Your nomination of this page which did not satisfy wikipedia's criteria based on "not noteworthy" was successful in killing information about this tool. But why stop there? There's a bunch more tools similiar which are far less noteworthy listed on this page: List of GUI testing tools including Test Complete. Tried my best to provide inciteful article about an easy-to-use script recording tool for GUI testing that's been around since early 1990's, but sometimes good isn't good enough apparently. SlightlybentOR ( talk) 20:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Haakon, I am not sure what is wrong with my newly added page for BugNET. You suggest BugNET has no information except for a URL that leads to a blog which also has no information. I provided the link: http://bugnetproject.com/ which goes to the homepage for the free software product. That page links to FAQ, Documentation, Features, Download, Forum which explains the product in detail. A google search will show it is a legitimate FOSS offering with plenty of history and every reason to appear in wiki. The main reason I added the page is because I added BugNET to this comparison page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_issue-tracking_systems Since that table had no valid link, I quickly added a page. I am not the creator of the product so I posted in the products forum requesting that the creator or other more knowledgable person could edit the page to finish it and fix any mistakes I made. So even if there is legitimate reason to delete the page, it should atleast sit there for a little while to allow enthusiasts to complete the entry. I have just started using the product and it is quite good, but I did not find it quickly becuase there was no wiki entry, hence my actions. Please comment to let me know what you make of the whole deal. GregDude ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC).
Hello Haakon:
My name is Dan Cook. I'm contacting you because you've worked on the Pixetell article in the past. I work for the company that produces the software and have also worked on the article. I have been learning more about Wikipedia so that we may have a page there that is informative and objective. I have posted a proposed rewrite for the article in my user space which I believe is a general improvement over the article you commented on. I hope this version addresses the concerns in the tags at the top of the page. Please take a look if you have a moment. (See link at Talk:Pixetell.) -Dan Cook 20:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDcook ( talk • contribs)
Hi Haakon. I am confused. None of the comments made about the page are technically incorrect, we do see it as an excellent medium to push traffic to our site, so it could be considered advertising. However I am at a loss as to how 50% of Wikipedia has not also been deleted. As a bi-product of our page being removed, we have also been removed from the page referenced Comparison_of_project_management_software and yet the other 75+ references on that page, all still have their Wikipedia pages present, even though one of them has been marked as "defunct".
Notability is difficult to establish, so we havent got a huge amount of press or 3rd party references, but so what. Our registered users in Mexico, Canada, the US, and across Denmark, Spain, the UK and Northern Ireland are all happy with their usage of our software. That the Wikipedia Editors have not heard of us, does not make it not Notable, and to delete one and leave the other 75 is unreasonable.
Comments were made when the page was first launched by several editors, these were dealt with through improvements to the page. Since then we have had a very stable few months and have not actively managed the pageas we were happy with its content and had nothing further to add.
Can you offer any suggestions on how the page can be improved in order to bring it back or request a deletion review ??
Craiggolby ( talk) 01:41, 13 May 2010 (GMT)
Interesting reference thanks, but two blocks further down, it states under the heading "Notability is not temporary" ... "a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage."... We must have had adequate notability references when the article was first published as this was accepted at the time, this point indicates that the coverage does not need to be ongoing, so I am still at a loss. There will be more articles in the future, we are sure.
If one of my Clients was willing to provide an independant reference would this be adequate, and in what format should it be provided ? Craiggolby ( talk) 22:41, 13 May 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.165.10 ( talk)
Before I request a Temporary Undelete so that we can retrieve the content, and a Deletion Review, process dictates that I ask you to reconsider the deletion... If we need to modify the article in someway, then we can do so if this will help. Craiggolby ( talk) 22:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Haakon, why on earth did you start and conclude the whole BugNET deletion? By your standards, every single entry in this table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_issue_tracking_systems should be deleted along with their individual pages. Exactly what personal problem do you have with the BugNET application or its authors? Since every single article in that table breaches the standard with which you judged the page I initiated, I'm looking forward to hearing your justification. I remind you that I am not affiliated with BugNET in any way. GregDude ( talk) 05:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Haakon!
