User talk:Jim Carter/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome note

Hello Jim Cartar, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Jim Cartar, good luck, and have fun. – Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 12:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Jnanaranjan, for the beautiful welcome note. Although you may think me a new user but surprisingly it is not true. I'm in Wikipedia for more than 5 years as a IP user, mastering the skills used by a registered user. But in future if I need any assistance, I will surely ask you for help. Thanks again. Jim Cartar (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Welcome ! Nice to know that you are here. 5 years means a big experience. Hope you will help Wikipedia grow and achieve its goal.--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 13:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I will try my best to do so. Jim Cartar (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for your edits in my draft Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Early_Nationalists_of_India_(Moderates). Rudra (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Another account

Please see: User talk:Rudra john cena#Another account

Thank you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your future at Wikipedia

Read: User talk:Rudra john cena#Rudra john cena/Jim Cartar

As this account seems to be an attempt at a fresh start, I will block Rudra john cena and you must only use this account and create no others. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kainaz Motivala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horror (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your involvement in discussions at my talk page

Hi there. I know you are just trying to be helpful, but sometimes others find it simpler if just one person handles a matter. Thank you for your understanding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(You replied at my talk:) "...I am sorry if you disliked my interference in your talk page discussions. I am just trying to assist them.
Was my style of approach to the new users were correct ??
What do you think should I continue helping new users with suggestions ?..."
Your suggestion was fine. Your style was correct. You may help new users as you wish, but maybe not new users who have come to my talk page for answers.
When I started at Wikipedia, I spent the first few years learning, reading, seeing how others handle things, and feeling not at home at all. Years! I am still learning and always will. I am just beginning now to feel able to dispense some advice. I am truly at the bottom of the ladder in terms of expertise. I still ask zillions of questions at IRC and elsewhere, and try hard to learn how to approach and respond to matters. You have been here for such a short time, have had issues with your contributions (and still do), complaints, and problems, yet you are doling out advice like an expert. Please consider spending your time learning and absorbing. I say this with respect. Slow down and learn. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Your suggestion was fine. — No, it was not. I saw that post and ignored it. You suggested to keep his userpage "simple". The issue was not related to simplicity or complexity of the userpage. The userpage was deleted under Wikipedia:CSD#G11 — using userpage for advertisement/promotion. A better (read "correct") suggestion could be asking him not to create userpage like a fake article or detailed biography or resume.
    Secondly you asked him to contribute in medical science related subjects. His prompt reply was I shall surely provide much information on Total Knee and Hip Replacement Surgeries. I won't be surprised if he adds his suggestions or prescriptions in some disease articles. Mentioning the Wikipedia policies e.g. please contribute to medical science related articles following Wikipedia policies, check WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV etc could be better. You and that editor have similar level of expertise. A blind can not lead another blind. Tito☸Dutta 13:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, true. It wasn't such a good suggestion Cartar made. It wasn't absolutely terrible either. I was hoping he'd just stay away from suggestions and advice altogether, and if he didn't, speak up then. Also, I'm sure many are watching the doctor's contribs, searching for mainspace articles to appear, and even linksearch drnirajvora.co.in and linksearch www.drnirajvora.com/. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Titodutta can you please be polite when talking with me. Okay @Anna I will gain experience first. Thank you for bringing me the issues. And @Titodutta your words are quite rude. If you want to insult me then please don't talk with me. I am just asking Anna if I am going in the right way or not. She told me not to suggest others with out experience, which I have agreed thats all, its over. Why are you poking your nose every where? Jim Cartar (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • can you please be polite when talking with me — shut up. From the very first day you have flooded me with notifications and help requests and now you are asking why I am getting involved! And why are you notifying and adding talkback messages if you don't want me to reply? --Tito☸Dutta 17:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Tito☸Dutta 05:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hey, guys, cut it out. Both of you. Now! WP:CIVILITY is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, and is also what your mother taught you: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." Since the two of you don't seem to get along, I would suggest you simply stop talking to each other and stay off of each other's talk pages. Don't join conversations they are having with other people. Don't tell them what to do. You know, people can be blocked for getting into personal fights. (By the way, Jim/Rudra, there is no need to use "talkback" notes to tell someone they have a message on your talk page. Just address your message to them using their Wikipedia username, as in [[User:MelanieN]], and they will receive one of those top-of-the-page notices telling them that they have been mentioned.) --MelanieN ::(talk) 17:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello @User:Titodutta please calm down I have told you not to talk like this earlier. shut up. From the very first day you have flooded me with notifications and help requests and now you are asking why I am getting involved!