![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hello Nelson,
I notice that you had reverted/rejected my inclusion of Lean IT as an example of a service that employs lean manufacturing principles on grounds that the source is not reliable. I have now revisited this edit and found a stronger reference source i.e. Harvard Business School research. I hope you'll agree that this now meets the required standard. Thank you.
Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitawe ( talk • contribs) 2359, 09/05/2009
Hello Nelson,
I see you had an issue with the paragraph about WiFi propagation under the heading 'Reach'. I looked over the deleted text again, and it does mention 'mapping' in a way that is rather off topic. For the rest, however, it does raise some valuable information about the nature of wifi signals; and since there is a long range wifi page but not really a corresponding page on short range wifi, it seems like the best place for the information is here at wifi.
If you would rather a university or research paper be cited as a source for information that is generally known among people in the industry, instead of a private company, perhaps we can find something? It seems appropriate to me as is, but perhaps I'm missing something.
Thanks for keeping up on this article and helping keep spam down.
Cheers!
Zgreycoat ( talk) 21:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, makes sense. Alyrica is (at least over here) a reliable source, since we are one of the leaders in this field. You're right about
WP:COI, however. I'll ask around and see if anyone can point to a different source for this information.
Zgreycoat (
talk)
00:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nelson,
not sure how user-talk works, so I hope its ok to post here.
I see that the info on the Rescue Unit & Leisure Centre were removed from the Ballybunion page. I understand the point about not posing contact numbers (for rescue) but I would think that the rescue boathouse is Place of Interest. Would it be possible to add the details back (without the phone numbers)? Perhaps under a different heading if its def not a Place of Interest? I think the Rescue unit is a very important part of the town and desirves to be mentioned on the page. Ditto for the Leisure centre (which locals have been trying t get for 20 years).
thanking you.
Luther1968 ( talk) 12:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
signed now :-)
Hi Nelson, yes, I have had a look at the suggested wording, and it looks fine. I will edit the page and put it in (soon). Thanks for the info & help.
20.138.18.50 ( talk) 11:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nelson,
Good to hear from you! Yes i'm still around, but I'm not nearly as active now as I used to be. For the most part I just monitor my shrinking watchlist now. Anyhow, from what I recall (and from the link below), the discussions referenced were a convoluted mix of snippits of conversations with one or more folks who seemed interested in promoting their own website/services. This occurred on the
Talk:Lean_manufacturing page. The closest thing to a consensus that I can see is under the "Hi Paul, and Welcome to the Club!" section, in which I suggest pointing to a single dmoz-type directory entry. Of course, my suggestion was to use DMOZ itself. Apparently though my suggestion was construed as a blessing for one fellow to create a link page on his own site. The link itself isn't the worst I've seen, but it's still not ideal (and I think you could make a case that it should be removed and only replaced with a DMOZ or Y! link, if it exists). Also, he's overly promoting it, as you've pointed out in the links you provided.
My recommendation, if you're going to pursue the link's removal, is to stick to the fundamental guidelines (
WP:EL), especially "Advertising and conflicts of interest". An alternative may be to leave the link in place (for now), but remove the promo cruft that's currently found in the hidden comments and such. WP readers don't need to know how to go about adding links to his link page, he can easily place a simple header at the top of that page to inform readers of such. Of course, the folks at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam can always help offer further input too (I don't recall offhand if you're a member).
Best of luck, and have a great 2009! -- AbsolutDan (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
What's the specific reason for the recent spate of scientificamericanpast.com extlink removals? Scientific American seems WP:RS and the ones I noticed all point to SA articles on the topic, so they are appropriate references for the articles. If the problem is just the sap.com site, then why not just delink? Again, the ones I first noticed include biblio info to the level of various {{ cite}} styles. DMacks ( talk) 13:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Nelson50, you are clearly a more experienced editor than I, but it was disappointing to see that you reverted this edit to Munster Rugby and then warned the IP editor User_talk:140.203.210.236 about vandalism as his welcome to wikipedia when a discussion had already been started on Talk:Munster Rugby#2009 Lions. Twinkle seems to be quite a powerful tool but it also seems to sometimes remove the presumption of good faith. This isn't meant to be a dig, more a friendly nudge, and I look forward to working this out on the talk page. Cheers, Bigger digger ( talk) 17:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about adding just O'Donovan there. It's really not a very prominent surname, and hasn't been for 800 years, but the article covers more than any other Munster surname article at the moment, so it's something for the page-creators to look at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.152.234 ( talk) 09:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hello Nelson,
I notice that you had reverted/rejected my inclusion of Lean IT as an example of a service that employs lean manufacturing principles on grounds that the source is not reliable. I have now revisited this edit and found a stronger reference source i.e. Harvard Business School research. I hope you'll agree that this now meets the required standard. Thank you.
Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitawe ( talk • contribs) 2359, 09/05/2009
Hello Nelson,
I see you had an issue with the paragraph about WiFi propagation under the heading 'Reach'. I looked over the deleted text again, and it does mention 'mapping' in a way that is rather off topic. For the rest, however, it does raise some valuable information about the nature of wifi signals; and since there is a long range wifi page but not really a corresponding page on short range wifi, it seems like the best place for the information is here at wifi.
If you would rather a university or research paper be cited as a source for information that is generally known among people in the industry, instead of a private company, perhaps we can find something? It seems appropriate to me as is, but perhaps I'm missing something.
Thanks for keeping up on this article and helping keep spam down.
Cheers!
Zgreycoat ( talk) 21:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, makes sense. Alyrica is (at least over here) a reliable source, since we are one of the leaders in this field. You're right about
WP:COI, however. I'll ask around and see if anyone can point to a different source for this information.
Zgreycoat (
talk)
00:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nelson,
not sure how user-talk works, so I hope its ok to post here.
I see that the info on the Rescue Unit & Leisure Centre were removed from the Ballybunion page. I understand the point about not posing contact numbers (for rescue) but I would think that the rescue boathouse is Place of Interest. Would it be possible to add the details back (without the phone numbers)? Perhaps under a different heading if its def not a Place of Interest? I think the Rescue unit is a very important part of the town and desirves to be mentioned on the page. Ditto for the Leisure centre (which locals have been trying t get for 20 years).
thanking you.
Luther1968 ( talk) 12:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
signed now :-)
Hi Nelson, yes, I have had a look at the suggested wording, and it looks fine. I will edit the page and put it in (soon). Thanks for the info & help.
20.138.18.50 ( talk) 11:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nelson,
Good to hear from you! Yes i'm still around, but I'm not nearly as active now as I used to be. For the most part I just monitor my shrinking watchlist now. Anyhow, from what I recall (and from the link below), the discussions referenced were a convoluted mix of snippits of conversations with one or more folks who seemed interested in promoting their own website/services. This occurred on the
Talk:Lean_manufacturing page. The closest thing to a consensus that I can see is under the "Hi Paul, and Welcome to the Club!" section, in which I suggest pointing to a single dmoz-type directory entry. Of course, my suggestion was to use DMOZ itself. Apparently though my suggestion was construed as a blessing for one fellow to create a link page on his own site. The link itself isn't the worst I've seen, but it's still not ideal (and I think you could make a case that it should be removed and only replaced with a DMOZ or Y! link, if it exists). Also, he's overly promoting it, as you've pointed out in the links you provided.
My recommendation, if you're going to pursue the link's removal, is to stick to the fundamental guidelines (
WP:EL), especially "Advertising and conflicts of interest". An alternative may be to leave the link in place (for now), but remove the promo cruft that's currently found in the hidden comments and such. WP readers don't need to know how to go about adding links to his link page, he can easily place a simple header at the top of that page to inform readers of such. Of course, the folks at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam can always help offer further input too (I don't recall offhand if you're a member).
Best of luck, and have a great 2009! -- AbsolutDan (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
What's the specific reason for the recent spate of scientificamericanpast.com extlink removals? Scientific American seems WP:RS and the ones I noticed all point to SA articles on the topic, so they are appropriate references for the articles. If the problem is just the sap.com site, then why not just delink? Again, the ones I first noticed include biblio info to the level of various {{ cite}} styles. DMacks ( talk) 13:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Nelson50, you are clearly a more experienced editor than I, but it was disappointing to see that you reverted this edit to Munster Rugby and then warned the IP editor User_talk:140.203.210.236 about vandalism as his welcome to wikipedia when a discussion had already been started on Talk:Munster Rugby#2009 Lions. Twinkle seems to be quite a powerful tool but it also seems to sometimes remove the presumption of good faith. This isn't meant to be a dig, more a friendly nudge, and I look forward to working this out on the talk page. Cheers, Bigger digger ( talk) 17:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about adding just O'Donovan there. It's really not a very prominent surname, and hasn't been for 800 years, but the article covers more than any other Munster surname article at the moment, so it's something for the page-creators to look at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.152.234 ( talk) 09:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |