This page 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. |
You could create an article about Jezper Söderlund in Swedish in the Swedish Wikipedia at http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezper_Söderlund -- Eastmain 14:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Amprobe Clamp Meter.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
...on my talk page. Cheers! Flyguy649 talk contribs 06:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Katr67 19:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, i saw your message, you're removing the links i posted. Ok, 1 link is blog but the other isn't - why are you removing www.cyberpk.net/wateen-connector/ link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Govinda1pk ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note that, although blanking is frowned upon, it is not actually forbidden, and is not a blockable offense. Cheers. -- DarkFalls talk 07:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I removed the source that pointed to http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P7697 because IT Facts does not meet the WP:Source guidelines, which require that the source be "trustworthy or authoritative." IT Facts is an anonymous site with no notability or verifiability about who runs it or the source of their information. The new sources you put in are much better. :) Collectonian 07:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Apologies for the delay; I have been out of the Country. As you say, the two parameters you mention would satisfy WP:MUSIC. I will restore the article, but will, of course, depend on you to insert the additional data. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 18:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your two copyvio listings. Works that are produced by the US Federal Government, including all of its agencies (DOD, NASA, etc.) are public domain (copyright-free). Such works can be used for any purpose, including modification and redistribution by Wikipedia. The two articles you listed did have their sources referenced in the article footer. Please keep this in mind when looking into future potential copyright violations. Thanks. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 14:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please explain to me what Tarnation has to do with the article on bipolar disorder?
Thanks. DeeKenn ( talk) 01:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, note that references in languages other than English are acceptable per our policy, and they are left there so that others can corroborate the information from the article (in this case, single listing, release date and Oricon chart information). Cheers! -- ReyBrujo ( talk) 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Done per your requests at my talk page. Please check to see that I haven't screwed anything up! -- Flyguy649 talk 09:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on 2008 Vancouver tornado requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Transcendence (
talk)
22:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there :) I'd just like to say that you're doing a great job at writing the article for the 2008 Vancouver tornado, but I advise that when creating articles, you add the {{ underconstruction}} tag to the top of the page, to alert speedy deletion taggers that the article is still in progress. This will avoid having the article tagged as requiring deletion, as in this case, it didn't need to be deleted straight away. Just some friendly advice :) Cheers, Spebi 23:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I see you've deleted my recent addition to the Lego and Yahoo! wikis, citing them as advertising. I can assure you that the resource linked to is independent research carried out by the UK Design Council, a not-for-profit government organisation that aims to raise awareness of design. It does not seek to sell any products or promote any particular agenda apart from the resources themselves. This research provides excellent insight in to the design process of these companies and I thought it would be a useful resource for Wikipedia users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Designcouncil ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Articles should be classified with like articles at the most specific category. The categories that these sub categories roll up into should not be listed in the article in most cases. Consider for a second if ever vehicle was listed in Category:Vehicles. How usable would that category be? The categories need to be managed to keep them useful. Also, an article can exist in multiple sub categories. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
i'm looking at the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article and trying to revert it back to the version before the edit war. how do i do that? i know how to simply undo the last edit, but not from past versions. i'm going to report 76.220.202.205 in a little bit if he/she doesn't stop making such huge edits without consensus. i'm contacting you because i saw you talk on his/her talkpage. thanks.-- AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 11:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Doran - Monuments cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from vandalizing the Wafa Sultan article again. You already pushed the limits when you replaced reliable newspaper articles with references citing Wikipedia as a source. I do not know or care about your agenda, but I ask you to keep your self-respect and leave the article be. Wafa Sultan is Sunni and nothing can change it. Please refrain from doing more damage to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.177.170 ( talk) 19:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please tell me why you have removed the entry for my site at www.chriscornell.org.uk? You say "we don't link to fansites", yet I see them on artist pages throughout Wikipedia and was unaware of any official policy on this. If there is one, could you show me where it's stated? Fan-run sites are frequently as valuable a resource as corporate-run sites. My site is unofficial but is one of the major resources providing up-to-date news for fans of the artist, who has also contributed material to it such as exclusive interviews. You have however left the link in place for Fresh Deadly Raities, another fansite. Surely this is inconsistent whatever the policy is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarefromscotland ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I disagree with your interpretation of policy and I am going to reinstate the link, mainly because the site in question is generally acknowledged as the #1 source for daily news updates on the artist's activities and tour. At present it carries more up-to-date and relevant information than the official site; if someone is coming to Wikipedia for info on Cornell's current activities, they are more likely to find it there than anywhere else. If you are going to leave a memorabilia collection like "Fresh Deadly Rarities" in place, then you cannot really justify removing my site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarefromscotland ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that no-one was "in charge" here, yet you continue to repeatedly remove the link. Please desist. I have already explained the situation about the site and what it offers. I do not understand what you mean by "conflict of interest" or "advertising" - this is a not-for-profit site which offers a free resource and extensive information for fans of the artist which is not available at the official site. By removing this, you effectively deny relevant time-sensitive information to those looking for it in Wikipedia and reduce the net information value of the page as a resource. There is no rule that says "official sites" necessarily have the most accurate or the most recent information available.