—What else, you are the one who started talking with me first at my alternate accounts talk page, this is not called involvement instead this can be called Adding fuel in fire (i.e. provoking others to feel bad about someone) and by the way every expert Wikipedian receives hundreds of notifications, none of them complains like you, every new user has rights to ask for help from a experienced user like you but no one use this term shut up. to a new user. It was a small issue of suggestions but you have started fighting with me. You are the one who pokes his nose in others conversations you did it multiple times on User:Anna Frodesiak talk page, in my talk page in User:BgWhites talk page etc. Before pointing fingers on others please think 100times that if you are doing the correct one or not. Before you critisise others please think once if you are doing the right thing or not. It was User:MelanieN for whom I am not fighting. You suggested to keep his userpage "simple". The issue was not related to simplicity or complexity of the userpage.—Are you judging my suggestions. I know my suggestions were not good and I have already stopped suggesting others. But I have just told Niraj Vora to make his user page Simple after I have seen the suggestion by Anna-Editors who arrive, make it plain and in a earlier discussion she told something like this "one must add only Basic Information on there user page" I know you are thinking what I am trying to explain with this, If you try to find the meaning of simple in Oxford English Dictionary, isbn=0-19-569258-6 then you will find the meaning is Plain and basic that mean I have commented partially same what User:Anna Frodesiak already said him. So, Tito-No, it was not. also means that the comment introduced by Anna was also not totally perfect. 2ndly a New user cannot always understand the heavy meanings of Wikipedia guidelines so it is our not me but other users responsibility to make them understand step by step not only providing see this guidelines first makes them understand the total system how Wikipedia works. I don't know if you have seen other parts of the discussion or not but I have mentioned the advertising or self-promotional topic already some where there. Secondly you asked him to contribute in medical science related subjects. —Is it wrong to encourage new users to contribute. I personally think that one should contribute in a article in which he as good knowledge. That is why I asked him to contribute in the field which is his profession. I won't be surprised if he adds his suggestions or prescriptions in some disease articles.—Do you think that Indian editors are so stupid that they will add prescriptions about diseases, He maybe new but it is his common sense that he will not do such a idiotic blunder. (This point makes me laugh) Anna has already said that some users are watching his contributions if he makes any error then they will revert changes he will make.
See I am not here to proof something nor I am trying to fight you and neither I am suggesting you something. I have done numerous mistakes in wikipedia and this could be another one. I am not trying to proof myself correct nor I want to proof what I did is perfect neither I'm trying to proof Tito wrong. I am already feeling guilty for my work. I am just trying to answer what Tito said please don't take me otherwise. I have said everything assuming Good faith (as far as I think) But if any thing hurts you then please forgive me assuming me as your family member. Maybe I have mistaken everything above, it is upto User:MelanieN and User:Anna Frodesiak if I am correct or the negative one. Again please forgive If I showed any incivil behaviours. Jim Cartar (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Jim Cartar, you saw my advice: Just stop talking to him. But instead, you wrote a book. I understand: you wanted to reply to his criticisms and justify yourself. Everybody wants to get in the last word. Everybody wants to prove that THEY are the good guy and the OTHER guy is a problem. But that's not a good way to handle things at Wikipedia. It just makes for escalating battles, "he said this!", "he did that!" It's childish and it's also bad for the Wiki.
You will do as you want. But my advice is to ignore Tito. Other people can see what he says and judge for themselves whether one or both of you is a problem. Yes, he was wrong to tell you to shut up. Everybody can see that. You don't have to point it out. If you keep replying to him and arguing with him you will only make matters worse. If you just stop talking to him, the situation will quickly calm down.
As for the situation raised here by Anna: Anna was trying to help another user at Anna's own talk page. Anna asked you, politely, not to jump in with additional advice or comments, but to let Anna handle it. That's good advice and you should follow it. And in the more general case, since so many people have objected to your advice to new users, I also think it would be better if you focus on your own editing and leave the advice to more experienced editors. --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment retracted, page unwatchlisted. Tito☸Dutta 05:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion

The above discussion is everything about me and Tito.
I try to follow the advices of Anna. She always helps me and I like to take suggestions from her. Even this time also I asked Anna if I am going at the right way or not. And she replied me here. And then I was just typing the thank you message. Suddenly Tito erupt and malignated everything. Although, I was trying to convince him to talk with me politely. But he replied me with a Shut up. So, I replied to what he meant to tell me. This is not the first time he has started this type of virtual chaos. But in the other hand User:MelanieN adviced both and the War ended. So, Many thanks to User:MelanieN. :) Jim Cartar (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark W. Rocha page

Hi Jim Cartar, Thank you for you help with creating an article. I saw your notes and have added some citations to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mark_W._Rocha page. I was wondering if this is notable enough to get the article approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark W. Rocha (talk • contribs) 23:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Jim, if you don't mind, I will visit Mark's page and advise him. Please leave it to me. The issues is actually not notability but something else. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Stfg, no problem it will be helpful. But I know the problem the draft can be deleted by speedy G13 (promotion and advertisment), tell me If I am wrong. And thank you I have stopped suggesting others now it is upto (talk page stalker) if they are going to suggest or not. I will like if you can approach them instead. Jim Cartar (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. (By the way, I think you mean G11 rather than 13). Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, something like that. Jim Cartar (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Since you ask about a speedy, I've reviewed it from that point of view and I must say that I don't think it qualifies for a WP:G11. Please note the emphasis on "exclusively promotional" in the G11 criterion. There is cited factual material in the draft. There are other issues with it, and I'll be returning to it as soon as I have time, but not to tag it with a CSD. --Stfg (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Point Noted. And yes I am the one who asked him to cite some materials from the view of Notability. The last time I seen the draft, it was not cited with any source so I asked him to add. But the author may have added references now. I'll look the draft again after my exam ends. Apart from this, as the author written about himself there are less chances of being neutral. And maybe I am not sure Stfg I am not sure but it may meets Wikipedia:A7.
Thanks I know you are a good reviewer as well. Cheers. Jim Cartar (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Definitely not a WP:A7. "He is the Superintendent-President of Pasadena City College" is already a "credible claim of significance or importance", and that is all that A7 calls for. And please note that notability and verifiability are different things. The subject of an article is notable if it meets appropriate notability criteria, even if the article lacks citations.
But the main point that has struck me about the advice you've given to this and other authors of AFC drafts is that most of the articles you've advised on are promotional -- often probably self-promotional, but in any event involving a heavy WP:conflict of interest. So talking about citations and notability may not have been exactly wrong, but it misses the most important point: the drafts aren't "encyclopedic".
Now I must ask you something like what Anna did. I didn't appreciate you going back to Mark W. Rocha's talk page today to tell him he could ask you things if I was busy. You do not yet have the expertise, and it is not a good idea to involve yourself in situations where more experienced editors are helping. It can only put a spanner in the works. Please for the moment stop putting yourself forward as someone to go to for advice. You are not nearly ready for that role. For now, you need to concentrate on article work, such as adding sources, doing cleanup, writing new articles and sections, ..., as you were advised to do before. I understand you hope to become an admin one day. Experience and skill at developing the encyclopedia is a prerequisite for that. As Anna said, it takes time and work to develop the know-how. --Stfg (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a misunderstanding, I have stopped advicing already. I actually mean that if he finds you busy then he can leave a message here and other (talk page stalker) will give him answers not me other users who is more experienced like Anna, MelanieN etc. Stfg don't take me wrong. Sorry if I did something wrong again. Jim Cartar (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
No worries, thanks. You didn't actually say that, but now we know, that's good. --Stfg (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
O... I deleted the comment so that no further misunderstanding can take place. :) Jim Cartar (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

