User talk:Veinor/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
HELP???
HI. I just want to make a page so that people knows about a company called "diyi technology." Just like a the Microsoft and other major company infomation on wikipedia. Can you please tell me what i am doing wrong so I can edit out the things that's not allowed on wiki. Thank you
Diyitechnology 16:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Steven Sun
- Creating articles that read like advertisements is not allowed. Sentences such as "We transform your virtual world to reality" read like a brochure, not an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, creating a page about your company is a blatant conflict of interest and is usually frowned upon. Veinor (talk to me) 16:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
IS there a way to put our name (Diyi technology) on Wikipedia without violating any rules??
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diyitechnology"
- No; I honestly don't think so. Veinor (talk to me) 03:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Question
Good Afternoon, I added an entry about Warranty Direct yesterday (5/21/07) and it was removed. The entry was created by following the format of other entries such as General Motors and Circuit City. I did not use any links, websites or phone numbers so it would not be construed as a form as advertising. Could you provide insight as to how it should be submitted. Regards, Chris
- I would recommend that you not create the article. Your username (which you need to change before somebody blocks you for violating the username policy) makes it obvious you have a conflict of interest with Warranty Direct. Furthermore, the article was indeed advertising; sentences such as "You will find their auto warranties to offer the most comprehensive coverage available with one of the shortest list of exclusions in the industry" are inappropriate. Also, several passages or sentences seemed to be copied straight out of this site, this one, and other pages on the warrantydirect.com domain. Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted content unless the author is willing to release it under the GFDL, which allows (among other things) arbitrary redistribution and commercial use without royalties. Also please sign your messages with ~~~~! Veinor (talk to me) 20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Scottish Terrier Edit
Hi you removed my external link to a new site with daily Scottish Terrier news. You said it was unencyclopedic and referred me to a reference page on external links, but the reference page does not use the word "unencyclopedic."
At this point, I am interested in two things:
1. Restoring the link, which I believe meets the criteria for an external link and
2. Interviewing you for an article I am writing on crowdsourcing. You seem to have an interesting profile and I am intrigued by the role you play here at Wikipedia. Boisblaireau 20:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I couldn't reply on my talk page; I had to protect it from editing for a while. At this point, I would like to point you to the section of the external link guidelines entitled "Links normally to be avoided", specifically item 11: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.". I don't think that the blog was written by a recognized authority.
- Regarding the interview: That would depend on how much information I have to give out. If it's Wikipedia-related stuff like how long I've been editing, what motivated me to become an admin, that's OK. Name, phone number, definitely not. I like my privacy. Veinor (talk to me) 20:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Grind Productions images
I was hoping you'd stop by and delete these images which appear to be parts of the vandal page in question Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 23#Image:18!!!.JPG Anynobody 09:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
What is a link count?
∆ Algonquin 17:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- A count of how often that link was added on a particular day. Veinor (talk to me) 18:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Jadtar
[comment moved from userpage]: lately i found our references have been removed though we were the intiated and contribute original content to wiki.dont remove reference url as that may proivde information and yet we contibute someting original to wiki.pl. refere details before removing reference.and make sure you first remove all irrelevent url insted of removing actual contributor's. (User:Jadtar)
- You weren't adding any information, just spam. Veinor (talk to me) 03:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
link count
Hi. Just what is your link count thing? Does it indicate who added what external links to any part of wikipedia on any particular day? I was searching for myself on wikipedia, when I discovered it. It says I added a link (along with an ip?!) to some article, if that's really what it means. However, I extremely doubt that the ip has anything to do with me, and I also doubt that I added it in the first place. Therefore, I am confused. I don't think I added the links that it says I added, in fact I've never even heard of them. What's going here? Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001(T+C+U) 22:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. Well, after checking who the ip was, I guess I might have added it, and the ip is not me (phew). Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001(T+C+U) 22:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, the IP isn't the IP of the person who added it (a checkuser bot? they'd be in fits!), but just an IP editor. And it's certainly possible that you didn't add it; the bot can get kinda confused sometimes. Veinor (talk to me) 03:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I don't think I get the first sentence. Anyway, could it say I added it if, for example, I removed it, or fixed its spelling, or reverted to a version containing the link, or edited an area of the section close to the link, etc? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by a checkuser bot, and how do computer programs such as bots ever malfunction? Microshortcircuits, maybe? If possible, could you clarify the first sentence? Wait, I think I might get the first sentence now. Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001(T+C+U) 19:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes the original bot runs into a glitch. And correcting the link or reverting to a previous version would indeed trigger it. A checkuser bot is one that looks at the IPs that have used a given username without human intervention; given the controversy over bots that can take administrative actions, I think that a bot that can perform checkuser actions (very few actual people can do that) would generate huge amounts of controversy. Veinor (talk to me) 22:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I don't think I get the first sentence. Anyway, could it say I added it if, for example, I removed it, or fixed its spelling, or reverted to a version containing the link, or edited an area of the section close to the link, etc? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by a checkuser bot, and how do computer programs such as bots ever malfunction? Microshortcircuits, maybe? If possible, could you clarify the first sentence? Wait, I think I might get the first sentence now. Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001(T+C+U) 19:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, the IP isn't the IP of the person who added it (a checkuser bot? they'd be in fits!), but just an IP editor. And it's certainly possible that you didn't add it; the bot can get kinda confused sometimes. Veinor (talk to me) 03:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Piper Perabo external Link
Hi. You removed my external link to a Piper Perabo Fanpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Perabo). You said that it´s used for advertising or promotion. We do not have any advertisement on that page, so we have no financial benefit by adding our link. We just want to afford a page for fans who want to know more about Piper Perabo. Can you please tell me what we did wrong? Thank you, Daniela—The preceding unsigned comment was added by PiperperaboTV (talk • contribs) 09:53, May 27, 2007 (UTC). The problem is that you're linking to your own site, which violates our guidelines on conflicts of interest; I'd suggest getting another editor to review the link and see if its appropriate by bringing it up on Talk:Piper Perabo. Veinor (talk to me) 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Is VeinorBot broken?