You may also not perhaps realise that the link to my site has on the Wikipedia page for most of the past year before you removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarefromscotland ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for so quickly finding an excellent reference that discusses why the International Space Station needs a crew of six. That's much better than merely indicating the plan is for a crew that size! Really, adding this reference is a huge improvement to the article! ( sdsds - talk) 02:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I really have no opinion, being something of a newbie to Wikipedia. I have lots of things (I think) I know about physics and astronomy, but am still barely oriented w/r wiki culture and customs. I mistakenly reverted that editor's changes to both space colonization & colonization of the moon before I came into doubt and checked Google, where I discovered that Peter was correct. But the other editor missed one incorrect occurrence, so maybe I got 'em all. Cheers, Wwheaton ( talk) 00:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
An edit summary omission is hardly worth a talk page comment. Andre ( talk) 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Have a nice weekend.
E_dog95' Hi ' 19:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You uploaded Image:Black hole.jpg, which overlaid an image with that same name which already existed. I've reverted your image to the previous one, please reupload your image with a different name. Corvus cornix talk 22:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. :) Corvus cornix talk 22:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wonder if this sig is going to work. Oh and thanks for the talk
EclipseAgent ( talk) 15:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok sure. was just trying to help. -- MatchStickEleven ( talk) 13:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I am needing help regarding pdf files that have been uploaded as images. I'm sorting images related to vehicles and have noticed that there are a few of these floating around. I came to you because I saw you've done some work with images at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. Any ideas (for deletion)? E_dog95' Hi ' 06:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, look in the Manual of style which allows for a notes section and a bibliography or reference section. Whether or not the information is specifically noted for the text, the articles in the reference section provide background and confirmation. This is typical of WP articles and specifically a hedge against an AfD where multiple references help satisfy the notability criteria at WP:N. A typical format is to include the detail for all references in the reference or biblio section and then just provide brief mention from the notes (e.g., Spurr pg 105). At WP we do not have the provision for separate sets of informational and citation footnote, thus we put them into one section where note 5 could be a clarification of detail while note 6 is a citation. We don't have rigid standards at WP. Thanks! -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 23:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC) PS: are you a Catalina sailor? I have a C380 on San Francisco Bay.
While most pdf files uploaded to Wikipedia are useless, it's important to check their content and licensing in case any useful media or text could be salvaged. I've run across several new accounts posting legitimate articles in pdf format, in those cases it's easy to format the embedded text to comply with wiki markup, but the original upload counts as edit history and must be referenced. In rarer cases, like Image:Cvt.pdf, the uploader wanted to offer a scalable version of Image:Cvt.png. While SVG is the format of choice for such diagrams, pdfs could just as easily suffice, or at least be converted. I think there's a decent case to be made for transferring similar vector/rich text pdfs to the Wikimedia Commons, for later use or conversion to the SVG format. Your mileage may vary and in the vast majority of cases pdf files qualify for I10 deletion. Make sure to check their contents, though, just in case. Cheers, ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Category:Yamaha motorcycle images, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Category:Yamaha motorcycle images is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see
Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Category:Yamaha motorcycle images, 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. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk)
22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I note you've marked and removed a load of edits by this address as WP:SPAM. Its worth adding that a reverse lookup of the IP address shows it belonging to the company being mentioned itself. All edits from this address appear to be promos for the company. Probably a well meaning employee. Beardybloke ( talk) 21:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that you are already a member of a related project and thought you might be interested in this wikiproject also and hence leaving this note ... - From the outreach dept
I am somewhat at a loss to understand the criteria by which external links are allowed to survive or be deleted by an editor. I placed two external links in four categories that were entirely appropriate and relative to my sites. This was not an act of vandalism or spamming - it was simply adding two external links.
However, within seconds you chose to delete those external links. Which amazes me that if you had checked those links out you would have seen that they were entirely appropriate and ( with all due humbleness ) probably the most authorative and comprehensive sites for those topics. Did you bother to check the links for their appropriateness or their relevancy to the specific topic they were attached ?
Which left me wondering by what criteria an external link must meet in order to have survived being deleted.
During the surfing of the WikiPedia to find appropriate places to place an external link, I saw what I can basically say are inferior external links. Yet they were there.. ? So I will trust you can appreciate my confusion at having my humble offerings nuked.
I find it funny... only because those same hyperlinks to my sites have been included in approximately 200 hard text books by the respective authors of those books. This is something that could be searched out on Amazon.com where my sites are quoted and recommended in the books related internet security, network security, computer security and even in various 'hacker' hard cover books.
I understand the need to ensure quality and relevant additions to the various topics. I hate spammers more then anyone. And frankly the SEO aspect of having a link in Wikipedia is not my motivation. But I am still at a loss at the end of the day to understand what criteria is applied against suggested external links... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.127.165 ( talk) 21:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
hiya mate, noticed that you've got some insight in the trance-scene. I'm working on a article for trance.nu (if you're familiar with that site) and would appreciate some help. My current revision is on my discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tompalomp/Trance.nu Lemme know if ya wanna help out! :) ... regards -- Tompalomp ( talk) 11:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I just left a comment at WP:CFD, but I see you're nominating additional categories. Please don't de-populate the categories -- it's directly contrary to the instructions on the CFD notice, and it completely preempts the CFD process. Please repopulate the categories that you've already emptied so other editors can form their own judgments. Thanks. Cgingold ( talk) 02:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I have made a proposal for a intergrated banner for the project here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 11:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
A Boeing 757. Great! Thank you for your help! I'll post your comment in the picture's writeup. It was taken with kind of a cheap camera, but it gives a good sense of how close those planes come. Some fine day I'll see if I can get some more plane photos there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Spencer T♦ C 23:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The first Indian satellite was launched in 1975 ( Aryabhata). Stellar Grifon ( talk) 08:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that with "Google News" you can see the relevant bits of the pay articles if you type in the right terms in the search engine.