User category

By the way, about that red-linked user category you list on your userpage, Category:Users who use Mozzila: Did you mean to list Category:Wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox? Or maybe Mozilla Aurora or Mozilla Nightly? --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes MelanieN I mean Category:Wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox, I don't have time to fix it. I am a bit busy in creating some new userboxes. Have you seen the AfC draft. Jim Cartar (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
MelanieN please inform me here if you have see this AfC draft.
By the way I am having my Entrance examinations so I am going to be less productive in the next few days. Please leave your views about the draft here. I will surely reply after my examinations. Thanks. Jim Cartar (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Good luck with your exams. I'm not sure when I will have time to look at your draft; certainly not today. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I took a quick look at your draft. You have put a lot of work into this article; did you write it as a school assignment? If so I bet you got a good grade, because it is very well done as a school paper. Wikipedia has other criteria.

Yeah, something like that when I was in 10th standard. It own me best assignment of the month. Jim Cartar (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your draft has already been reviewed by someone who has a lot of experience with articles about Indian history. I agree with their assessment: the article is not well supported by references. Most of your references are not Reliable Sources, which means things like scholarly articles or books, reports from major newspapers, etc. Yourarticlelibrary.com is not a Reliable Source; those are self-written essays which anyone can write and submit, there is no fact-checking or other verification. (You could upload your draft to that library!) Same problem with the blog for exam preparation. Your draft could certainly be tidied up and copy edited, but that would not do any good if the article was not supported by Reliable Sources. Also, as someone else mentioned, the title of the article is not good.

On the other hand, this material is interesting and it doesn't seem to be well covered at Wikipedia, so I think there is a place for it. My recommendation is that you not try to make this a free-standing article, at least not right now. Instead, add some of the information - the parts that have Reliable Sourcing - to existing articles like British Raj#1870s–1907: Social reformers, moderates vs. extremists, or to Indian independence movement#Rise of Indian nationalism (1885–1905). You will get feedback from other editors who work at those articles; accept their comments and learn from them, and gradually expand the information. Eventually you may have enough material to split off into a separate article. But don't start out trying to write a brand new article. That's my advice. And in fact it's generally good advice for new users: start out by improving existing articles, not by trying to create new ones --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the article with more references and some are from scholarly books as you mentioned above. It has also been refered to one of the greatest newspapers in India i.e. The Daily Telegraph. The person who mentioned, the title was not correct don't know anything about Indian history. You may see the comment I made at the top of the draft. Jim Cartar (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I did some hard work to take it to the mainspace. And now I added some good sources, you can see them. And now I think it is almost ready to be reviewed once more. On the other hand if I add informations to existing articles without prior notice then it is certain to imagine the end of the informations by someones revert. MelanieN I request you to do something. I have made some changes. Please take another quick review and tell me if it is okay now??? Jim Cartar (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The person reviewing your article is User:Sitush. They have started the process, and it would be unusual for me or anyone else to jump in and take over the review. In any case, they have far more knowledge than I do about the history of India and the article review process. I did do this: I copyedited the article, fixing grammar and spelling errors, and fixing some points of Wikipedia style (such as wikilinking to a given article just once, and not linking to everyday words). As for your improvements, you added some sources but you seem to have retained the sources that Sitush thought were not Reliable. I'll let Sitush judge. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh Almighty! I have again forgot to delete the sources. Really I am the biggest idiot among all the wikipedians here. I will delete them shortly. And thank you for working on my draft. I will be in contact with you, if I face problems again. Thank you MelanieN. I will surely support you if ever you nominate yourself for Adminstrator rights.
And is the sources that I have added this time are upto the mark???. Jim Cartar (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Notable help

Hi Jim - Thanks so much for your helpful edits and note. I'm hoping you can clarify your suggestion to: "You must add more informations about the subject instead of making the article a plot summary."

I came up with this draft, do you think it suffices? Or what else would you suggest?