The last day without a red link is User:Veinor/Link count/May 24, 2007, however it has no content.
The last page with any content is User:Veinor/Link count/May 16, 2007.
I really appreciate these pages -- if there's any way to get them restarted, I encourage you to do it. --A. B. (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- The core linkwatcher bot is broken; nothing I can do about it. There's another one, but my bot isn't programmed to parse its logs, so I'd have to MacGyver something up; I'll do that sometime soon. Veinor (talk to me) 04:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly appreciate what VeinorBot's done in the past and I'm still going through its old reports. Thanks for all your work on this. --A. B. (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- No problem; Eagle told me recently he thinks he's found the problem. I'm not making any promises, of course, but I'm expecting something within the week. Veinor (talk to me) 06:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly appreciate what VeinorBot's done in the past and I'm still going through its old reports. Thanks for all your work on this. --A. B. (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Sigma Investing
Hi, can you tell me which links that you removed? I believe that many of them provide valuable supplemental information to the respective articles. Peters33 18:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that you're adding links repeatedly to the same site without first getting consensus; this is generally a red flag. I'd suggest doing these on a case-by-case basis, bringing the link up on the talk page of each article and seeing how the consensus goes. Veinor (talk to me) 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Armas Ugartechea
Just new to this Wiki thing, and I don't know why my page was deleted... I saw the Holland & Holland page, and thought that after doing some research, I should make one for another shotgun manufacturer Armas Ugartechea... HELP????
- The problem is that you need to establish notability using reliable sources; also , the article read a lot like an advertisement. Are you related to the manufacturer? Because if you Are, I would have to ask that you not create that page due to your conflict of interest. Veinor (talk to me) 19:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
No Veinor, I am not related to the manufacturer. I chose the username Ugartechea because this is my first entry on Wikipedia, and it was honestly the first thing that came to mind. I have done a bit of research for my own purposes (interest in shotguns, eventually buying one), and I came across the Holland & Holland Wiki entry and thought that I could probably do some future researchers a favor by writing a similar one for Ugartechea. I will admit, I got quite a bit of my information from industry-related magazines, but they were viable articles by respected writers, not advertisements. Also, I linked to the website for the one importer at the bottom of the page because of the Holland & Holland page. Although it is related to a commercial gun business, it echos a lot of the info I got from the other sources, and has good images of the guns. There is another website that is strictly commercial, and I decided not to use it http://www.doubleshotguns.com/ugartechea.htm
I appreciate your help, and I would like to get this article up and running, is there no way to reinstate it so it could be open for editing??? If it is possible I would also like to find out how to get permission from the importers to use one of their images, because I haven't found any that as are good anywhere...
Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 22 | 28 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Article deletion marked as spam?
Hi Veinor,
I recently had an article deleted. I'm a total wiki newb and I am trying to figure out what I did wrong. I copied text from the AACRAO.org site's about section (I received copyright approval for this from AACRAO and placed it in the Talk page for the AACRAO article). An AACRAO rep email the permission email address at Wikipedia.
I noticed that you marked the article as blatant advertising.
I'm trying to add the AACRAO info so that it is similar to the Wikipedia entry for NASPA Both NASPA and AACRAO are higher education associations that I belong to and AACRAO is mentioned in several wikipedia articles. If I have permission from AACRAO to use their "about" text, how can I created an article for AACRAO without it being deleted? The text just says what AACRAO is and what they do. It's just like the NASPA text. I don' see how it is advertising vs. informative. Afterall, AACRAO is listed on several Wikipedia articles.
What am I doing wrong? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
eric stoller 19:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that it's basically blatant advertising for AACRAO; it doesn't provide any actual information ebsides their size and their mission statement (which probably should use a more neutral phrasing). I'd suggest starting fresh and not using their site at all; go with what you can find about them from other, reliable sources. Veinor (talk to me) 21:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip. I guess modeling the AACRAO article from NASPA was not a good thing. I'll do some more searching for reliable sources. I appreciate your feedback. Eric Stoller 21:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see that NASPA just bit the dust. Remind me to hide when my fellow student affairs practitioners come hunting for me ;)Eric Stoller 00:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip. I guess modeling the AACRAO article from NASPA was not a good thing. I'll do some more searching for reliable sources. I appreciate your feedback. Eric Stoller 21:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Robert E. Lee page
Hi, Veinor I disagree with the article Robert E. Lee page name. It should be Robert Edward Lee. But since Robert Edward Lee redirects to Robert E. Lee, I can't move it. Can you move it? By the way, the reason it should be moved is because the article should have the full name.
Louis Alberto Guel 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not going to do this; per the manual of style, the article should be given the name the person is usually referred to as, which seems to be Robert E. Lee in this case. See, for example, John F. Kennedy. Veinor (talk to me) 23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I see your point,
Louis Alberto Guel 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I see your point,
Finger Lickin Records page protected
I must apgologise for my additions to the following page (Finger Lickin' Records) yesterday (29/05/07). Having never used or updated a Wikipedia article before I was not aware of your stringent rules regarding the nature of the material posted and in particular your rules concerning material that blatently promotes a company/ person. Having copied the material from the latest press release I can see how this may have breached your restrictions. I now notice that the my addition was deleted a few times without me realising.