Anyhow, Wikipedia:LINKSTOAVOID#Links_normally_to_be_avoided - normally is the key word. The section says "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. See below."
Wikipedia:LINKSTOAVOID#Sites_requiring_registration says: "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference." - As those links are inline references, they will be made visible again. WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:ElectricDaisyCarnivalCover.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- FairuseBot ( talk) 12:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello there,
I noticed that you had left a message on my talk page - Thanks. I am relatively new here and need some help in removing commercial external links. There is some one who keeps adding commercial links in a particular page. Is there a method of automatic deletion for any new link pointing to a particular site ?
Kindly advice.
Thanks Alla tedesca ( talk) 04:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the Prompt Response Alla tedesca ( talk) 10:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, I shouldn't be that lazy, not to search for a new one. This link you added doesn't work either. CTJF83 Talk 23:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Responding to
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:85.82.179.226&oldid=240316242:
Copying a single sentence from a press release hardly constitutes copyright infringement, especially when properly attributed. Companies make press releases to be quoted in the first place and a single sentence is fair use by far. --
85.82.179.226 (
talk)
03:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi mate, I've re-launched the Trance.nu page now, let's see if the mods like it better this time around - thanks for the assistance! -- Tompalomp ( talk) 13:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately he's no noob. He's been at it since '04, and he's very persistent (in a smoldering fire you were sure was out type of way). His heart seems to be in the right place, but his edits usually aren't. Keep your eyes open. NJGW ( talk) 02:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm pleased that it isn't just me! I was wondering what I'd done, lol :) Have just seen that, apparently, all and sundry are having the same problem... says so here. Thank you for your message, cheers! Maedin\ talk 09:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for brining this to my attention - I wasn't totally sure on the sock puppetry claims - I am writing a message to AN/I as we speak, I'll let you know when it's up, mate. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Re [1]: wp:v states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". -- Jeandré, 2008-10-01 t18:51z
So, there you have it. Please use the edit summary at all times. Bye E_dog95' Hi ' 21:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as it helps everyone to understand what is changed, such as when perusing the history of the page...Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit.
Why did you remove the external link from the port forwarding page? pcwintech.com is a site with helpful information on port forwarding. You list other sites that give info on it so im curious why you removed it. The site is helpful to port forwarding just like the other links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.174.152 ( talk) 15:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, but right now I am swamped with RL school-work as well as dealing with my commitments to a Featured Topic drive and my duties as a Coordinator of WP:MILHIST. I would suggest asking the wikiproject that hasn't assessed the article B-class on their talk page to re-assess (I see that they use a B-class checklist which hasn't been filled-in). Also, a good place to gain suggestions about the article and how to improve it would be a peer review, or you could go ahead with a GAN if you feel you've got enough time over the next week (after it is reviewed) to put forth the suggested improvements. As for placing tags and then coming back and seeing them still there, dont' expect a fast response with maintenance tags, the gnomes who fix those things work from the oldest to the present (I think they are still working on tags placed on articles in 2007). I'm sorry I can't be of more help. - MBK 004 18:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if you've yet realized that in a matter of hours your "holier than thou" and single-minded manner has managed to irk at least two long-time editors of the Santa Cruz, California article. You're welcome to keep editing because this is still Wikipedia, but do us all a favor and drop the attitude on the Talk pages and edit summaries. — X S G 08:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Erm. You just didn't like that I pointed out a Wikipedia guideline I think. And btw, the list got cleaned up. You and the other editor were kicking and scratching the whole way, but we got it done. I lead the process and I don't think I'm really the reason that you're irked. E_dog95' Hi ' 09:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
You've missed the point entirely, E_dog95. You took someone who wanted to collaborate with you and, with a very poor choice of language, turned them into someone who wanted to have nothing to do with you. Please see User Talk:XSG#Collaboration requires for a more thorough explanation. — X S G 15:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
One thing that I really like about what you've done is that instead of completely removing the entries that weren't referenced from the article, you only commented them out, making it much easier for other editors to work on them instead of having to go back into the article's history to find the next in the list. Keep doing this! —
X S G
16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your explanation. I figured if there was an exact birth date mentioned in the article (even in an infobox) it had justification from somewhere which is why I changed it, but also put a note in my edit summary. thanks again, -- FeanorStar7 ( talk) 11:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The proper way to contest a PROD is to remove the template from the article. If a PROD is contested, the article is no longer eligible for a PROD and must proceed through AfD. — X S G 22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I created that section (on wave power - technology descriptions) 2 years ago. Perhaps tens of thousands of readers have gained from those descriptions and the links. Those were always more than just links. The spirit of Wikipedia is against using the site to promote commerce. I did something else. Wave power is a new technology. It is primarily defined by what the small companies that are going after it are doing. Industry insiders in any industry pay big money for reports on what other insiders are doing. Are Wikipedia readers so precariously ignorant that they must be protected from links to experts on the subjects they seek to read about? Anyway, I will see what happens with the wave power article: i.e. I take a long term view of preserving my content on this. Let me know what rules I might need to defend against. Anthony717 ( talk) 06:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi , Iam too amateur radio operator.Sp9dev (Start at 1968)
I have to mauch trouble with my English. But I am a inventor. Some my inventions are publishingcy at http://new4stroke1.123guestbook.com/gb.php?id=new4stroke1&page=3
This is about my invention oscillating dynamo.It is easy tonque to product energy from wave. I probably see this tonqu for all people. If You cnn helpp in this idea, please contact , what I must popularize this good tonque.