You started the deletion process for the page EPiServer and also removed the entry from List_of_content_management_systems. I'm not sure what is needed to qualify as notable software on Wikipedia but in my opinion EPiServer CMS does. As an example an analyst CMS_Watch list it among the Mid-range platforms [ [1]] in their "The Web CMS Report 2010".
When I logged in this morning, it said 'This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it.' so I added relevant pages, was this not the right thing to do? please advise OceanBlue2010 ( talk) 10:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I was looking for info comparing VCS, and saw the conspicuous absence of AccuRev. The history showed you recently deleted it saying "Removing non-notables (as in products without their own Wikipedia articles))". I disagree that AccuRev is non-notable. It certainly does have its own Wikipedia article, and I thought it was a fairly well known commercial solution. We use it on my current project, and it's a great, mature tool. I would appreciate it if you put it back or provided better justification for removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.253.26.10 ( talk) 21:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Haakon,
I'm curious to know why you reverted my recent changes to the "Comparison of open source software hosting facilities" page?
Mbdude ( talk) 23:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at the message I left here on the deletion of the article.
Jure pompe ( talk) 08:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Haakon,
I have noticed you have removed a non-link reference to Jouzz.com that I have included in the vendor enumeration of the Enterprise Social Software article. To verify that this is a real company that provides a real product (Jouzz) in the Enterprise Social Software category, I invite you to visit the www.jouzz.com website. Also, please feel free to send me any questions that you may have about it. Since I was planning to write a brief and objective article about the Jouzz product, I look forward to your response. Many thanks in advance. Sincerely,
Evilches ( talk) 21:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I noted your removal of Aria2 from Comparison of download managers as not noteworthy. Is there a proper way to add this back to the list?
Here is my dilemma - I do not know enough about Aria2 to write a definitive article on it, but it is a reasonably well established and useful tool. IMHO, it is conspicuously missing from the comparison page. In fact, when I didn't see it in the list, it cast doubt on the usefulness of the page. I assumed that the page was being maintained by someone with insufficient knowledge of the topic.
Can Aria2 (actually Aria2c) be added back along with a footnote reference for instance? I agree that it would be ideal for it to have it's own article, but I believe that policy, in this case, tends to unfairly discriminate against Open Source projects. While a popular commercial product will have a marketing person to ensure that proper press releases are made, open source projects - even good ones - tend to be weak in this area.
I would appreciate your thoughts and advice. As a footnote to this message, I am not affiliated with Aria - just a user of it.
Jdaskew ( talk) 15:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hakkon, I noticed that you had nominated my article, CyaSSL, for deletion. I was wondering if you could move it back into my user space so that I may edit further, or instruct me on how to do so? Thank You. Chris conlon ( talk) 16:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted information that was supposed to clarify that "Mantis" itself is the one tracking and catching bugs. That's why I added that information. Yes, Mantidae are bugs themselves, but the intelligent part of the naming (in my view) is, that Mantidae are lurking for bugs, you see? A program to track bugs <-> insects that track bugs. See their spiked forelegs!? Predators hunting bugs. In the version you reverted the idea is lost again, in fact in this version the information appears a bit unhelpful to me. Maybe you could have edited out the "random" or "unhelpful" part of the information I added and leave the clarification in? I know, that's more work than just reverting, but obviously I couldn't keep it brief enough, but still I believe that this bit of information would enhance the name section in that article. 129.247.247.239 ( talk) 08:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Please do respond.
Thanks! Teresa
Hi, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa.ann.g ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
95% the references cited are to external sources (valid IT news and info sites). It contains no descriptive information that is unsubstantiated or any marketing material. Please let me know why it is tagged as such?