I now have a revised post to add that adheres to your policies. Can I submit this to you for approval? Is is possible to retrn the page to its orogianl form (before I edited it). Please advise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fingerlickin (talk • contribs).
- Please see Talk:Finger Lickin' Records. Regards Khukri 11:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Monster Hunter Theron
The Mnster Hunter Theron page is up for deletion, what can be done to ensure that it is not deleted. A web page for the movies is being made, and will be up in two to three weeks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moon Hunter (talk • contribs).
- You need multiple reliable sources that are independent of the series, so something that isn't by the director, any of the actors, or their families, etc. It also needs to be peer-reviewed, so comments on Youtube or whatever don't count. Veinor (talk to me) 13:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
What's more reliable than something posted and edited by the director?
- Third-party, independent, fact-checked sources. Look at it this way. Do politicians always tell the truth about themselves? No. So we don't use them as sources about themselves, except when we're quoting them. The media (theoretically) uncovers the truth, so we use them. Or you can think of it like this: it'd be in the director's best interest to make the series look good, so he'd be biased, and we can't use biased sources. Veinor (talk to me) 13:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand what your saying, but I'm not talkng up the series, I'm telling about it. I'm not going to talk it up beacuse I want people to form their own thoughts.
- Yeah, but everything on Wikipedia needs to be sourced in order to maintain verifiability. And you can't get unbiased information from biased sources. Veinor (talk to me) 13:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I get that, but have you read the page, I don't believe I have put a single bias thing in there, if i did, I'll delete it. As for citing, could I cite the episodes, youtube, google, or the web page(when the page is posted)?
- Yes, and you also haven't put a signle sourced thing in there. There needs to be enough information to write about the series, not just give the plot. You could cite the episodes for the plot, but not for anything else (except for maybe credits). You couldn't cite youtube, since comments aren't fact-checked, or Google (you'd need to cite the page it links to). The web page could be cited for basic information, but not for anything substantial, and independent sources are preferred anyway. Veinor (talk to me) 14:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I can do that, cite the episode's with links to them, what if the links are on outube, that won't be a problem, and should I cite the page when it comes out?
- That still wouldn't establish notability. You need to write about the article from an external point of view; i.e., not the plot summary. You cannot use the episodes for this; they need to be fact-checked by independent people who know how to do that sort of thing, like the Chicago Tribune or the New York Times or something. I'm not saying that only American newspapers count, I'm just giving you an idea of the kind of sources I'm talking about. Veinor (talk to me) 14:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
It's been deleted, oh well, I'll see what I can do, maybe make te article some other time... or just the web page, I don't know, well see.
Spam web sites
Hi - I watch a lot of beer articles and noticed your edits and comments on Jtenger (he added links to a site called The Biggest Round). Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with your editing, I am curious to know what criteria you use for determing a spam site. The Biggest Round is clearly owned and opererated by S&N, the brand owner of the articles that Jtenger has sought to link from. It also has pertinent info on these brands, and is not fundamentaly different to other official brand web sites. No axe to grind, just playing devil's advocate. Best wishes and keep up the good work. Warburton62 17:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Rapid link addition; I don't think every company needs a link to their parent company's page. Veinor (talk to me) 22:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Assist with spammer
you once gave warning to User 66.12.73.18. This person has continued to spam a page I'm affiliated with. Can you assist me with preventing this? Galactic Dominator 16:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 23 | 4 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Article: Concur
Hi Veinor
Regarding:
User talk:Concur From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
The article Concur has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Veinor (talk to me) 21:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to write a page that was factual and informative as a company listed on the Nasdaq. There were only one link to the home page, and another link for investors. Other information included acquisitions, employees, stock symbol, what the company does. I agree it could be construed a little advertorial with some of the copy. If the intro body copy and the description of the productst this company offers were removed, would it then pass the muster? Please advise.
Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 24 | 11 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
KNEIP
Hello
Can you please tell me why the KNEIP page was not appropriate ? (it is true that it was an experiment but I actually would like to create an article about it and I would like to know why you did not think the first one was appropriate) Tnak you ! Barbarakneip 15:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)BarbarakneipBarbarakneip 15:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thank you
...for your response to my question about a possible design or implementation bug. Can't say I suppose that the current approach is the best possible, but I edit so little that it is not worth attempting to improve upon it now.
Still wondering, is there is some place to which the vandalism should be reported, so that the vandal gets whatever it is that Wikipedia thinks they deserve...
Publius3 07:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Warn them about it and then if they keep it up, report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Veinor (talk to me) 07:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Ahem...
Could you restore The Way(game series) please? The Way is the singlemost greatest game ever made using RPG Maker. We had a reliable source and I'm sure we could have found more if it weren't for a select group of RPG Maker hating faggots who were immune to the voice of logic and reason. They are not correct. We had a reliable source. 80.44.141.44 20:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I will not undo my closure. You may have had one source, but we need multiple reliable sources, which you had five days to find. If you disagree, take the discussion to deletion review. Furthermore, I suggest you read Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. Veinor (talk to me) 20:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a personal attack silly. Man you guys need to chill out. I shall try to find sources though. So how many reliable sources are we talking about? Do I just need to find one more, or do I need to find more than that? Thank you ^_^. ABlackGentleman 12:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- 'RPG Maker hating faggots' is definitely a personal attack. As for how many, that depends on how comprehensive you want the article to be. I'd go for as many as you can find, making sure that they contain more information than just a passing one-sentence mention. Veinor (talk to me) 14:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Mizuki Ichirou, by Mike Payne (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Mizuki Ichirou fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Mizuki Ichirou, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Mizuki Ichirou itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 05:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Inner sanctum records
Hi there. Thought I should let you know that I've restored "Inner sanctum records" and moved it to Krome (talk · contribs)'s userspace. As you originally deleted it, I thought you should be aware. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 25 | 18 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Links to VRMars-Spirit - The Red Planet Mars 3D Software
Hello,
Would you mind checking if my link to "VRMars-Spirit - The Red Planet Mars 3D" Software is appropriate in the Mars Exploration Rover article ? If not, could you tell me what to do to give some kind of information on the software in this article ? I see that the film "Roving Mars" is also in External links section and that is why I am asking you to help me in this matter. Would it be OK if I insert the same link in the Spirit rover article ?