Regards Andrew Feliks —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
213.77.150.188 (
talk)
11:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
New to Wikipedia Community so hope I'm posting somewhat correctly. Never intended to swamp wikipedia with links to my pages or advertise my website. Just thought it would be nice to contribute a couple of pages on the external links of a couple of subjects that I feel would be helpful for beginners. I have no problem with the links being removed if they break the rules. Perhaps as I develop itbuddy.org (aimed at beginners)I may feel I can contribute some useful content to some computer subjects. Any comments welcome. Regards Itbuddy ( talk) 00:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC) "4 External Links on Internet Security have Adsense" Mine has been removed - They should be removed !!!!!!. Itbuddy ( talk) 00:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there sorry to bother but i would like to ask you if you could watch or semi protect the page on future and current lunar missions it is being vandalized by POV edits by thoe above ip mentioned in the title i would be grateful cheers 86.158.177.181 ( talk) 19:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on your interpretation of MOS:BOLD, bolding should be used more in the first paragraph of articles. I don't think this is a good interpretation. Have a look around Wikipedia. We use the bold sparingly especially on small articles of one or two paragraphs. It's distracting.
In such a small article items don't really get lost easily. But lets say you did have a need to emphasize something - maybe something in a really big article - then follow the advice there at MOS:BOLD and "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text". E_dog95' Hi ' 21:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
This is with reference to your talk with Ronz on this subject. I am unable to understand Ronz's attitude towards me. While looking through his / her talk section, I noticed that he / she is using a lot of negative terms about me. Is that allowed? Further, Ronz is sending me warning messages about adding external links.
Most of my time is spent in removing external links and fighting spam. My area of interest is in network simulation, and given that I have a good understanding of the subject, I added a few links which I thought are important. A detailed explanation of the same was also provided in the discussion pages of the article.
Since, I saw you write in a statement of support for me, I thought of reaching out to you for some guidance on how to handle this matter.
Thanks Alla tedesca ( talk) 05:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I facing some further problems with Ronz on this matters. There have been others too who are against what Ronz is doing, but Ronz continues to edit the way he sees correct.
Furthermore, there have been several technical points on the subject in favour of our content which Ronz refuses to accept. Now he says we should look for a third party to mediate.
Ronz has also made several personal remarks which I don't think we appropriate.
Can you please advice me on how one goes about deciding who the third party must be? Shouldn't it be some one with a knowledge of the subject?
Thanks Alla tedesca ( talk) 13:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
some guy keeps trashing my talk page and the artical i manage.-- Holden yo ( talk) 15:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
... For catching that vandalism on my talk page :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Reference consistency? OK - if you're going to maintain this article in that fashion...fine. I maintain the references in a few articles and this is the first time I've come across an editor that wants to duplicate information in refs. I don't thinks it's a correct or even a good idea. You may have you way though. E_dog95' Hi ' 16:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Here, I meant what park? Is there only one park in Prosser? Thanks. -- DerRichter ( talk) 22:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your somewhat rude communication about my edits to the Intelius page. I think it might have been more appropriate to give me a chance to respond and complete the reference citation before you summarily deleted it. You made the threat, but then gave me no time to comply before you took action. I hope you have noted the thread on the Intelius talk page about how any information that might be considered negative to the company gets summarily deleted. Please, in future, discuss your rationale for deletion on the talk page prior to deleting sections. Fshepinc ( talk) 18:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not wish to stir the flames, but I am perturbed by the tone of your comments, which in my opinion tread the fine line of being a personal threat. I am going to assume your absolute good-faith intention, and my own paranoia here... As to the substance of your post: Any comments or questions I place on an article's discussion page are simply that; issues to discuss. I believe that is the express purpose of the discussion pages - to provide a place where various editors can discuss points of view, accuracy of information, etc. in pursuit of improving said article. The article in question appears to have been heavily re-edited over time, with a great deal of dispute over deletions, including suggestions of conflict of interest or impropriety on the part of previous editors. To paraphrase - that's not the page I want to die on. If you say you have no professional or personal connection to Intelius, Inc,, then I believe you. If you like, I will remove the question from the talk page (or you may do it with my full support). That leaves the larger question about the appropriateness of the edits/deletions on the main article, which are disputed on the talk page. To me, the article as it now appears seems to comply with Wikipedia standards, with factual information and references. (Not that it couldn't be improved -almost any article could.) You are clearly a more experienced editor than I am. How should we proceed? Is it appropriate to edit/delete information from a talk page? Is there a need to monitor the article in case of vandalism? Do you know of a Wikipedia policy that can be quoted or referenced on the talk page that will guide future editors who wish to add or delete sections to the article? I'm not a total noob, but my knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and practices (and coding!) are limited to the specific issues I have run up against while editing. I try to learn as I go, but this is a situation where your additional experience is valuable. Fshepinc ( talk) 05:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Are emoticons appropriate around here? :) Since I have your attention, can you please recommend a tutorial for how to properly cite references here? I would say the coding commands are Greek to me, but I understand Greek better than I understand markup languages... There are several articles/subjects I track, and many are tagged as needing more references. What is the simplest way to insert one? Thank you.
Thank you for welcoming me to wikipedia. 16x9 ( talk) 00:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Hope the list was useful. Doesn't seem to get much traffic, tho. If you're interested, you can help out with this. There's plenty of redlinks... Ciao. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 15:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC) (Oh, BTW, I added a header to your cmt on my talk.)