Thanks! Teresa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.16.156 ( talk) 15:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the references to the company's website on the Plastic SCM page. I'm relatively new to editing and after researching some other edits realized (before I noticed your revert) that I should have used a <ref> tag where they were actually referenced. Is it acceptable to use references to a company's own website for actual linked references that point to where information is shown on the company's site? Just FYI, I don't work for them, but do use the software. Thanks for your help. - Keith ( talk) 17:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
You added a conflict of interest template to YouTrack. Your comment stated that it was a company employee who made the edits. The template suggests that there will be a discussion about this on the talk page, but you didn't start a discussion there, particularly nothing to back your accusation that the editor is a company employee. Would you mind filling-in some details? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Haakon, I don't understand why you have nominated the article for deletion. As of the notability signs, there are several. You can find it on the existing article on wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/Pragyan . Moreover, there is the sourceforge official website: http://pragyan.sourceforge.net . For the websites which have been using Pragyan CMS, you can check out http://www.nitt.edu and http://www.pragyan.org/08 . The Pragyan TRAC is also accessible from http://www.pragyan.org/trac
Please tell me what is exactly lacking in my article that you've nominated it for deletion. I've not finished the article completely and I'm still gathering references. What points of notability this article has not met ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.44.15 ( talk) 13:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I am considering translating the article, http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treholt-saken. What should such an English article be named? (There must be a better name, than " Treholt-case"?
There is an article called Trial and conviction of Alfred Dreyfus. So maybe a similarly named article, is the way to go.
And thank you for your previous valuable contributions, to this website.
Haakon, I just proposed that we move price comparison service to comparison shopping engine. I noticed you've been involved with the page before, so you may want to join the discussion. Take care! — Neil 07:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article You're Nicked! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You're Nicked! until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fuddle ( talk) 23:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The article Cross Registry Information Service Protocol has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 10:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Haakon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.
Hello, Haakon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The article Draumir has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:BAND. The only coverage in a major publication is this opinion piece, other than that, it's just MySpace and LinkedIn-type links, none of which confer notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
StraussInTheHouse (
talk) 07:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Haakon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Google Generation. Since you had some involvement with the Google Generation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 22:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Haakon, I do have a question for you regarding an article found at /info/en/?search=Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software please do message me at amirmarip@yahoo.com. Thank you! AmirPasc ( talk) 07:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Category:TWiT.tv podcasts has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. TipsyElephant ( talk) 18:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Your nomination of this page which did not satisfy wikipedia's criteria based on "not noteworthy" was successful in killing information about this tool. But why stop there? There's a bunch more tools similiar which are far less noteworthy listed on this page: List of GUI testing tools including Test Complete. Tried my best to provide inciteful article about an easy-to-use script recording tool for GUI testing that's been around since early 1990's, but sometimes good isn't good enough apparently. SlightlybentOR ( talk) 20:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Haakon, I am not sure what is wrong with my newly added page for BugNET. You suggest BugNET has no information except for a URL that leads to a blog which also has no information. I provided the link: http://bugnetproject.com/ which goes to the homepage for the free software product. That page links to FAQ, Documentation, Features, Download, Forum which explains the product in detail. A google search will show it is a legitimate FOSS offering with plenty of history and every reason to appear in wiki. The main reason I added the page is because I added BugNET to this comparison page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_issue-tracking_systems Since that table had no valid link, I quickly added a page. I am not the creator of the product so I posted in the products forum requesting that the creator or other more knowledgable person could edit the page to finish it and fix any mistakes I made. So even if there is legitimate reason to delete the page, it should atleast sit there for a little while to allow enthusiasts to complete the entry. I have just started using the product and it is quite good, but I did not find it quickly becuase there was no wiki entry, hence my actions. Please comment to let me know what you make of the whole deal. GregDude ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC).
Hello Haakon:
My name is Dan Cook. I'm contacting you because you've worked on the Pixetell article in the past. I work for the company that produces the software and have also worked on the article. I have been learning more about Wikipedia so that we may have a page there that is informative and objective. I have posted a proposed rewrite for the article in my user space which I believe is a general improvement over the article you commented on. I hope this version addresses the concerns in the tags at the top of the page. Please take a look if you have a moment. (See link at Talk:Pixetell.) -Dan Cook 20:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDcook ( talk • contribs)
Hi Haakon. I am confused. None of the comments made about the page are technically incorrect, we do see it as an excellent medium to push traffic to our site, so it could be considered advertising. However I am at a loss as to how 50% of Wikipedia has not also been deleted. As a bi-product of our page being removed, we have also been removed from the page referenced Comparison_of_project_management_software and yet the other 75+ references on that page, all still have their Wikipedia pages present, even though one of them has been marked as "defunct".