Muniek 16:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say no in this case; I don't think that information about the software is necessary in an article that is about exploration of mars in general and not even specifically any one expedition. The external link guidelines generally say that links to commercial sites should be avoided; I'm really not sure about 'Roving Mars' either, and I wouldn't miss it at all if it were removed. Same for the Spirit rover article; I just don't think the link is appropriate. Veinor (talk to me) 17:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 26 | 25 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Getting a website back
Hey there,
I would like to have a website "Adept Technology, Inc." reinstated, that you removed "14:21, 3 May 2007 Veinor deleted "Adept Technology" (CSD G11: Blatant Advertising)". However, this time according to WP:COI guidelines.
Your assistance in this manner would be greatly appreciated. As a disclosure, I am an employee of Adept and made the most recent changes to the site. But being a newbee then, I did not know the guidelines and consequently made additions to the article in violation of the COI. Sorry, and thanks you for correcting it.
I have create a temporary page on my sandbox where I will continue to work on the new page. I am using ABB, Fanuc, Denso, Epson Robots, KUKA wikis as templates of what seems legit.
Please advise on what would be the proper procedure to reinstate this page with the appropriate content. Thanks. Matthias-k 00:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- General procedure here is to move the page back to wherever you want it to be and then request the old page be deleted; if you need help with that, let me know. Veinor (talk to me) 12:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Valimo Wireless
hi, I would like to say that the article was not blatant advertising because the company is the first one in the world to deploy mobile signatures solutions, the products are the core of the solution and i have to explain to the reader what the product does. Maybe it sounds like advertising because the productname starts with the name Valimo but thats the name of the product.
please reconsider the article i will try and rewrite it to your expectations
- The problem is that your article leads with the unsourced statement that "It is the leading provider of mobile signature solutions for mobile operator, bank and corporate customers." and then the rest of the introduction reads with more advertorial language; furthermore, by the looks of your username, I assume you are related to Valimo in some way; in such a case, I would ask you to please not edit articles related to them, as you have a conflict of interest. Veinor (talk to me) 12:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Why are links counted and what links are counted?
Why and what? What's the purpose of tying me as a user to a link I didn't add? What is this for? KP Botany 04:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Giovanni Petersen back up
Very fluffy article. I prodded. Not sure I could make repost fly. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's gone! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Video Professor
Hello, Veinor,
Since you have edited the Video Professor page before, I'd very much appreciate if you get involved in the current discussion of the entry. Your input would be very helpful. Thanks, Nsk92 12:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I-CubeX
I am rather dismayed about the vehement reactions against placing content about I-CubeX on wikipedia when it is clear that users can benefit from this information as much as they can benefit from blatant self promotion about so many other products such as Maya, Houdini, Max (software), etc. etc. Can you help me understand this ? Axel.mulder 02:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Generally, links to commercial sites are not done except for on the specific article for that product; Wikipedia is not a collection of exteral links, and I do my best in order to see that it does not become one. I am not against I-CubeX specifically, as I have no experience with this sort of technology; rather, I am against links that violate the external linking guidelines. Veinor (talk to me) 01:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
There are tons of external links to people (who benefit from it indirectly or directly commercially) and products in Wikipedia so not sure why linking to I-CubeX in relevant cases would be different. And furthermore, please help me understand why an article in which I explained the basic idea of I-CubeX (a product concept that was considered worth publishing academically in the early 90's) is not wikipedia-worthy. Having a presence in Wikipedia for I-CubeX is as obvious as it is for Max (software) and all the other products with which I-CubeX shares a market. Axel.mulder 01:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Could you illustrate the links you're talking about to me? A link on, say, Microsoft to [1] is different from a link to that site from Operating system; the former is the official site, the latter is more of an advertiesement for microsoft. As for the page, it was deleted as being spam; the article seems to have been written more like a marketing piece or a brochure than a neutral encyclopedia article. Veinor (talk to me) 02:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's just look at two pages I wish I-CubeX to be listed just like all the other external links: Dance technology, which is basically an external links page. Sensor, which contains a link to a website specifically for teaching about sensors, just like I-CubeX, and another website about an infrared sensor, which really has much less to do about the concept of sensors in general than I-CubeX. My point really in all this is that your (and other wikipedia editors') efforts to stop advertising are as much biased and probably often uninformed as my efforts are to add content but if you would consider the background I have in the areas where I want to inform Wikipedia users of I-CubeX (and I am sure they would welcome the links given the difficulty of finding suitable information in this specific area of sensors) you might understand the relevance of it. Really, as long as the advertising is tightly related to the subject I don't see how you can pretend to know what you're doing as an editor unless you are educated in the subject matter. Merely applying a superficial rule like "external links are not permitted" will not enhance wikipedia content - you need expertise in each subject area to determine the value of each contribution. Axel.mulder 02:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
While you are at it, why don't you also recommend to delete Electronic Art since it's just another page of external links. Actually why don't you check all of Wikipedia for "External Links" sections and delete 'em all. Here's a suggestion tostart: New Media. And get rid of those pages with only links to people (blatant self promotion !), eg. New Media Art has this great section with a random list of "New Media Artists" with no value to the wikipedia reader whatsoever since there's no informative text explaining why they are listed. Note that on the page Robotic Art most of the people listed had/have nice pages/links but that nobody wanted to put in the effort to make pages about the humanoid robots. And of course there's a section "External links" - darn ! What a mess, I'd say. Anyways, have fun.