Hi, thanks for your question. I've left a response on my Talk page. WBR, CountingPine ( talk) 00:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
hey man, about Yahoo is true. How about you read this.. www.endmafia.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.228.213 ( talk) 00:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
This page 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. |
This page 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. |
You could create an article about Jezper Söderlund in Swedish in the Swedish Wikipedia at http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezper_Söderlund -- Eastmain 14:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Amprobe Clamp Meter.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
...on my talk page. Cheers! Flyguy649 talk contribs 06:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Katr67 19:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, i saw your message, you're removing the links i posted. Ok, 1 link is blog but the other isn't - why are you removing www.cyberpk.net/wateen-connector/ link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Govinda1pk ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note that, although blanking is frowned upon, it is not actually forbidden, and is not a blockable offense. Cheers. -- DarkFalls talk 07:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I removed the source that pointed to http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P7697 because IT Facts does not meet the WP:Source guidelines, which require that the source be "trustworthy or authoritative." IT Facts is an anonymous site with no notability or verifiability about who runs it or the source of their information. The new sources you put in are much better. :) Collectonian 07:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Apologies for the delay; I have been out of the Country. As you say, the two parameters you mention would satisfy WP:MUSIC. I will restore the article, but will, of course, depend on you to insert the additional data. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 18:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your two copyvio listings. Works that are produced by the US Federal Government, including all of its agencies (DOD, NASA, etc.) are public domain (copyright-free). Such works can be used for any purpose, including modification and redistribution by Wikipedia. The two articles you listed did have their sources referenced in the article footer. Please keep this in mind when looking into future potential copyright violations. Thanks. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 14:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please explain to me what Tarnation has to do with the article on bipolar disorder?
Thanks. DeeKenn ( talk) 01:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, note that references in languages other than English are acceptable per our policy, and they are left there so that others can corroborate the information from the article (in this case, single listing, release date and Oricon chart information). Cheers! -- ReyBrujo ( talk) 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Done per your requests at my talk page. Please check to see that I haven't screwed anything up! -- Flyguy649 talk 09:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on 2008 Vancouver tornado requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Transcendence (
talk)
22:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there :) I'd just like to say that you're doing a great job at writing the article for the 2008 Vancouver tornado, but I advise that when creating articles, you add the {{ underconstruction}} tag to the top of the page, to alert speedy deletion taggers that the article is still in progress. This will avoid having the article tagged as requiring deletion, as in this case, it didn't need to be deleted straight away. Just some friendly advice :) Cheers, Spebi 23:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I see you've deleted my recent addition to the Lego and Yahoo! wikis, citing them as advertising. I can assure you that the resource linked to is independent research carried out by the UK Design Council, a not-for-profit government organisation that aims to raise awareness of design. It does not seek to sell any products or promote any particular agenda apart from the resources themselves. This research provides excellent insight in to the design process of these companies and I thought it would be a useful resource for Wikipedia users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Designcouncil ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Articles should be classified with like articles at the most specific category. The categories that these sub categories roll up into should not be listed in the article in most cases. Consider for a second if ever vehicle was listed in Category:Vehicles. How usable would that category be? The categories need to be managed to keep them useful. Also, an article can exist in multiple sub categories. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
i'm looking at the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article and trying to revert it back to the version before the edit war. how do i do that? i know how to simply undo the last edit, but not from past versions. i'm going to report 76.220.202.205 in a little bit if he/she doesn't stop making such huge edits without consensus. i'm contacting you because i saw you talk on his/her talkpage. thanks.-- AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 11:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Doran - Monuments cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from vandalizing the Wafa Sultan article again. You already pushed the limits when you replaced reliable newspaper articles with references citing Wikipedia as a source. I do not know or care about your agenda, but I ask you to keep your self-respect and leave the article be. Wafa Sultan is Sunni and nothing can change it. Please refrain from doing more damage to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.177.170 ( talk) 19:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please tell me why you have removed the entry for my site at www.chriscornell.org.uk? You say "we don't link to fansites", yet I see them on artist pages throughout Wikipedia and was unaware of any official policy on this. If there is one, could you show me where it's stated? Fan-run sites are frequently as valuable a resource as corporate-run sites. My site is unofficial but is one of the major resources providing up-to-date news for fans of the artist, who has also contributed material to it such as exclusive interviews. You have however left the link in place for Fresh Deadly Raities, another fansite. Surely this is inconsistent whatever the policy is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarefromscotland ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I disagree with your interpretation of policy and I am going to reinstate the link, mainly because the site in question is generally acknowledged as the #1 source for daily news updates on the artist's activities and tour. At present it carries more up-to-date and relevant information than the official site; if someone is coming to Wikipedia for info on Cornell's current activities, they are more likely to find it there than anywhere else. If you are going to leave a memorabilia collection like "Fresh Deadly Rarities" in place, then you cannot really justify removing my site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarefromscotland ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that no-one was "in charge" here, yet you continue to repeatedly remove the link. Please desist. I have already explained the situation about the site and what it offers. I do not understand what you mean by "conflict of interest" or "advertising" - this is a not-for-profit site which offers a free resource and extensive information for fans of the artist which is not available at the official site. By removing this, you effectively deny relevant time-sensitive information to those looking for it in Wikipedia and reduce the net information value of the page as a resource. There is no rule that says "official sites" necessarily have the most accurate or the most recent information available.