Notability is difficult to establish, so we havent got a huge amount of press or 3rd party references, but so what. Our registered users in Mexico, Canada, the US, and across Denmark, Spain, the UK and Northern Ireland are all happy with their usage of our software. That the Wikipedia Editors have not heard of us, does not make it not Notable, and to delete one and leave the other 75 is unreasonable.
Comments were made when the page was first launched by several editors, these were dealt with through improvements to the page. Since then we have had a very stable few months and have not actively managed the pageas we were happy with its content and had nothing further to add.
Can you offer any suggestions on how the page can be improved in order to bring it back or request a deletion review ??
Craiggolby ( talk) 01:41, 13 May 2010 (GMT)
Interesting reference thanks, but two blocks further down, it states under the heading "Notability is not temporary" ... "a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage."... We must have had adequate notability references when the article was first published as this was accepted at the time, this point indicates that the coverage does not need to be ongoing, so I am still at a loss. There will be more articles in the future, we are sure.
If one of my Clients was willing to provide an independant reference would this be adequate, and in what format should it be provided ? Craiggolby ( talk) 22:41, 13 May 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.165.10 ( talk)
Before I request a Temporary Undelete so that we can retrieve the content, and a Deletion Review, process dictates that I ask you to reconsider the deletion... If we need to modify the article in someway, then we can do so if this will help. Craiggolby ( talk) 22:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Haakon, why on earth did you start and conclude the whole BugNET deletion? By your standards, every single entry in this table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_issue_tracking_systems should be deleted along with their individual pages. Exactly what personal problem do you have with the BugNET application or its authors? Since every single article in that table breaches the standard with which you judged the page I initiated, I'm looking forward to hearing your justification. I remind you that I am not affiliated with BugNET in any way. GregDude ( talk) 05:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Haakon!
You started the deletion process for the page EPiServer and also removed the entry from List_of_content_management_systems. I'm not sure what is needed to qualify as notable software on Wikipedia but in my opinion EPiServer CMS does. As an example an analyst CMS_Watch list it among the Mid-range platforms [ [1]] in their "The Web CMS Report 2010".
When I logged in this morning, it said 'This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it.' so I added relevant pages, was this not the right thing to do? please advise OceanBlue2010 ( talk) 10:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I was looking for info comparing VCS, and saw the conspicuous absence of AccuRev. The history showed you recently deleted it saying "Removing non-notables (as in products without their own Wikipedia articles))". I disagree that AccuRev is non-notable. It certainly does have its own Wikipedia article, and I thought it was a fairly well known commercial solution. We use it on my current project, and it's a great, mature tool. I would appreciate it if you put it back or provided better justification for removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.253.26.10 ( talk) 21:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Haakon,
I'm curious to know why you reverted my recent changes to the "Comparison of open source software hosting facilities" page?
Mbdude ( talk) 23:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at the message I left here on the deletion of the article.
Jure pompe ( talk) 08:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Haakon,
I have noticed you have removed a non-link reference to Jouzz.com that I have included in the vendor enumeration of the Enterprise Social Software article. To verify that this is a real company that provides a real product (Jouzz) in the Enterprise Social Software category, I invite you to visit the www.jouzz.com website. Also, please feel free to send me any questions that you may have about it. Since I was planning to write a brief and objective article about the Jouzz product, I look forward to your response. Many thanks in advance. Sincerely,
Evilches ( talk) 21:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I noted your removal of Aria2 from Comparison of download managers as not noteworthy. Is there a proper way to add this back to the list?
Here is my dilemma - I do not know enough about Aria2 to write a definitive article on it, but it is a reasonably well established and useful tool. IMHO, it is conspicuously missing from the comparison page. In fact, when I didn't see it in the list, it cast doubt on the usefulness of the page. I assumed that the page was being maintained by someone with insufficient knowledge of the topic.