Axel.mulder 03:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've had the argument that only experts are truly able to determine what links are and are not appropriate used against me before; I don't believe it holds water. By that logic, since I am more well-versed in the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, my opinion is better-informed and therefore should be weighed more.
- Also, I don't see how any of those pages are lists of external links; we need to distinguish between external and internal links; the former go to sites other than Wikipedia, the latter link to other Wikipedia articles. Veinor (talk to me) 13:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
So should I understand then, that Wikipedia is merely an exercise about how to apply a certain writing style (since that is what you are better informed about, surely), and not what would be it's proclaimed value: a source of encyclopedic content ? As for external versus internal links: the wikipedia user really doesn't care as long as it informs him/her more about the subject. I don't presume that Wikipedia is trying to compete with the web (and physical libraries) as a whole and create some sort of universe of knowledge in isolation ? In my opinion, as a frequent user of Wikipedia, I would very much value links to products and services, since I often look for solutions to problems not just information. Axel.mulder 16:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's goal is to become an encyclopedia, to put it one way. I do not believe that a link to a site that sells sensor equipment is appropriate for Sensor, because it seems like an endorsement of that one company's specific product. The big difference between external vs. internal is that if the link is internal, then we can (at least theoretically) make sure the content represents a neutral point of view; a company's own webpage tends to extol the virtues of its products, rather than provide neutral information. Veinor (talk to me) 16:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
So, since you're the expert on wikipedia and I clearly am not since all my contributions have been dismissed (can't even find the reason why my original post about I-CubeX was deleted) and I run the risk of being "banned", I presume it is better to ask you to review a post about I-CubeX before posting it. Please let me know what you think of the following, which was adapted from Phidgets, a direct competitor of I-CubeX:
I-CubeX
I-CubeX comprises a system of sensors, actuators and interfaces that are configured by a personal computer. Using MIDI, Bluetooth or the Universal Serial Bus (USB) as the basis for all communication, the complexity is managed behind a variety of software tools, including an end-user editor, Max (software) plugins, and a C++ Application Programming Interface (API), which allows applications to be developed in Mac OS X, Linux and Windows operating systems.
Usage is primarily focused on allowing exploration and construction of alternative physical computer interaction systems, but have most notably been adopted by music enthusiasts, as they greatly simplify musical instrument mods (such as found at NIME), and visual artists, as they greatly simplify interactive installation art (such as found at Ars Electronica and SIGGRAPH). In both cases, it is extensively used for teaching and research purposes in new media. It allows the construction of complex interactive systems out of simpler components. I-CubeX is designed and produced by Infusion Systems.
History
I-CubeX arose out of a research project in 1995[1] directed by Axel Mulder at the Department of Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University to address the need for better tools for artists to create interactive art and for musicians to create new musical instruments. It was inspired by projects such as STEIM's Sensorlab. While I-CubeX helped opening up access to technology for artists interested in sensor technology, it in itself inspired others to create new technology.
The field evolved into physical computing and the creation of a number of other generic platforms for applying sensor technology in the (performing) arts, as well as the development of very application specific sensors for human interfacing such as human interface devices. While the focus was initially on translating sensor signals to MIDI (Digitizer, microDig) for music enthusiasts, the transmission protocols now include Bluetooth (Wi-microDig) and USB (USB-microDig) so as to facilitate its use by all kinds of researchers and engineers, as well as MIDI.
References
External links
Axel.mulder 18:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd add more references to help with notability, but it otherwise seems OK. I don't think it'll be speedily deleted, at the very elast, though it might be put up for Articles for Deletion. Veinor (talk to me) 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio
Judy Johnson DDS, (www.dentalvisits.com) 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC) I've tried to publish my article on Wikipedia named "The history of dental restorations and the advances that have been made in recent years, by Judy Johnson DDS" . It's re-written from a Q&A format with our research partner and is published on my website www.dentalvisits.com; can anyone assist me to publish it correctly on Wiki because it has been cited and deleted from Wikipedia for copyright violations twice. I would be grateful if anyone with the skills could assist me by publishing the content on Wikipedia with a link to the frontpage of my website http://www.dentalvisits.com
- The problem is that you're just copying the article over; Wikipedia articles cannot be copied and pasted from other sources that are already copyrighted. Veinor (talk to me) 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for replying. I almost gave up trying to communicate, I didn't even know how to start a thread in this forum, thank you for giving me assistance to express myself.