You may also not perhaps realise that the link to my site has on the Wikipedia page for most of the past year before you removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarefromscotland ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for so quickly finding an excellent reference that discusses why the International Space Station needs a crew of six. That's much better than merely indicating the plan is for a crew that size! Really, adding this reference is a huge improvement to the article! ( sdsds - talk) 02:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I really have no opinion, being something of a newbie to Wikipedia. I have lots of things (I think) I know about physics and astronomy, but am still barely oriented w/r wiki culture and customs. I mistakenly reverted that editor's changes to both space colonization & colonization of the moon before I came into doubt and checked Google, where I discovered that Peter was correct. But the other editor missed one incorrect occurrence, so maybe I got 'em all. Cheers, Wwheaton ( talk) 00:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
An edit summary omission is hardly worth a talk page comment. Andre ( talk) 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Have a nice weekend.
E_dog95' Hi ' 19:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You uploaded Image:Black hole.jpg, which overlaid an image with that same name which already existed. I've reverted your image to the previous one, please reupload your image with a different name. Corvus cornix talk 22:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. :) Corvus cornix talk 22:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wonder if this sig is going to work. Oh and thanks for the talk
EclipseAgent ( talk) 15:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok sure. was just trying to help. -- MatchStickEleven ( talk) 13:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I am needing help regarding pdf files that have been uploaded as images. I'm sorting images related to vehicles and have noticed that there are a few of these floating around. I came to you because I saw you've done some work with images at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. Any ideas (for deletion)? E_dog95' Hi ' 06:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, look in the Manual of style which allows for a notes section and a bibliography or reference section. Whether or not the information is specifically noted for the text, the articles in the reference section provide background and confirmation. This is typical of WP articles and specifically a hedge against an AfD where multiple references help satisfy the notability criteria at WP:N. A typical format is to include the detail for all references in the reference or biblio section and then just provide brief mention from the notes (e.g., Spurr pg 105). At WP we do not have the provision for separate sets of informational and citation footnote, thus we put them into one section where note 5 could be a clarification of detail while note 6 is a citation. We don't have rigid standards at WP. Thanks! -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 23:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC) PS: are you a Catalina sailor? I have a C380 on San Francisco Bay.
While most pdf files uploaded to Wikipedia are useless, it's important to check their content and licensing in case any useful media or text could be salvaged. I've run across several new accounts posting legitimate articles in pdf format, in those cases it's easy to format the embedded text to comply with wiki markup, but the original upload counts as edit history and must be referenced. In rarer cases, like Image:Cvt.pdf, the uploader wanted to offer a scalable version of Image:Cvt.png. While SVG is the format of choice for such diagrams, pdfs could just as easily suffice, or at least be converted. I think there's a decent case to be made for transferring similar vector/rich text pdfs to the Wikimedia Commons, for later use or conversion to the SVG format. Your mileage may vary and in the vast majority of cases pdf files qualify for I10 deletion. Make sure to check their contents, though, just in case. Cheers, ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Category:Yamaha motorcycle images, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Category:Yamaha motorcycle images is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see
Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Category:Yamaha motorcycle images, 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. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk)
22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I note you've marked and removed a load of edits by this address as WP:SPAM. Its worth adding that a reverse lookup of the IP address shows it belonging to the company being mentioned itself. All edits from this address appear to be promos for the company. Probably a well meaning employee. Beardybloke ( talk) 21:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that you are already a member of a related project and thought you might be interested in this wikiproject also and hence leaving this note ... - From the outreach dept
I am somewhat at a loss to understand the criteria by which external links are allowed to survive or be deleted by an editor. I placed two external links in four categories that were entirely appropriate and relative to my sites. This was not an act of vandalism or spamming - it was simply adding two external links.
However, within seconds you chose to delete those external links. Which amazes me that if you had checked those links out you would have seen that they were entirely appropriate and ( with all due humbleness ) probably the most authorative and comprehensive sites for those topics. Did you bother to check the links for their appropriateness or their relevancy to the specific topic they were attached ?
Which left me wondering by what criteria an external link must meet in order to have survived being deleted.
During the surfing of the WikiPedia to find appropriate places to place an external link, I saw what I can basically say are inferior external links. Yet they were there.. ? So I will trust you can appreciate my confusion at having my humble offerings nuked.
I find it funny... only because those same hyperlinks to my sites have been included in approximately 200 hard text books by the respective authors of those books. This is something that could be searched out on Amazon.com where my sites are quoted and recommended in the books related internet security, network security, computer security and even in various 'hacker' hard cover books.
I understand the need to ensure quality and relevant additions to the various topics. I hate spammers more then anyone. And frankly the SEO aspect of having a link in Wikipedia is not my motivation. But I am still at a loss at the end of the day to understand what criteria is applied against suggested external links... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.127.165 ( talk) 21:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
hiya mate, noticed that you've got some insight in the trance-scene. I'm working on a article for trance.nu (if you're familiar with that site) and would appreciate some help. My current revision is on my discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tompalomp/Trance.nu Lemme know if ya wanna help out! :) ... regards -- Tompalomp ( talk) 11:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I just left a comment at WP:CFD, but I see you're nominating additional categories. Please don't de-populate the categories -- it's directly contrary to the instructions on the CFD notice, and it completely preempts the CFD process. Please repopulate the categories that you've already emptied so other editors can form their own judgments. Thanks. Cgingold ( talk) 02:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I have made a proposal for a intergrated banner for the project here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 11:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
A Boeing 757. Great! Thank you for your help! I'll post your comment in the picture's writeup. It was taken with kind of a cheap camera, but it gives a good sense of how close those planes come. Some fine day I'll see if I can get some more plane photos there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Spencer T♦ C 23:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The first Indian satellite was launched in 1975 ( Aryabhata). Stellar Grifon ( talk) 08:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that with "Google News" you can see the relevant bits of the pay articles if you type in the right terms in the search engine.
