User talk:Keserman

BEFORE MESSAGING ME,READ THE BELOW!Keserman (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Welcome...[reply]

read before messaging me!Keserman (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

BEFORE GIVING ME ANY AND ALL MESSAGES,please read.i would prefer that any messages on my talk page be left in the form of a new section.the tab on top is there.EVEN when they are replies to other messages,such as in section important!new harbour,newfound and labrador.i will locate them easier,and probably my brain can process them easier,and if it is a reply or someone putting in their say as to a section on this page,i will still know what you are talking about.i do remember messages i sent to people,or things i posted on this page.cheers,Keserman (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh,do talk!Keserman (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Keserman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. You may also be interested in our intuitive guide to Wikipedia. Again, welcome! SpinningSpark 22:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

shadow ranger,before i seen your thing for responding on my own page,i sent you a message.

Speedy deletion nomination of New Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador

A tag has been placed on New Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Rockstonetalk to me! 03:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted, but I restored the article to a version from a few months back that was indeed salvageable. I would recceomend reading more about contributing to Wikipedia before you do any more expansion. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dildo

You need to add a citation to a reliable, published source then. Steven Walling 00:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Merwin hulbert & company

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Merwin hulbert & company requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. De728631 (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merwin hulbert & company

anyone in support of this deletion,or any one in support of its keep,should visit the article's talk page where i give full objection,and read it in full,and see why this deletion is unreasonable,and see my requirements in case of deletion,as i would want notice with reason for deletion,and anyone in support of it's keep may gain reason to further support them,incase i am not present to defend the article,or to back me up defending it.

merwin hulbert & company deleted!

my page merwin hulbert & company was deleted,so dont worry.i have ideas of somehow finding out why my objection was insufficient,and overruled.i requested that this be sent to me anyway,but has not arrived in the form of a message.i also have ideas of eventually recreating,but,due to a lack of full devotion for this young,deleted article,if i get information as to why my objection was overruled,i mayleave it be,unless i can make it better with recreation,and i see why it was deleted in full,i may notKeserman (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, I've been out of reach the last days. The reason why I nominated the article for deletion was that it did not indicate the significance of this one company. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for criteria that should be met by articles on companies. And while there are of course articles on other gun companies like Smith & Wesson or Colt Firearms, I thought this one company seemed to be not significant enough, i.e. too small and unimportant for inclusion. Please note also that I didn't eventually delete the article, this was done by an administrator upon my request and after reading your objection. De728631 (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. When you recreate the Merwin Hulbert article, please remember to provide at least one independent source, e.g. a major news report, that establishes some sort of importance of the company. And as to the Newfoundland location, you're welcome. De728631 (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

important! new harbour,newfoundland and labrador Keserman (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

THIS MAY GET LENGTHY,SORRY.PLEASE READ ALL! Keserman (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as i am spreading on the page,soon the talk page,here,and to wikipedians i am familiar with,i admit to there being a fair amount,a soon to decrease amount,of unreferenced information,on my article new harbour,newfoundland and labrador.i have started a process to try to eliminate unreferenced information,add referenced information,and reference existing unreferenced information.this should end by july 20,2010 at least in my time zone hahahahaha,but probably july 16-18.i wish to eliminate information to sort ariving,and therefore discourage magor edits during this process.thank you for presumably helping to maximize the article's quality.Keserman (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your update, but there's no need to keep me informed about the progress. I've added a note to the article saying that it is currently being edited for several days, so that should keep overly busy cleaners away. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. De728631's tag should bring it to the attention of folks with skill and desire to help in page clean-ups. youngamerican (wtf?) 16:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you really should check out the style guide for more on proper grammar, syntax, and punctuation for Wikipedia. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some copy-editing on the page. It is very important though that you provide a direct link to the physician's claim about brain tumors and such. Simply listing the names of websites is not sufficient. De728631 (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most important (and essential) thing is the provision of the reference. Formatting issues, such as hyperlinks, are useful but secondary. SpinningSpark 20:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for editing help