As a blogger Wealthy Single Mommy, Emma writes about her life as a professional, single parent in New York City, and speaks to issues facing professional women. She is known for taking a strong stand that women should continue their careers and strive for financial independence after having children, as well as term marriage contracts as an answer to high divorce rates. Since launching in August, 2012, the blog gained an international following and media attention -- and is often criticized for being unrealistic in her dating, and judgmental of other women's choices, including by bloggers at The Chicago Tribune [1], the blog Heartiste [2].

All help appreciated! thanks Jim! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnabefamous (talk • contribs) 19:11, 23 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello Gonnabefamous, and welcome to my talk page. Whenever you comment on a talk page please sign it by typing ~~~~ i.e. four tides at the end of your post. "You must add more informations about the subject instead of making the article a plot summary." I meant that you should add sections about the subject, something like Early life of the subject, personal life of the subject, etc.
As you asked me for suggestions. I will leave it to my (talk page stalker) i.e. my friendly users. They will suggest you shortly. Jim Cartar (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for this .... I made changes ... does this suffice? Thanks again!

Gonnabefamous (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gonnabefamous: I don't know about notability for journalists, but it seems to me you haven't yet taken on board the comments of the previous two reviewers to the effect that the article reads like an advertisement for Johnson. Adding a sentence or two to the effect that some people don't agree with what she writes really doesn't change this. Noting your username, if Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and/or Wikipedia:Autobiography are at all relevant to you, then you don't have to tell us this, but you would need to take what they say on board. If you need any more advice on your article, maybe a return trip to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk would be the best idea.
@Jim, the edits you did to that article were good. One tip for you is that we put the names of newspapers in italics, and if we wikilink them, the quote marks go outside the brackets. Thus, to get The New York Times we type ''[[The New York Times]]''. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Another request

Hi Jim, I'm afraid you must be feeling that we're all criticising you an awful lot, and I'm very sorry to make yet another request, but please could you stop telling people to come to your talk page to get advice from your friendly talk page stalkers, as you did today at User talk:Ladypn. I know you are trying to be helpful, but if we want to provide an advice service, we can provide it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. If people ask you for advice about AFCs, please in future would you advise them to go there (as I've just done for Gonnabefamous). This is the best way, because different editors know about different things, and a wider range of experience is likely to be available at that help desk. I hope that's OK. --Stfg (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Stfg I got it. But as I am Improving AfC drafts so I have to let the creator know that I have made some changes. So can you suggest me what should I tell them in there talk page. So, that no further problems occur. Thank you. Jim Cartar (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Jim. When you improve articles, you don't usually need to go to the author's talk page. Your edit summaries are good, and they are enough to explain what you've done. Then, if they come and ask you why you did something, you can explain it, or if they ask you for more advice you can point them to the help desk. By the way, you might like to have a look at WP:OVERLINK. We don't usually link to more than one mention of the same thing, except in very big articles. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
By the way, you might like to have a look at WP:OVERLINK. We don't usually link to more than one mention of the same thing–Are you telling this after seeing this AfC draft. If so then I know, it is something I have done due to lack of time (My entrance examinations are going on). So I'm typing this to tell that I don't have enough time to add the references to its respective sections. But you know that if I don't add them in the draft then it is certain that the draft may decline. So, I have just added the references to its lead section and leaved it to the reviewer to fix it. If It is not fixed in next few days, then I will try to fix it after exam. Thank you Stfg for your advice. Jim Cartar (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Jim/Rudra, I agree with Stgf's advice: don't invite people here so that your "friendly talk page stalkers" can answer their questions. I think you have a misunderstanding about talk page watchers. The fact that there are people who watch your talk page is not unusual; we all have them. Actually, your page has very few talk page watchers, fewer than 30,[1] and a brand-new user like Ladypn may have none. In contrast, there are nearly 60 people who watch Stgf's page, and 80 people watch mine. I have no idea who these people are; they rarely say anything; but they are there, or they may be there. Talk page watchers don't say anything most of the time, they just read. That's why they are humorously called talk page "stalkers", because they stay in the background, out of sight, and you don't know if they are reading or not. They occasionally speak up, if there is a question or comment that has not yet been answered by the person whose talk page it is. Or they may add a comment to an existing conversation, as I am doing here. Watchers are more numerous on the talk pages of experienced users. But they are not a very good way of finding help. If a new user needs help with an article, they should go to a help desk, as Stfg suggested. Posting on a talk page, and hoping somebody will jump in with the answer, is a much less effective way of finding help. I'm not criticizing you, just letting you know how things work! --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I got it, thanks for your advice User:MelanieN. Jim Cartar (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Help me