Anyhow, Wikipedia:LINKSTOAVOID#Links_normally_to_be_avoided - normally is the key word. The section says "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. See below."
Wikipedia:LINKSTOAVOID#Sites_requiring_registration says: "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference." - As those links are inline references, they will be made visible again. WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:ElectricDaisyCarnivalCover.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- FairuseBot ( talk) 12:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello there,
I noticed that you had left a message on my talk page - Thanks. I am relatively new here and need some help in removing commercial external links. There is some one who keeps adding commercial links in a particular page. Is there a method of automatic deletion for any new link pointing to a particular site ?
Kindly advice.
Thanks Alla tedesca ( talk) 04:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the Prompt Response Alla tedesca ( talk) 10:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, I shouldn't be that lazy, not to search for a new one. This link you added doesn't work either. CTJF83 Talk 23:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Responding to
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:85.82.179.226&oldid=240316242:
Copying a single sentence from a press release hardly constitutes copyright infringement, especially when properly attributed. Companies make press releases to be quoted in the first place and a single sentence is fair use by far. --
85.82.179.226 (
talk)
03:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi mate, I've re-launched the Trance.nu page now, let's see if the mods like it better this time around - thanks for the assistance! -- Tompalomp ( talk) 13:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately he's no noob. He's been at it since '04, and he's very persistent (in a smoldering fire you were sure was out type of way). His heart seems to be in the right place, but his edits usually aren't. Keep your eyes open. NJGW ( talk) 02:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm pleased that it isn't just me! I was wondering what I'd done, lol :) Have just seen that, apparently, all and sundry are having the same problem... says so here. Thank you for your message, cheers! Maedin\ talk 09:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for brining this to my attention - I wasn't totally sure on the sock puppetry claims - I am writing a message to AN/I as we speak, I'll let you know when it's up, mate. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Re [1]: wp:v states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". -- Jeandré, 2008-10-01 t18:51z
So, there you have it. Please use the edit summary at all times. Bye E_dog95' Hi ' 21:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as it helps everyone to understand what is changed, such as when perusing the history of the page...Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit.
Why did you remove the external link from the port forwarding page? pcwintech.com is a site with helpful information on port forwarding. You list other sites that give info on it so im curious why you removed it. The site is helpful to port forwarding just like the other links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.174.152 ( talk) 15:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, but right now I am swamped with RL school-work as well as dealing with my commitments to a Featured Topic drive and my duties as a Coordinator of WP:MILHIST. I would suggest asking the wikiproject that hasn't assessed the article B-class on their talk page to re-assess (I see that they use a B-class checklist which hasn't been filled-in). Also, a good place to gain suggestions about the article and how to improve it would be a peer review, or you could go ahead with a GAN if you feel you've got enough time over the next week (after it is reviewed) to put forth the suggested improvements. As for placing tags and then coming back and seeing them still there, dont' expect a fast response with maintenance tags, the gnomes who fix those things work from the oldest to the present (I think they are still working on tags placed on articles in 2007). I'm sorry I can't be of more help. - MBK 004 18:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if you've yet realized that in a matter of hours your "holier than thou" and single-minded manner has managed to irk at least two long-time editors of the Santa Cruz, California article. You're welcome to keep editing because this is still Wikipedia, but do us all a favor and drop the attitude on the Talk pages and edit summaries. — X S G 08:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Erm. You just didn't like that I pointed out a Wikipedia guideline I think. And btw, the list got cleaned up. You and the other editor were kicking and scratching the whole way, but we got it done. I lead the process and I don't think I'm really the reason that you're irked. E_dog95' Hi ' 09:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
You've missed the point entirely, E_dog95. You took someone who wanted to collaborate with you and, with a very poor choice of language, turned them into someone who wanted to have nothing to do with you. Please see User Talk:XSG#Collaboration requires for a more thorough explanation. — X S G 15:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
One thing that I really like about what you've done is that instead of completely removing the entries that weren't referenced from the article, you only commented them out, making it much easier for other editors to work on them instead of having to go back into the article's history to find the next in the list. Keep doing this! —
X S G
16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your explanation. I figured if there was an exact birth date mentioned in the article (even in an infobox) it had justification from somewhere which is why I changed it, but also put a note in my edit summary. thanks again, -- FeanorStar7 ( talk) 11:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The proper way to contest a PROD is to remove the template from the article. If a PROD is contested, the article is no longer eligible for a PROD and must proceed through AfD. — X S G 22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I created that section (on wave power - technology descriptions) 2 years ago. Perhaps tens of thousands of readers have gained from those descriptions and the links. Those were always more than just links. The spirit of Wikipedia is against using the site to promote commerce. I did something else. Wave power is a new technology. It is primarily defined by what the small companies that are going after it are doing. Industry insiders in any industry pay big money for reports on what other insiders are doing. Are Wikipedia readers so precariously ignorant that they must be protected from links to experts on the subjects they seek to read about? Anyway, I will see what happens with the wave power article: i.e. I take a long term view of preserving my content on this. Let me know what rules I might need to defend against. Anthony717 ( talk) 06:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi , Iam too amateur radio operator.Sp9dev (Start at 1968)
I have to mauch trouble with my English. But I am a inventor. Some my inventions are publishingcy at http://new4stroke1.123guestbook.com/gb.php?id=new4stroke1&page=3
This is about my invention oscillating dynamo.It is easy tonque to product energy from wave. I probably see this tonqu for all people. If You cnn helpp in this idea, please contact , what I must popularize this good tonque.