I am not sure what kind of editing help you wanted. You may need to be more specific. Looking at some of your work and comments, you already seem to have realised that it is a mistake not to provide references for all of your contributions. You should also be asking yourself this question - is the information I am providing really notable? Or is it just trivial information that no one has published? I think what would be really helpful for you is to construct your next article in userspace and then ask another editor to review it before you move it to the mainspace. Doing it that way means that there is no danger of the article being deleted before you have got it into an acceptable state. One small point; I recommend that you practice writing everything in proper sentence case, even on talk pages. Text riddled with basic grammatical errors such as no capital at the beginning of sentences has people reaching for the delete button before they have even read what you have written. SpinningSpark 20:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC) well,you left me some a year+ ago,bu i'm not really certain,anything perhaps,that would be very important,like the reference in the new harbour page.if you don't know anything,just leave it alone.Keserman (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I sound harsh, but in this case you seem to be the one who still doesn't know enough about Wikipedia customs and policies, so you better not tell people to leave articles alone. Just because you edit them, they are not your personal project. De728631 (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

even the above sort of response should please be in the form of a new section.Keserman (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Keserman. You have new messages at Talk:New Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

De728631 (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

The easiest way for small articles is to put a bullet list of web sites in the References section, like

* [http://www.blabla.com Blabla website]
* [http://www.foo.org Foo]

If you'd like to add an inline reference behind a fact in the text, you can use <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.blabla.com |title=Blabla |publisher=John Doe}}</ref> and then place {{Reflist}} in the References section. For more info please have a look at WP:References. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Well, there's no real definition what is a small article and what is bigger, but at least a WP:Stub qualifies as small. So if there's only a few lines or two or three short sections with no dubious material that is likely to be challenged, a simple bullet list of sources is ok. Inline citations are appropriate for negative statements that may be contested and must always be given when you quote original text from a source. De728631 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Harbour

I'd say it looks quite good now and we can leave it like it is for a while. I've only removed the hint to the department stores etc. in Dildo because that were unnecessary details. The only thing that is left open is the physician's trouble with brain tumours due to the landfill. This needs a source and the whole BLP section could do well with some more backing up. But we can leave it as is, maybe someone else can come up with sources. De728631 (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it's getting late here too. I meant PCB as in the landfill section. De728631 (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can leave out any parameter you don't know, the only thing required for that template is the title and the weblink. See also {{cite web}} for details and instructions. De728631 (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Harbour/Merwin Hulbert

Hi Keserman, I don't think you need a special reference for the harbour island, unless there's something unusual about it. As to Merwin Hulbert, let's give it a try with some new sourcing. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Merwin Hulbert and company

A tag has been placed on Merwin Hulbert and company, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Timneu22 · talk 12:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page content here. Feel free to edit this, and when you think it is ready then ask others to review it. — Timneu22 · talk 12:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect was intended. I was simply citing the policy that says, "I'm not attached"; in this case, I'm not attached to this article. — Timneu22 · talk 13:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Aside from rewriting the article in better English, you need to add references. What you have so far are not references - they are two external links, both of which have problems. Read WP:RS - it tells you more about sources. Read WP:N - it explains how you need to show with secondary sources that the topic of the article is notable. Decide whether the article is about the company or its product, or both, and then find those sources in books or on the web. Read WP:CITE to see how to add sources. Read articles on other companies (I know you've done some of this already) to see how to lay them out and how to use references. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you might explain this, the listings you called external links, are where the information came from, can verify the information, and as far as I know, that is the purpose of references. But I can check the links you gave me before I....ah...I don't know...tell you any more. Keserman (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read any of those links I gave you? Could you understand what they said - Wikipedia has a bit of a language of its own, and it can be difficult to follow. Basically, you need to show that people who are not the modern company are saying that this company is notable. You would do best writing mainly about the historic company - there are more sources. If you are interested in the subject of handguns, do you have books? These should mention the company. I have books on weapons including handguns, but they mostly focus on European stuff, or I'd send you some suggestions.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