I have been detected as a sock puppet after I have already disclosed in my user page that I and User:Rudra john cena are the same. I have been blocked from editing for a reason which I haven't done. Please see :Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rudra john cena and you guys will understand what I am trying to explain. I have only and only created this account as alternate and I have already disclosed this issue but now they have detected some other account. But I swear in the name of God I don't have any other account, please help me User:MelanieN, User:Anna F remote, User:Stfg, User:Anna Frodesiak, User:VQuakr, User:Admrboltz, User:Bgwhite. And all please help me unblock. I don't have any other account. Guyzz please, please, please believe me. Please. Please help me.

I wanted to do a new start so I created this account and leaved Rudra john cena account forever. You can ask Anna she knows. And as claimed in sock investigation that I have copyvios but actually I don't have any. See the location from were I and the other account as claimed is accessing Wikipedia. You will understand that it is not me. Please I beg you please unblock. I am not guilty. Jim Cartar (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've drawn the blocking administrator's attention to the history here. Let's see what he thinks. --Stfg (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much Stfg. I will never forget your help. I don't know why but always the horrible one happens with me only. I can prove that I'm not lying. I have made a fresh start and I have changed my untruthfulness by loyalty. Believe me. And please continue informing me what blocking admin thinks, because now I cannot send anyone a {{Talkback}} message. Thank you again. Jim Cartar (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I also think this block was unjust. You are no longer using the Rudra ID. It's true that you briefly tried to use them both, but you are new and you didn't know better. You admitted the mistake, apologized, and stopped doing it. (But be warned: don't use any other IDs while you are blocked, and don't post anonymously while you are blocked. Right now, the only place you are allowed to post is here on your own talk page. If you post anywhere else, you will be guilty of "block evasion" and the block will become permanent.) For now, post only here on your own talk page, stay calm, and let's see if those of us who know your history can get this block overturned. It may take a little while. You have made your case; now be patient and see what happens. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I've unblocked; I initially blocked since the reason for the initial block wasn't noted at the SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rudra john cena. However, please restrict yourself to only using this account from now on. --Rschen7754 15:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you User:Rschen7754 for unblocking me. But you have deleted my whole userpage and replaced it with a sock puppet notice. Would you mind to remove it replacing it by the initial one. Thank you. Jim Cartar (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed that. Now, Jim, I commend Anna's advice in the previous section. It doesn't have to be species articles -- your interests in politics, history, and literature are good encyclopedia subjects, and working on requests at WP:RA is a good idea. Doing it via AFC, so that you can get the advice of reviewers, is the best way at present. My honest view is that you should stop improving other people's AFCs for the time being. There are two reasons for this: (a) you have to learn before you can teach; (b) the articles you've been improving are often not always very promising ones -- there's a lot of conflict of interest in many of them, so the articles may end up rejected anyway, and your work will be wasted. (Unless other watchers of this page see it differently?)
Some more information for you: (A) a failed Google search doesn't always mean that a subject is not notable. Many species are described only in the scientific literature. (B) You don't need to use talkback if you know someone is watching the page, or if you've use a template like {{replyto}}, {{ping}} or {{u}}, because they generate a notification to that user anyway. Happy editing! --Stfg (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for unblocking, User:Rschen7754. This user has made some mistakes due to inexperience, but they mean well, and there are several experienced editors who watch this page and advise them. I don't think there will be any further problems. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Rishra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Id, Bengali, Oriya, Bihari, Hugli and Gujrati
Nationalist Movements in India (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Dandi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Images needing articles

You've made it clear that you wish to become an administrator someday. A bit of guidance: If I were you, I'd get out of the helping others business, and into content creation. Why? Content creation is the absolute best place to start as a Wikipedian. It gives you experience in many areas, and will better enable you to help others to create content (WP:AfC). It is also really, really important at an WP:RfA, and many won't support you if you haven't created a substantial amount.