Can Aria2 (actually Aria2c) be added back along with a footnote reference for instance? I agree that it would be ideal for it to have it's own article, but I believe that policy, in this case, tends to unfairly discriminate against Open Source projects. While a popular commercial product will have a marketing person to ensure that proper press releases are made, open source projects - even good ones - tend to be weak in this area.
I would appreciate your thoughts and advice. As a footnote to this message, I am not affiliated with Aria - just a user of it.
Jdaskew ( talk) 15:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hakkon, I noticed that you had nominated my article, CyaSSL, for deletion. I was wondering if you could move it back into my user space so that I may edit further, or instruct me on how to do so? Thank You. Chris conlon ( talk) 16:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted information that was supposed to clarify that "Mantis" itself is the one tracking and catching bugs. That's why I added that information. Yes, Mantidae are bugs themselves, but the intelligent part of the naming (in my view) is, that Mantidae are lurking for bugs, you see? A program to track bugs <-> insects that track bugs. See their spiked forelegs!? Predators hunting bugs. In the version you reverted the idea is lost again, in fact in this version the information appears a bit unhelpful to me. Maybe you could have edited out the "random" or "unhelpful" part of the information I added and leave the clarification in? I know, that's more work than just reverting, but obviously I couldn't keep it brief enough, but still I believe that this bit of information would enhance the name section in that article. 129.247.247.239 ( talk) 08:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Please do respond.
Thanks! Teresa
Hi, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa.ann.g ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
95% the references cited are to external sources (valid IT news and info sites). It contains no descriptive information that is unsubstantiated or any marketing material. Please let me know why it is tagged as such?
Thanks! Teresa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.16.156 ( talk) 15:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the references to the company's website on the Plastic SCM page. I'm relatively new to editing and after researching some other edits realized (before I noticed your revert) that I should have used a <ref> tag where they were actually referenced. Is it acceptable to use references to a company's own website for actual linked references that point to where information is shown on the company's site? Just FYI, I don't work for them, but do use the software. Thanks for your help. - Keith ( talk) 17:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
You added a conflict of interest template to YouTrack. Your comment stated that it was a company employee who made the edits. The template suggests that there will be a discussion about this on the talk page, but you didn't start a discussion there, particularly nothing to back your accusation that the editor is a company employee. Would you mind filling-in some details? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Haakon, I don't understand why you have nominated the article for deletion. As of the notability signs, there are several. You can find it on the existing article on wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/Pragyan . Moreover, there is the sourceforge official website: http://pragyan.sourceforge.net . For the websites which have been using Pragyan CMS, you can check out http://www.nitt.edu and http://www.pragyan.org/08 . The Pragyan TRAC is also accessible from http://www.pragyan.org/trac
Please tell me what is exactly lacking in my article that you've nominated it for deletion. I've not finished the article completely and I'm still gathering references. What points of notability this article has not met ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.44.15 ( talk) 13:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I am considering translating the article, http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treholt-saken. What should such an English article be named? (There must be a better name, than " Treholt-case"?
There is an article called Trial and conviction of Alfred Dreyfus. So maybe a similarly named article, is the way to go.
And thank you for your previous valuable contributions, to this website.
Haakon, I just proposed that we move price comparison service to comparison shopping engine. I noticed you've been involved with the page before, so you may want to join the discussion. Take care! — Neil 07:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article You're Nicked! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You're Nicked! until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fuddle ( talk) 23:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The article Cross Registry Information Service Protocol has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 10:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Haakon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.
Hello, Haakon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The article Draumir has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:BAND. The only coverage in a major publication is this opinion piece, other than that, it's just MySpace and LinkedIn-type links, none of which confer notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
StraussInTheHouse (
talk) 07:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Haakon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Google Generation. Since you had some involvement with the Google Generation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 22:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Haakon, I do have a question for you regarding an article found at /info/en/?search=Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software please do message me at amirmarip@yahoo.com. Thank you! AmirPasc ( talk) 07:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Category:TWiT.tv podcasts has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. TipsyElephant ( talk) 18:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)