future work

I intend to work on firearms articles within the next few days and such,and anyone is encouraged to help.also,help with the article "new harbour,newfoundland and labrador" is always appreciated,as it is my perhaps main focus.And contact me if you need help or want to help me!Keserman (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need opinions!Keserman (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone interested inimproving firearms coverage on wikipedia! I have considered that the page "glock pistol" has the glock pistol line on it,with information on eack model and information about operation and such,but smith and wesson,colt,remington,et cetera,have articles on a lot of their individual models,so I was thinking maybe glock pistols should have articles of their own.Is this a good Idea?anyone,leave it here!Keserman (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glock pistols can technically be regarded as a building block system that were and are developed in evolutionary steps. This means Glock pistols are generally very similar when regarded as a technical platform, though other handgun manufacturers tend to build their products on technically much more varying platforms. When pistols differ as a technical platform it is logical to write different Wikipedia articles about them.
The Glock pistol line however primarily consists of variations and (generally rather conservative) evolutional developments of the oldest basic Glock 17 model. The main differences of the 9x19mm Parabellum, 10mm Auto, .45 ACP, .40 S&W, .357 SIG and .45 GAP models are the chambering and from that resulting dimensional variations. Also most chamberings are offered as full-size, compact and sub-compact variants.
When compared to the larger variants, the subcompact models do have a reworked frame, locking block, and spring assembly that features a dual recoil spring. The dual recoil spring assembly is however currently introduced in the 2010 fourth generation full-size and compact lines, blurring the typologically not very significant technical differences between the smallest and larger variants.
Since all these Glock pistols are technically and historically clearly closely interrelated it is justifiable to keep them together in the current single Wikipedia article.

The by far most significant exception of the Glock building block principle are the Glock 25 and 28 models chambered for the .380 ACP cartridge. Due to the relatively low bolt thrust of the .380 ACP cartridge, these pistols feature an unlocked breech and operate via straight blowback of the slide. These two models might typologically be regarded as differing pistols. It would be justifiable to feature these two specific Glock models in a separate Wikipedia article.--Francis Flinch (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question you raised is sadly not about an exact science, where clearcut answers and proofs tend to be the norm. I am sorry I can only provide some common sense to reason what is logical/most appropriate for the Glock pistol article. Maybe it is a comforting thought that Glock Ges.m.b.H. as a company already has its separate Wikipedia article, since Glock also does manufacture other products.--Francis Flinch (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, each Glock pistol model had their own, separate article. It was decided to merge them all into a single article for several reasons. Put simply, all of the Glock pistols (with only 3 exceptions) are essentially the same basic design, the only major differences being chambering and physical size. The 3 exceptions are of course the Glock 18 (the selective fire version of the Glock 17), and the Glock 25 and 28 (the .380 ACP models which use simple blowback operation instead of the short-recoil operation required by more powerful cartridges). Rather than repeat the same information over 20 times, it is better to have a single article, and explain what's different about the 3 "misfits". (This message has also been posted on the Glock pistol talk page.) Jersey emt (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Keserman. You have new messages at WikiDan61's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ruger blackhawk

I have left a message at the talk page of the ruger blackhawk,but have not got a response in a reasonable time,anyone please visit page and respond.Keserman (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This type of question should be posed on the specific wikiproject. Perhaps WP:GUN is the correct location? No one is reading your talk page to get group discussions about such topics. — Timneu22 · talk 13:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as to your response,i may try that,but it seemed to me that it had to do with the contents of the page (I DID put it on the ARTICLE's talk page),and i didn't think about those pages/projects/whatever,and thanks for the suggestion.but still,some people on wikipedia who "know" me may find it,or really,anyone sendind me a message,until the list goes too long beyond it,and may find it.and it was a secondary place for the hope that someone may just find and awnser it,the primary was on the article's talk page.and with that matter being discussed,I respectfully but bluntly ask you exactly how did you come across this on my talk page?somehow you found it,so why not others?and if i could trouble you to do so,i would prefer to have the response left on MY talk page.Keserman (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First put something on an article's talk page. If that gets no response, usually there's a WikiProject under which that page falls, and people there offer opinions. The only reason that I came across your talk page is that I am watching it. You seem to be a user who needs much guidance. (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 13:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And note that many people want all conversations to be on one talk page, without ping-ponging back and forth. So frankly it's a little rude to say "leave replies on my talk page" when my user talk page specifically says I want to keep the conversation there. As it is, this conversation is now here. — Timneu22 · talk 13:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well,let's keep it here.look for a new section which i will add.i can understand this.look for a new section.