Regards Andrew Feliks —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
213.77.150.188 (
talk)
11:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
New to Wikipedia Community so hope I'm posting somewhat correctly. Never intended to swamp wikipedia with links to my pages or advertise my website. Just thought it would be nice to contribute a couple of pages on the external links of a couple of subjects that I feel would be helpful for beginners. I have no problem with the links being removed if they break the rules. Perhaps as I develop itbuddy.org (aimed at beginners)I may feel I can contribute some useful content to some computer subjects. Any comments welcome. Regards Itbuddy ( talk) 00:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC) "4 External Links on Internet Security have Adsense" Mine has been removed - They should be removed !!!!!!. Itbuddy ( talk) 00:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there sorry to bother but i would like to ask you if you could watch or semi protect the page on future and current lunar missions it is being vandalized by POV edits by thoe above ip mentioned in the title i would be grateful cheers 86.158.177.181 ( talk) 19:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on your interpretation of MOS:BOLD, bolding should be used more in the first paragraph of articles. I don't think this is a good interpretation. Have a look around Wikipedia. We use the bold sparingly especially on small articles of one or two paragraphs. It's distracting.
In such a small article items don't really get lost easily. But lets say you did have a need to emphasize something - maybe something in a really big article - then follow the advice there at MOS:BOLD and "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text". E_dog95' Hi ' 21:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
This is with reference to your talk with Ronz on this subject. I am unable to understand Ronz's attitude towards me. While looking through his / her talk section, I noticed that he / she is using a lot of negative terms about me. Is that allowed? Further, Ronz is sending me warning messages about adding external links.
Most of my time is spent in removing external links and fighting spam. My area of interest is in network simulation, and given that I have a good understanding of the subject, I added a few links which I thought are important. A detailed explanation of the same was also provided in the discussion pages of the article.
Since, I saw you write in a statement of support for me, I thought of reaching out to you for some guidance on how to handle this matter.
Thanks Alla tedesca ( talk) 05:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I facing some further problems with Ronz on this matters. There have been others too who are against what Ronz is doing, but Ronz continues to edit the way he sees correct.
Furthermore, there have been several technical points on the subject in favour of our content which Ronz refuses to accept. Now he says we should look for a third party to mediate.
Ronz has also made several personal remarks which I don't think we appropriate.
Can you please advice me on how one goes about deciding who the third party must be? Shouldn't it be some one with a knowledge of the subject?
Thanks Alla tedesca ( talk) 13:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
some guy keeps trashing my talk page and the artical i manage.-- Holden yo ( talk) 15:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
... For catching that vandalism on my talk page :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Reference consistency? OK - if you're going to maintain this article in that fashion...fine. I maintain the references in a few articles and this is the first time I've come across an editor that wants to duplicate information in refs. I don't thinks it's a correct or even a good idea. You may have you way though. E_dog95' Hi ' 16:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Here, I meant what park? Is there only one park in Prosser? Thanks. -- DerRichter ( talk) 22:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your somewhat rude communication about my edits to the Intelius page. I think it might have been more appropriate to give me a chance to respond and complete the reference citation before you summarily deleted it. You made the threat, but then gave me no time to comply before you took action. I hope you have noted the thread on the Intelius talk page about how any information that might be considered negative to the company gets summarily deleted. Please, in future, discuss your rationale for deletion on the talk page prior to deleting sections. Fshepinc ( talk) 18:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not wish to stir the flames, but I am perturbed by the tone of your comments, which in my opinion tread the fine line of being a personal threat. I am going to assume your absolute good-faith intention, and my own paranoia here... As to the substance of your post: Any comments or questions I place on an article's discussion page are simply that; issues to discuss. I believe that is the express purpose of the discussion pages - to provide a place where various editors can discuss points of view, accuracy of information, etc. in pursuit of improving said article. The article in question appears to have been heavily re-edited over time, with a great deal of dispute over deletions, including suggestions of conflict of interest or impropriety on the part of previous editors. To paraphrase - that's not the page I want to die on. If you say you have no professional or personal connection to Intelius, Inc,, then I believe you. If you like, I will remove the question from the talk page (or you may do it with my full support). That leaves the larger question about the appropriateness of the edits/deletions on the main article, which are disputed on the talk page. To me, the article as it now appears seems to comply with Wikipedia standards, with factual information and references. (Not that it couldn't be improved -almost any article could.) You are clearly a more experienced editor than I am. How should we proceed? Is it appropriate to edit/delete information from a talk page? Is there a need to monitor the article in case of vandalism? Do you know of a Wikipedia policy that can be quoted or referenced on the talk page that will guide future editors who wish to add or delete sections to the article? I'm not a total noob, but my knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and practices (and coding!) are limited to the specific issues I have run up against while editing. I try to learn as I go, but this is a situation where your additional experience is valuable. Fshepinc ( talk) 05:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Are emoticons appropriate around here? :) Since I have your attention, can you please recommend a tutorial for how to properly cite references here? I would say the coding commands are Greek to me, but I understand Greek better than I understand markup languages... There are several articles/subjects I track, and many are tagged as needing more references. What is the simplest way to insert one? Thank you.
Thank you for welcoming me to wikipedia. 16x9 ( talk) 00:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Hope the list was useful. Doesn't seem to get much traffic, tho. If you're interested, you can help out with this. There's plenty of redlinks... Ciao. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 15:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC) (Oh, BTW, I added a header to your cmt on my talk.)
Hi, thanks for your question. I've left a response on my Talk page. WBR, CountingPine ( talk) 00:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
hey man, about Yahoo is true. How about you read this.. www.endmafia.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.228.213 ( talk) 00:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
This page 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. |