W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Ilov3gam3z

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

A belated welcome!



thumb|The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm! {{smiley}} ↗

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Ilov3gam3z! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions ↗. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

{{Div col|colwidth=18em}}
{{Div col end}}

If you have questions, '''{{edit|Special:MyTalk|just use this link to ask for help|section=new|preload=Help:Contents/helpmepreload|preloadtitle=Help me!}}'''; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center ↗.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian ↗! Again, welcome! The Bushranger <sub><span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span></sub> 23:15, 15 February 2026 (UTC)<!-- Template:Welcome-belated -->

Your GA nomination of Rajneesh movement ↗



Hi, I noticed your application to have this article considered for GA status. However, you have not made a major contribution to the editing of the article; a look at the page statistics shows that you have only made a few small recent edits, and you are not one of the top 10 contributors on any of the measures that are recorded. This is what we call a "drive-by" nomination. I've therefore undone the nomination, which puts the article back into the state it was in before you nominated it; the GAN has neither been passed nor failed. Hope this is all clear to you. You can read the Good article instructions ↗ for further details; they state in terms "Nominators should be familiar with the article's subject and cited sources, and must have contributed significantly to the article: they are either the author of at least 10% of the article, or are ranked in the top five in authorship." All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

:Ah I must have not read that part of the instructions, sorry. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive



{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; background-color: #FFF; padding:10px 15px 0; color: black"
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; font-size:130%" |'''Good article nominations ↗ |''' <span style="font-size:85%">June 2026 Backlog Drive</span>
|rowspan=3|right|75px ↗
|-
|'''June 2026 Backlog Drive:'''
Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process?
Interested in taking part? You can '''sign up here ↗'''.
|-
|colspan=2|'''Other ways to participate:'''
|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.
|}

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:TechnoSquirrel69@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives/June_2026/Mass_message_list&oldid=1356124266 -->

Good article reassessment for San Diego California Temple ↗


San Diego California Temple ↗ has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page ↗. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. theleekycauldron ↗ (talk • she/her) 06:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool ↗ has failed



Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool ↗ has <span class="nowrap">20px|alt=|link= ↗ </span>'''failed'''. See '''Talk:Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again.<!-- Template:GANotice |result=fail --> <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bgsu98</small> -- Bgsu98 (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Using Rater for assessment



I have noticed that you tend to use Rater ↗ for doing article assessments. I would strongly caution you on relying too heavily on Rater's predictions alone and ask you to be more careful with your assessments. For example, your recent assessment ↗ of ''The Wild Bunch ↗'' to B-class: In addition to having a maintenance tag for citations at the top of the article (which itself causes the article to fail B-class assessment), ''The Wild Bunch'' has at least 4 {{tl|cn}} tags in the article body. I also counted and at least 3 direct quotes that lack direct inline citations. Based on these failings, it falls short of B-class assessment on item #1 of the 6 B-class assessment criteria ↗. These more obvious issues should lead one to consider that there are other less obvious issues with the article, and that it should be thoroughly reviewed manually (and any shortcomings be addressed) before updating the assessment class. <span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span> (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

:I just did not notice the citation needed tags, sorry. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Nanobubbles. Response for your action


Thank you for writing this note and informing me about your action. Nanobubbles are essential element for important modern technologies. However, they should not exist according to classical theory. The theory that you removed resolve this contradiction. Basically, it is fundamental background for all those valuable applications. Cutting off the theory section you could remove the complete page Nanobubble. It does not make sense without it. The theory was published in two peer reviewed articles, presented and highly acclaimed at 4 conferences. There are already publications on this theory, for instance by F. Arias “Comment on the paper “A new approach to explaining nano-bubbles paradoxical longevity, Dukhin A and Xu R“ [Colloids Surf. A 700 (2024) 34805]”. In addition, removing this text you removed also references to some other publications that are essential for this field, and their authors agreed on citation of their studies.
The text that you removed has been active for several months. Many experts on the field saw it and nobody objected. Just opposite, I heard positive comments. The text that you removed cannot be published in any scientific journal because it is only an essence of the subject with no details, no derivations. You cannot call it research study.
I have many other texts on many Wikipedia pages that are present for decades, with no objections and many appreciation regards. You are the only one who removes my texts.
I am 70 years old. It just happened that I possess some unique knowledge due to peculiarities of my life. I am very careful in deciding what to place on Wikipedia, only mature pieces and only essence of them. I have published 4 books by Elsevier, I know copyrights issues and obey it always. I am member of International Standard Organization and was leader in creating many ISO standards on consensus basis, I have a lot of experience to extract the core of the studies that would ensure consensus.
May I ask you to stop this personal vendetta. I do not have any profit from my work with Wikipedia, nothing for my carrier, too old, no money. Why do you do this and accuse me of all these sins?
I will wait for more justification of your action till Tuesday, two days. Then I will restore that text. It is way to important these days.

thank you for your edits to Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool ↗



And thanks for informing me of WP:ABOUTSELF ↗. It was previously my understanding that primary sources are almost always discouraged, but this policy makes sense. &#126;2026-34151-47 ↗ (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)