A great way is to make species articles. They don't have to be huge. You can copy the formatting from other articles. The prose can consist of several, simply stated facts. Sources are easy to find. The images are already waiting for the articles. Imagine at your userpage, a list of articles that you created. Here are images needing articles that you might be interested in starting:

Please let me know if you need any help. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Sounds good. I have seen the images. Some images are not notable after I googled the stated fact. I don't have much knowledge on some of the subject based on the images. The thing I am interested is the politics, history, and literature part of WP:RA. If you give me permission then I can create articles based on above mentioned subjects. And I'm really confused, should I continue improving AfCs, start creating new articles or should I do both. I had already created some article by my old account, should I enlist them also on my userpage.

wish to become an administrator someday.–This was my dream which was already shattered. :'( Please suggest me Anna what should I do. Jim Cartar (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about the block. The admin was acting in good faith and made a mistake. It happens. I've done it. Please don't be upset about that.
Now, starting articles: If you are only interested in the subjects you state above, then I am worried a bit. I think you may need a bit of assistance. First, please tell us the subject before you start. The list at RA may contain items that are already articles under a different name or a section in another article. The subject may not even be notable. Second, you may need others to fix the prose a bit to make it ready for the mainspace. Anyway, that is a good place to start. An even better place would be to add facts, or expand or add entire sections to existing articles. I must say that considering your copyvio history, adding prose that another person gave you that is sourced by library books that are offline, worries me a lot. Better would be online, written by you, and we help fix up any English mistakes. Anna F remote (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Now I do know about copyvios and so I don't copy paste anything that is not my. You can see my edit history. I made a new start only for my bad records as User:Rudra john cena and when I started this account I promised to myself that I will not repeat the same. I started this account because I want to try for WP:RfA someday. I want to keep my records clean and try my best to become a steller editor. To become a good editor I want your help Anna, I'm editing from this account for more than 14 days. Now please judge me if I am going in the right way or not. If I'm improving or not, if I'm again gaining the trust of other users (including you) or not.
And please tell me how do you become an admin ?? I'm really curious to know. Jim Cartar (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
When you say "how do you become an admin", I suppose you mean "how does one become an admin". Well, create a lot of content, be helpful, know policy, don't fight, be trustworthy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Jack M. Ducker

I see that you are continuing with your project of de-orphaning articles. That's good! But one correction: you added "Jack M. Ducker" to "List of painters by name beginning with J". The lists are alphabetized by LAST name, so he really belongs at "List of painters by name beginning with D". Thanks for doing this and keep up the article improvements! --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Something that needs improving

About the article K. N. Srinivasan: You are absolutely correct that this person is notable and should have an article here. Right now there are no in-line cited references at the article. However, Cullen suggested two such references at the AfD discussion. Do you feel able to add those references to the article, as in-line citations? If so, you could give yourself credit for "rescuing" the article. If you need help in knowing how to add in-line citations just ask me. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW if you do decide to do this, I STRONGLY recommend the use of "show preview" before you hit "save page". Using Preview allows you to get everything perfect before you post your page to the encyclopedia. I sometimes use Preview five or six times before I have everything right. And when I don't use Preview before posting - as I didn't with the note above - somebody like User:Josve05a has to come by and fix my mistakes. 0;-D So, Jim, if you are not comfortable about adding these references to the article, just say so. I'll do it - and you can see how I do it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 10, 2014)

Because it is so vast, there are a large number of different cultures involved in Prehistoric Asia
Hello, Jim Cartar.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Prehistoric Asia

Previous selections: Human skeleton • Reconnaissance satellite

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

Your submission at Articles for creation: Professor Gautam Chatterjee (March 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Petron Gosser, Erin (January 23, 2014). "Wealthy Single Mommy uses "poor" judgement". The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 16 February 2014.
  2. ^ "Single Mom Wants Alpha Male -- Won't Get Him". Heartiste. April 09, 2013. Retrieved 16 February 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jim_Carter/Archive_1&oldid=1136176190"