some. The article has only one reference link, and that points to a French-language site. Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English language sources of equal caliber and content. Onthegogo (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm an active participant in the WP:WINE project, could you specify which kind of expert you were thinking of? And if you encounter references with a dead link, could I ask you to use the {{dead link}} rather than deleting the references? Tomas e (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct when you say that, other things being equal, English-language references are preferable. But that does not mean that English-language references are required, particularly since online translation services such as http://translate.google.com are available. - Eastmain (talk • contribs)02:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I am tagged the article as needing an expert. I am hoping that someone with more knowledge of available resources will locate the preferable English-language references. Onthegogo (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you recently tagged this article for WP:PROD, stating that you couldn't find any coverage of the person in third party sources. If you had taken a look at What Links Here, you would find two highly relevant articles:
You didn't add any references, and I still can't find significant sources to support your claim of notability. Please add sources to support your claims. Onthegogo (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of your recent AfD's (in the last day or two) have been off the mark, in my opinion. And that's coming from someone who many view as a deletionist. Please try to be more careful and review WP:BEFORE more thoroughly before creating any more unnecessary work for editors by forcing them to defend articles that shouldn't need defense. If most or all of your AfD's are being closed as "Keep", then that is a sign that your personal standards for inclusion need adjustment, because they are not matching up with Wikipedia's standards. —SW—spout04:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is my belief that the Wikipedia community tolerates differences in personal opinions. For example, in my opinion you were off the mark to remove the advert tag[12] from the Dante (networking) article without making any effort to fix the highlighted problem. But then again, you have implied that you try to avoid work that is unnecessary, in your opinion. Onthegogo (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Differences in opinion are certainly tolerated, but creating a bunch of AfD's that will predictably close as "Keep" is just a waste of everyone's time. The ones you're nominating are not even borderline. And, the reason I removed the advert tag without changing anything is because I don't believe the article reads like an advertisement, and therefore doesn't need fixing. If there is something in particular about the article that you think is spam, either fix it or identify it by starting a discussion on the talk page of the article. —SW—chatter07:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding information on the company's countersuit to the article on Sunshine Village. The cited article from the Calgary Herald comes off as some of the most biased journalism I've seen in a while, but your summary is pretty solid. The section comes off as quite a bit more balanced now. —INTRIGUEBLUE(talk|contribs)07:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this is a page that I have any personal interest in (having stumbled across it while on vandalism patrol I think) but if the proposed deletion process is not valid here, how is one to go about getting rid of the page (and the currently incorrect redirect)? Arthur Holland (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It appears that many of the edits that you are doing with AWB run afoul of what the tool is meant for. Please have a look at WP:AWB#Rules of use especially the section on making insignificant or inconsequential edits. Thanks. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)02:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested to know what kind of research you did before tagging this article for proposed deletion. NW(Talk)17:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using various web-searches I was not able to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Most of the websites are just a re-posting of the case itself (not independent), and others are not what can be considered "reliable" because they lack the editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability per the reliable source guideline. Not every case decided by the United States Supreme Court is notable. Onthegogo (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your interest in this article is noted, but I believe that your time and efforts would be put to better use if you would add referenced content to the article, as it is woefully lacking in both. Onthegogo (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe at all that you made any legitimate effort to search for proper sources. I am going to ask that you refrain from using the prod process in the future, and just use the XfD processes for pages you think should be deleted. NW(Talk)20:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume the assumption of assuming good faith. I don't know why you have your tail all up in a knot. The AfD has sided with your argument, and more than that, it has been informative, and useful as it has helped to clarify the notion that there may be a presumed notability of United States Supreme Court cases. Further, the article itself has been improved from its original unreferenced stub. And isn't better articles the end goal that we all share? I have read and analyzed your criticism of my "performance" and I will continue to strive to be a better editor. Now, I wish this conversation to close, and I respectfully request that you refrain from posting any more messages to my talk page. Onthegogo (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not bring any emotional baggage to this controversy. I read from your user page that you are a Canadian interested in biology. With that let me make an analogy to explain why your nomination has stirred up the passions: supposed that you spent time writing a Wikipedia article about Hudson Bay or caribou and I nominated it for deletion as non-notable. Wouldn't you say to yourself, "How dare he? He doesn't know anything about Canada!" So, please put yourself in the shoes of hard-working Wikipedia editors that are trying to do a comprehensive job of covering all U.S. Supreme Court opinions, just as there are a group of biologists trying to cover all know species of birds found in Canada. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument may hold some weight if NuclearWarfare (NW) had actually spent time writing the Wikipedia article about Skilling v. United States. However, the fact is that he made zero edits to the two sentence, unreferenced, stub article prior to removing the prod. (p.s. I am living in the U.S.) Onthegogo (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nail Yakupov has broken several Sarnia Sting records for a player in his rookie season. He is 4th in points for the just-concluded 2010-11 OHL season. He is expected by critical commentators (and numerous fans) to be a possible #1 draft pick in 2012 for the NHL. He's been on several Russian teams (look under "What links here"). And he's been named OHL Rookie of the Month three times already (and who knows, he might get a fourth for March). If that does not make an OHL - nay, make that CHL - hockey player notable, especially in his rookie year, then I don't know what does. I presume good faith, but suggesting that this article needs to be deleted is not acceptable to me. If I created an article for his teammate Alex Galchenyuk, you might have a cause for deletion (even though he's rumoured as a possible second pick the same year as Yakupov), but I have not created that article. CycloneGU (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. He is playing at the highest level of ice hockey, in North America, for junior players. He has an outstanding season and anyone who is familiar with the OHL knows who he is. Anyone reading the season page would see that Yakupov is a top performer, and research tells that he is the top scoring rookie. And while this comment falls under crystal-balling, I think he's an obvious choice for CHL Rookie of the Year (though that also involves other CHL leagues as well and could go to any of several players, the others who I am not familiar with). NHL scouts know who Yakupov is, and he's been the subject of many (admittedly non-sourceable) NHL blogs. Even if you make a successful case for deleting the article despite all the reasons I've given, the article will end up recreated by someone else once he does make it into the NHL; that will take just another year if he keeps playing like he has been. And if the reasons given don't make him notable, he will be as CHL Rookie of the Year if he wins that (but again, I'm not a crystal ball). CycloneGU (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now being discussed in AfD and you should post your comments there. Even if the community decides to delete, this article can be recreated when notability is achieved. Onthegogo (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found the discussion before you posted the last post, actually. We'll see what everyone thinks, at least this will serve as a record for his notability at present. I should take note of when the OHL regular season awards are handed out, and follow that as well. CycloneGU (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to the Nail Yakupov discussion, I just found out that Alex Galchenyuk - who I did not consider notable enough for an article and ATM is red-linked - in fact won the Jack Ferguson Award for 2010. Does this make him notable by Wikipedia standards and thus should I start looking up information for him? Being familiar with Yakupov, I am clearly familiar with #93 on the same line as Yakupov. CycloneGU (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did an advanced search for "Jack Ferguson Award" and found [[13]] which concludes that winning the Jack Ferguson Award does not establish notability. Onthegogo (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Well, not worried about that myself, wasn't doing his article. XD
In any case, I have done some news archive research and found that the Rookie of the Year award last year was given on April 8. That is only 18 days from now, so depending on discussion on the AfD regarding the notability of that award, I might propose delaying the AfD. Even if the article is deleted in seven days, as soon as Yakupov wins the award (which is WP:CRYSTAL but a near certainty; see my comments at the AfD), someone else will create the article as a brand new article and none of the previous edit history will be on the new version of the article. I'd hate having to go back and reconstruct the article three weeks from now, so I'd probably prefer having it userfied if consensus ends up at Delete. CycloneGU (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With few exceptions, every article edit you have made since creating your new Mtking user ID on March 8th has been to challenge the notability of articles; through tags, prods, and AfDs. Onthegogo (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You recently re-added the {{recent death}} template to the above-captioned article, two edits after another editor removed it, with the accurate and descriptive summary "too little editing for death template". I have removed it again. Please review the documentation at Template:Recent death/doc for more information.
It seems you took our ANI discussion quite personally. Why? I don't believe that I have previously acted unfairly or disrespectfully towards you, although I'm certainly sorry if that is the case. I would prefer to resolve this issue between us rather than to open a DR process. —INTRIGUEBLUE(talk|contribs)07:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hi dear, it is my humble request for you to Please upload the display picture of Govinda(actor) on Wikipedia (Link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govinda_%28actor%29). I have uploaded it so many times but every time some issue occurs regarding license or copyright. I don't know how to fix it or upload image successfully. You can find best pictures of Govinda here
So it would be much better if you upload either the pictures whose link i have given above of Govinda without any licensing/copyright issue or upload any best picture of Govinda
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanraj6 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