You will do lots of people a favor if you can:

Put spaces after commas.
Put spaces after periods.
Use capital letters at the beginning of sentences.

Please try this. — Timneu22 · talk 14:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok,so some "wikipedia" grammar is different than normal english.But I am more carful about capitalization in articles than messages,which are just talk,and a few "intentional mistakes",pardon the oxymoron,can shorten it so we can get to better things,but i will try it,but I hardly reckon it will change the below much.Keserman (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

community message as to my work and reception of it.

well,I do not wish to be rude to the wikipedia community,but I will be straightforward about problems.And note that while I will mention specific things wikpedians have done mostly or fully alone,I will not mention names and this is not a personal attack/even compliment/thank you/whatever to any one wikipedian.Now.I have been welcomed by others upon entering,not done much exept grammar editing and such,"graduated" to creating articles,made the mistake of putting unreferenced information in,triing,and mostly succeding,in referencing it,created a referenced article twice,It got deleted,I have gotten support and help,but now I am faced with wikipedian(s) watching my talk page,deleting articles and sounding rude and disrespectful,and well....but this is getting too much.I read that all contributions are appreciated.Maybe they are,but some of mine do not seem that way.so I will not ask people to stop,but rather I think I will stop doing these things,perhaps remove alot of rude-sounding gibberish from this talk page,and not expect much talk.If this is how alot of "mr.more experienced commanding always-right wikipedian"s ar to treat me,I may as well quietly go abot grammatical editing,and improving the one article that I have created and still exists,and is satisfactory,thanks not only to a project of referencing,help from kind wikipedians wishing to help and do so in a friendly manner,who will apologize if they must sound rude or harsh,an infobox with 2 images,and well...I can take good care of that and related articles,and not do much else.well,cheers.Keserman (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People are trying to help you. Assume good faith; I don't see where people are rude to you. — Timneu22 · talk 14:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

maybe they aren't, I think I mentioned something about them seeming rude but are not trying to be. But, perhaps you can understand, I can (and actually try to) assume good faith, but when It seems-there is that "it seems" (but only seems)again-that a majority of your work is deleted,suppressed,corrected,and SEEMINGLY rudely,in every way,it can be frustrating. So maybe I can go somewhat outside the above message from me,but not much. I suddenly feel somewhat uninterested in anything else. I can also think that the above conservative ambitions is somewhat what I set out to do on wikipedia. And I am trying to avoid direct personal attacks,but I must use watching my talk page as an example that help can sometimes go too far.but right now I don't care,so go ahead if you want.I have the feeling that after this discussion, Unless someone brings it up again, anything of interest and "help-attracting" could be mainly few and far between. This discussion is actually interesting,but it is hardly making me change my mind from the above, at least for now.Keserman (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People watch other people's talk pages. That's how, for example, I'm able to continue this conversation. I have no idea why this bothers you. Other than that, I will say this: you seem to have a lot of, frankly, nonsense ramblings on this page and your user page, but you don't have many edits to articles. Frankly, I've never seen another user with this type of editing pattern. If you're so gung-ho about Wikipedia, the best thing to do is to make quality edits. Also, I notice the page that we userfied for you, User:Keserman/Merwin Hulbert and company, has been untouched. — Timneu22 · talk 15:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that you mention reasons why people can watch a user talk page, and how they can enter a discussion, it doesn't bother me. It was really that that didn't occur to me,and it sounded sort of creepy and....well, now, go ahead. And I don't fully get the "gung-ho about wikipedia" thing and the "nonsense ramblings". And as to "nonsense",frankly,you used that word on me and my work a few times now. And I try to make high-quality edits,but you can see the result. But if My user page, talk page,and a lot of my work are nonsense, and such, isn't it better if I refrain from making edits that could turn out, well, that way. And as to Merwin Hulbert, you can keep a weather eye to it, and I may "touch" it. I have been busy with othe things, and I am not sure what to d with it yet, as in I need to think about how to improve it and such, and I should work on it within the next few days if nothing else come up. As of now, I don't see much to keep me busy in the near future.well,Keserman (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page has all sorts of "my theories on Wikipedia" and other such things. This is why I say "gung-ho". Really, I've never seen that from any other editor. As for nonsense and ramblings, sorry, but that's exactly how your text comes across. Something to consider. Anyway, I have nothing left to say. Good luck to you. — Timneu22 · talk 15:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I just would like to express these things, especially give a message to people who intentionally vandalize wikipedia and such. And all I can say is that it appears coherent enogh for me. However, I may consider it and well, see if anything can make much more sense. I don't have much more to say myself, exept, to be frank, AT FIRST, you were, well, sort of a nuisance,but now you are an appreciated help, and thank-you. And whether you need it or not, good luck to you too. Cheers,Keserman (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People who vandalize WP aren't looking at your userpage, and frankly they shouldn't be. You should direct them to the appropriate policy page. I don't believe I've ever been a nuisance; I simply nominated a poorly-referenced article for deletion. — Timneu22 · talk 16:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have a point, but still....well, I may consider that later. And sorry, but that IS what you seemed to me. But like I said, you are a help now. But let's not "dwell" on that. Cheers,Keserman (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merwin & Hulbert draft