My article is very much different than the interview on my website. It is objective and designed for comment in this forum. When I posted it on Wikipedia, I didn't even attach my name because I very much wanted it to look like all the other articles that I enjoyed reviewing and therefore I thought it would provoke thought and conversation. The problem isn't that I'm copying from my website, it's that I don't know what format Wikipedia utilizes to establish permissions for me to give myself permission to copyright my own article.Judy Johnson DDS, (www.dentalvisits.com) 01:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- You have to release the article under the GFDL, which is a more permissive license than some people are comfortable with; you allow people to use your work for their own purposes, commercial or non-commercial, and to distribute modified versions of it under the same terms, as long as you are properly attributed. However, in any case I don't think that the article is of a suitable tone for Wikipedia; encyclopedia articles generally do not ask the reader questions. I would instead suggest that you work on Dental restoration, possibly adding a history section. Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Veinor (talk to me) 19:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, thank you! I've taken your advice and removed the two questions that were located in the body of the text. My article is very long and I would like to engage one of two efforts. I would like to resubmit the content under the original title or you may instruct me by personally creating the title "history" under dental restorations with an edit feature like you did on this tread, and post the link whereby I could submit the contents of my work. By the way, is there a location that I could post the article for you to review? Judy Johnson DDS, (www.dentalvisits.com) 21:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentalvisits (talk • contribs)
- Like I said, you can't put the whole article on Wikipedia without releasing it under the GFDL; Wikipedia articles are copyrighted as such, so we cannot include non-GFDL materials (except under fair use provisions). Veinor (talk to me) 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you again! How do I post the article and release it under the GFDL. Can you provide me with the personal assistance to accomplish this task? I'm rather new at this! [article text removed] Judy Johnson DDS, (www.dentalvisits.com) 00:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentalvisits (talk • contribs)
- I would suggest actually not using the article; it seems overly long and in an inappropriate tone. I would suggest you read some of our featured articles to get an idea of how a Wikipedia article should be written, and then contribute in dentistry-related articles. As for how to create a new section, put the section heading on a line all by itself with two equals signs around it, like ==this==. Also, sign your comments with ~~~~; it saves you a lot of effort. Veinor (talk to me) 03:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You've been great help so far and I thank you ever so kindly for your professionalism, how about if I post the article content to an individual web page on my website. What additional factors would I be obligated to perform, before I could then post an external link in the dentistry section. ~~~~; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentalvisits (talk • contribs) 04:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Excuse me! I'll thank you to answer this question, if you please. Dr. Judy Johnson (www.dentalvisits.com) 06:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentalvisits (talk • contribs)
- I would suggest not linking to your own site; this is typically seen as a conflict of interest and generally not done. However, I would bring it up on the talk page of the article (go there by going to the article and clicking the link that says 'discussion' near the top) and bring it up there. Veinor (talk to me) 14:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Vigilante
If I was not approached wrongly as an offender and was approached with more NPOV, perhaps I would have seen him differently, however his actions and attitude are those of a vigilante Vanished user 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia tends to be copyright-paranoid, and perhaps justifiably so. The Wikimedia Foundation isn't exactly flush with cash, so it's general protocol to assume that an image that is found in unrelated places on the internet is copyrighted. I don't think that Durin was 'taking the law into his own hands'. Veinor (talk to me) 15:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Uhmmm I wonder why he denies to provide me the evidence that allegedly carried him to his actions. Please see his talk page. Vanished user 15:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Spam Whitelist
Greetings. As far as I can see, you are the last person to have worked on the Whitelist- sometime in May- and no one else has since. The backlog is impressive. Clicking on User Names has been interesting Eagle101 is on a wikibreak-- etc. How do you suggest, I inform who, that the system is broken, and the bots continue to blacklist? I have done everything that I know, or am allowed to do. Quo Vadis? ClemRutter 08:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Good Afternoon:
Other companies put there web material into Wikipedia, and give their personal contact information into their site, why have they not been kicked out? What exactly are you looking for when you want the definition of a company?
Regards Pamela —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midlifelady (talk • contribs) 02:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article you created, Mid-Life Lady, did not read at all like an encyclopedia article. Rather, it read like an essay or something from a magazine. Furthermore, I was unable to discern any sort of information about a company in there. Veinor (talk to me) 03:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
IPREX article
The piece you just deleted is considerably less of an "advertising" pitch than the one about a similar organization, Worldcom Public Relations Group, not to mention many actual public relations firms, which also appear. I fully underdtand the need for rigor here, but this seems inconsistent. I'll be happy to change the piece to fit the guidelines.
Davidcampaignteam 15:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have to ask; are you involved in any way with IPREX, and is this an account that multiple people use? Your username seems a little odd to me... anyway. Part of the issue is that the deleted article cited no references except for the Holmes Report link; we need multiple, independent reliable sources in order to satisfy the notability criteria.
- As a side note, the article's name should be IPREX, not Iprex; the wikimedia software treats those as being different. Veinor (talk to me) 16:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I'm beginning to see the light ... A previous firm I worked for was a partner in IPREX for many years. I now work for a different firm (Campaignteam). While I sometimes help IPREX with media work, I have written the piece as a favor to the organization's president. I will look for more references and try to meet your criteria. How would I add them to text which has been deleted? Davidcampaignteam 16:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK, because I thought that this might've been the collective account for IPREX's PR department or something. I've seen it before, so it's not that far out there. However, writing an article for a company that's a partner of a company you used to work for is fine, because there's very little possibility of conflicts of interest. As for the new article, I've recreated it under User:Davidcampaignteam/IPREX; let me know when you're done and I'll take a look and give you suggestions. Also, adding a new section for each reply is unnecessary and typically not done, just FYI. Veinor (talk to me) 16:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, I'll get researching.
Davidcampaignteam 16:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Vancouver municipal election, 2008
You: Notice: You are re-creating a page that was deleted.