Hi there, I had a look at your article that was userfied to your page. Hmm, first of all there's again the notability problem. Youtube does not count in terms of notability per Wikipedia's standards, and the company's website alone is also not a claim of significance and importance. What we need are multiple independent sources that say why M&H is noteworthy. So if any national newspaper or any firearms magazine had a report about the company's resurrection, that'd be a start. But it seems to me that the company is simply too small and unimportant to receive coverage and so we also can't include it in Wiki. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly useful sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Also, there's a book about the company [6].--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I'll look at the sources by and by, probably soon, but right now I'm at something else. But still respond if response is called for right away. I'll work on it later if I can use these or whatever. But, no offense, I hardly get the book mentioning, unless there is some signifigant exerpt or some version on the web, It does not help a thing. unless it was a casual mentioning for whatever.cheers,Keserman (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find Elen. We might use the Gun magazine article and it's sure worth mentioning the book. You don't need to get it, Keserman, but it helps mentioning it in the article. If people write a whole book about something, it might be noteworthy after all. De728631 (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I am to mention the book, I will need more elaborate information on it, like title, author and such. And I agree with the immediate above.Keserman (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the information you need is included in the link.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

near future work

I plan to soon start work on truck articles. my plans are mainly creating articles on idividual generations of the general motors C/K and ford f-series. I feel/agree that ther is enough information in these truck's articles to warrant sufficient reason for this. if anyone wishes to help then please do but on behalf of wikipedia, its users including me, please do not write hoax and/or false material. I recommend the original whole series articles be kept but shortened to keep some major information in one place. also, I will not be able to move or add pictures so if anyone has any or wants to move some from the whole series articles go ahead please. I may do this with other articles if I or other editors feel the same about those. the article about the chevy silverado is another one.Keserman (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pigeon!

Hello! I notice you are a fellow pigeon fancier! Perhaps you would like to see this picture of a pigeon!

Have a lovely day today.. Lamb Ham Jam Man (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April - National Contribution Month

Good day Keserman,

During the month of April, Wikimedia Canada is preparing the National Contribution Month, and we are looking for experienced contributors to organize a contribution day (or half-day) in their region.

Contribution days are activities where Wikipedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikipedia meets together to collectively improve a predetermined theme. This meetings generally take place in library where references are easy of access, but can be organized in any communal room. Beside improving articles, a goal of this participatory workshops is to initiate neophyte in the cooperative contribution of Wikipedia.

If you are interested in organizing or participating in a contribution day in your region, communicate witht he national team on the project's talk page. The exact agenda of each local event is left to the discretion of the organizer. Help is available for the organization from contributors who already organized these type of days, so don't be worried. If you have any questions or want more information, don't hesitate to contact us.

Amqui (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Keserman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Keserman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]