You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. Information is available on what to do if a page you created is deleted. The deletion log for this page is provided here for convenience: 07:31, 2007 September 28 Veinor (Talk | contribs) deleted "Vancouver municipal election, 2008" (Wikipedia is not a collection of external links; no good content found in history either)
Read it in some sort of context, think, then judge, I put that information there (one an internal link) to help people edit it, aside from just little all me. Sharing knowlledge, more so sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gzlfb (talk • contribs) 16:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. The proper thign to do is to write the article with the sources already in it, not just create a list of sources. Veinor (talk to me) 16:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 03, 2007
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Collection of external links at MUD client
Hello, I've noticed that you are a member of WikiProject Spam, and have previously been involved in removing the external links section (which is now back) from the MUD client article. This article came to my attention recently, when I noticed another link has been added by User:Dforces. The discussion has started, and is not coming to resolution. While I strongly believe that the whole external links section should be removed, I'm not sure what I should do next. That's why I'm asking you, could you point me in the right direction? Should I report the situation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam? --Krótki 07:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like Dforces agrees with you that the links should be removed; the latest edit by him is a complete removal. Let me know if something flares up again. Veinor (talk to me) 19:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Northend Elite question???
Hi, I see you deleted our entry, as it wasn't formatted correctly. Brief introduction, we are a Toronto FC supporter group, we are independant of the club and we are non profit, but we are officially recognized by the club (http://toronto.fc.mlsnet.com/t280/fans/supporters_clubs/ ). We have around 70 members, and we have an active community which you can check at our official website, www.thenorthendelite.com . We are the third biggest club in the stadium by membership, and the atmosphere that we add to the matches is not quantifiable. We've been featured in media outlets. I designed the logo, so I'd like to know what I'd have to do to get it uploaded and not deleted. I also want to know what are the criterion regarding a Wikipedia entry. Should I just make it similar to the Red Patch Boys and U-Sector entries (fellow TFC supporter groups)? Thanks. 24.57.197.27 20:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're talking about here; could you give me some more detail? Veinor (talk to me) 15:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Graphwise article deletion
Hello. I wrote the article for graphwise which was speedily deleted. I would like more information on why it was deleted. Graphwise is a brand new company with a unique and proprietary graphing process. The company has created something new and valuable to the web, and has numerous patents on their creation, these patents were listed in the article. In writing the article, I made an effort to post only informative and relevant content. I would like to know what did not fit the criteria of Wikipedia and what I can do to repost an article for the sites contribution to the web. Thank you in advance for any input. 23:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)23:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Wayne Hemrick 23:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- The article was basically written like a large advertisement; phrases like "Graphwise not only identifies and extract relevant data across the web, it automatically creates stunning visualizations of the data, so that people can link, embed or download 3D graphs and charts on their blogs, Web sites, presentations or research papers." aren't really material appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Instead, they look more like in a press release. Also, you failed to provide a substantial amount of independent reliable sources; press releases and information on the CEO do not help prove the notability of the company. Veinor (talk to me) 23:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
If I was interested in reexamining the content and resubmitting would you recommend the effort, or do you see this as a ongoing deletion issue. I have very little experience with Wikipedia submissions, so I would appreciate any advice you may have. In your opinion is a proprietary search engine worthy of Wikipedia? 00:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)00:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Wayne Hemrick
- You can certainly have articles for proprietary search engines on Wikipedia; for example, Google's algorithm is still proprietary, and I believe Yahoo!'s is as well. The issue, as I said, is one of notability, not necessarily of what sort of thing the article is about. If you can find multiple, independent sources that are generally considered trustworthy and are not written by anyone with any relation to GraphWise (press releases are too biased for factual information), then there's a shot at an article. Veinor (talk to me) 02:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if it would be possible to get a copy of what I had posted so that I can review it and use it to compare as a n example of what is not acceptable. What would be the best way to do that? Thanks. 21:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Wayne Hemrick 21:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 15:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Veinor/The Broken Mirror
It looks like User:Veinor/The Broken Mirror got hit by a vandal, so I reverted it. If it wasn't vandalism, feel free to revert it back. Dave6 talk 20:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of The Bomstein Agency
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Bomstein Agency, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bomstein Agency. Thank you. Optigan13 02:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Links to ExcelCalcs.com
Back in March 2007 you raised an exception to me placing links to The ExcelCalcs.com repository of solved problems. The site has grown over the last 3/4 of a year as users post mathematical and engineering solved problems in MS Excel. I think that Wikipedia users would find links to the ExcelCalcs site useful but I am worried about adding any because of your comments back in March 2007. Some important points about ExcelCalcs.com all downloads are free, registration is not required, solve problems are validated by other ExcelCalcs users in their forum. Would you mind if I added some links? BoJosley (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoJosley (talk • contribs) 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
arlingtoncemetery.net
Hi Veinor. I am seeing more than 600 links to arlingtoncemetery.net. Looks like it has some content, but fails WP:EL.Please, what do you think?--Legionarius (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Ron Paul
Hi Veinor. I'm not exactly sure what policy is for instituting edits when a page is protected, but I roughed up some alterations to the newsletter section of the main RP page in my userspace: User:Deleuze/Ron_Paul#.22Ron_Paul_Report.22_newsletter_controversy. Should I put this up in talk to discuss? Bartleby (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact that RP forums are asking people to come en masse warrants the lockdown more than before. Why remove it now? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't notice any substantial increase in vandalism and disruptive edits before the protection, so the block seems excessive and possibly premature. Perhaps the entry could be at least open for edit by registered editors? Terjen (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I decided to protect it for a week, and it's gone now, so it's a moot issue. Veinor (talk to me) 02:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, no, it was a good block and we need to reinstate at least semi-protection, because apparently word got out that the full protection expired and the newsletter section has been attacked by at least one IP taking out the negative comments and removing the balance that we've been diligently working to maintain. Tvoz |talk 06:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It IS biased. Needs to be cut down in size. Thank you. That whole War on Terror aricle is biased, wikipedia is going down the drain because of knuckleheads like you.InTheRed (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Two points here: you're not just cutting it down in size, you're removing the entire section. There are ways to undo what you think is excessive bias, but deleting a well-sourced section of an entire article is not one of them. The other point is that you're not discussing this at all with other editors; when prompted to do so, you're just saying "well obviously it's biased."
- Oh, and I would thank you to not make personal attacks. I have been civil with you, the least you could do is be so with me. Veinor (talk to me) 03:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Audubon Movement
Why was my page deleted titled "Audubon Movement"? The stated case was blatent advertising? In the article I discuse the history of the Audubon movement which started with John James Audubon a famous painter in the 1800's that sprung a movement of conservation founding on bird protection. In the article I reference nearly completely seperate organizations and reference over 500 independent Audubon Societies and groups!!! I also link directly to many of these independant group's pages that they have already been established on Wiki... I am completely baffled... Who might you suggest I am advertising for? This is a historical truth piece. What do I need to do to get this reposted? Did I fail to meet a wiki requirement somehow? I have numerous facts and references to support my article. Can I have the article emailed to me... since it is now lost... This is very discouraging, and not a good start to what I thought was going to be a long relationship of writing pieces on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyur (talk • contribs) 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the article really read more like a press release that a company or something might put out than an actuall, encyclopedic article. You have sentences like "The name Audubon has long been synonymous with birds. Each of the more than 500 Audubon clubs, societies, and organizations in North America takes its name from the famous bird artist John James Audubon. John James Audubon lived from 1785 to 1851, and over the course of a lifetime roamed across a still very wild America to paint hundreds of its birds." And the entire point of something being speedy deleted as "advertisement" is that it would require a fundamental rewrite from the bottom up in order to be encyclopedic, so I don't think that e-mailing you the article contents would be very useful. Veinor (talk to me) 19:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure what to tell you... It most definatley was not a press release. Who would it be a press release for? The name "Audubon" (or should I say the word "Audubon") has long been synonymous with birds and conservation becuase of a famous american painter in the late 1800's, and now his last name has become a public domain "name/word" that is used by over 1000 groups and organizations round the world. Nowhere on wiki is this information available so I thought I'd write an piece on it. If you wouldn't mind, I would appreciate it if you could please email me the article anyways. Also, is there someone above you in management that I could appeal my case to, as your view seems very subjective and incorrect to me... this all seems very strange indeed, and my first taste of the wiki experience has not begun well.Zephyur (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, please review Wikipedia's deletion Policy where it clearly states on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy
If a page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. These are listed here.
Some of the more common ones include
{{cleanup}} for poor writing,
{{expert-subject}} for pages needing expert attention. etc....
Your explaination for deleting my page, and rush to delete it is a failure to adhear to wiki's own stated policy. Zephyur (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that it is a press release; what I am saying is that it reads too much like an advertisement. I'm aware of the history of the word/name "Audobon", at least vaguely. In any event, I'm guessing that it seems unlikely that this would be resolved peacably between the two of us; therefore I suggest we take this to deletion review. Let me know if you need any help filling it out.
- Oh, and as for e-mailing you the content: what's your e-mail address? I'll gladly e-mail it to you. Veinor (talk to me) 04:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok... I think I added it to the review page, but not sure if I did it right... nothing showed up on the page when I hit "save page". So who knows.... Zephyur (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's interesting. The edit isn't showing up at all in your contribution history. Maybe you didn't save it properly? Veinor (talk to me) 19:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok... I think I fixed it... I guess it was "remmed" out becuase I didn't add it in the right place. New to this hole wiki thing. Zephyur (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
imageboard(s)
Hello,
I am writing because of article "Imageboard" and list of links. Well, I guess you are right about WP not being list of links. But on the other hand, in is good for the reader to have some examples of imageboards included. But if you look at last few edits back in article history, it is only vandalism and deleting and rewriting that short paragraph "other imageboards". How would you write it to the article, so it's beneficial to the reader, but it's OK to wikipedia guidelines/policies? --Have a nice day. Running 20:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure at the moment of how to rewrite it; I tend to do reactionary editing (reverting bad edits) more than proactive editing (making good ones), if you follow. But I'll think about it and maybe do a rewrite in a while. Veinor (talk to me) 20:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Veinor,
I have the same problem. Everytime i want to make a page you delete it. All it has is the meaning of the word N-POP, which me and my friends made up. It stands for NOT POPULAR ORDINARY PEOPLE. So please stop erasing the page, i put alot of efforft into rewritng it over and over. And the writin on there is NOT COPYRIGHT! I WROTE IT, AND I COPIED IT FROM A SITE, THAT I MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please respond, Rita 22:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Princessshark5 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- The thing is that Wikipedia isn't just for things that you made up with your friends one day; we need to have reliable, independent sources. The deletion isn't because of copyright violations; I believe you when you say that you own the copyright. It's because it fails the standards set forth in Wikipedia:Notability, as well as the guidelines on neologisms/protologisms (new words. Veinor (talk to me) 22:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
re MikkyGay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I invite you to review all of the above editors "contributions", especially the deleted ones. I suspect that within minutes of your block expiring that they will be vandalising again... I applaud your restraint and application of WP:AGF, notwithstanding! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've learned that often a long block isn't necessary with people making good-faith efforts; either they get discouraged by it and stop editing entirely, which is sad but unavoidable, or they actually do start making productive edits. So an indef would be pointless in the first case, and counterproductive in the second. Veinor (talk to me) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, my eyes must be getting jaded... Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)