This is an archive of past discussions with Trevj. 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 > |
All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - ... (up to 100) |
I was wondering if you actually had a chance to review the references which were added to the article on 22 April. The reason I'm confused is because you said you "found" (three references) - but one of these is just a job posting (?), and the other two were already among the 21 others which had been added to the article already.
Especially why http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19386389.2011.545006 doesn't count as interesting is of concern to me, because our own research group has built a slightly more advanced workflow for evidence-based ontology & term building in bioinformatics applications using Foswiki which we are considering publishing. What would you consider a more 'important' reference? Publication in a higher impact-factor journal? More of these types of journal articles? Or journal articles more specific to Foswiki itself, instead of just being mentioned as the enabling platform for doing work/research?
This talk entry is my first contribution to wikipedia in years, so it doesn't affect me if Foswiki has a wikipedia article or not - but I am curious as to what counts as notable; notability is a problem we also deal with at work when compiling community or discipline-specific information synthesized from literature, but I guess that's quite different to encyclopedic problems.
I should disclose that I am a Foswiki user who has been sucked into being a Foswiki developer (as with other open source software that I support our group in using).
For what it's worth, I agree that the Foswiki article content itself was quite lacking in substance, but it would be useful to clarify which of the 21 references you think are 'interesting', which are useless, and roughly what & how many additional sources you'd like to see.
Cheers, Paul Harvey Csirac2 ( talk) 00:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I was comparing the situation with one of your own articles which you rescued from deletion. I note that this article (with half the number of references) receives [1] on the order of 1/3rd - 1/10th the traffic the Foswiki redirect received [2].
Now, I'm not saying that this means Cyber_Chess deserves deletion, or that Foswiki doesn't; I guess I'm having trouble understanding why you voted for delete without any feedback (from you or the original delete votes) on the new references which were added, which was the thing that prompted the whole AfD in the first place!
Csirac2 ( talk) 11:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Constructive feedback is all I asked for, and it was polite to boot. Thank you!
Csirac2 ( talk) 14:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
hello...please kindly send me the link where I can change the username for kenyabankers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenyabankers ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 04:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Castle technology ltd logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vaccinium Cyanococcus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 17:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Truce called
|
---|
Your gall is shocking. From attempting a split without consensus to spurious notability tags to an attempt to dictate what users want when searching for Psygnosis and putting in a misleading and unnecessary section redirect, no one has attempted to assert ownership of the article except for you. I cannot believe you would dare to try to accuse someone else of what you are doing. Please stop being disruptive or further remedial action may need to be taken. Indrian ( talk) 13:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Now we've both had a dabble at it, it looks a bit messy. Any objections to deleting both your and my edits and changing the RFC to a simple "Should the Psygnosis phase of the company's life be split out into its own article?" ? - X201 ( talk) 15:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I think in one of your posts you mentioned something about me being around awhile, and that's true. I have seen a lot of stupid vandalism and POV pushing and personal attacks in my day, and I think its fair to say that has left me a little jaded and cynical on the whole wikipedia thing. As a result, I think I overreacted to your initial work on the Psygnosis stuff. Don't get me wrong: I still think my point of view is correct based on the relevant policies, but I succumbed to negativity in the discussion when I really should not have. Your more recent posts indicate to me that there was not an agenda behind your edits and that I was too quick to judge and retaliate. While I still respectfully disagree with your actions and your policy interpretations, I apologize for some of the more strident statements and hostility. Indrian ( talk) 20:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the third edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 15:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 05:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I received your welcome message, thank you. Minutes later I learned that an article I created Pulse Recording had been deleted, which is disappointing considering the effort I made to address all concerns by other wiki users. What really concerns me now is that wiki users have gone and proposed deletion of many other Music publisher articles, with the question of notability being proposed. Does this concern you? It certainly concerns me to think that wikipedia is in the business of deterring the creation of articles, specifically from the entertainment industry where client success always dictates company success, and independent sources are going to cover the client (not the company) 99% of the time.
Being optimistic that this experience will create a discussion with wiki editors like yourself, and maybe affect the general opinion on questioning notability to entertainment industry related companies, can you offer me advice as to when and how I can propose the re-creation of the Pulse Recording article? Could you also let me know where I can propose my topline concern (about all of these articles being deleted) to the wiki powers-that-be? Thank you for your help ( Jpoindex ( talk) 14:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!
We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.
Click here to be taken to the survey site.
The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!
Happy editing,
J-Mo, Teahouse host
This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Adding references, adding images, creating new articles (so far only a few), tagging articles to WikiProjects, occasionally introducing sections into unstructured articles, welcoming new editors, AfD debates.
Hello I'm confused. The first debate was closed as no consensus with a comment WP:NPASR. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Savage (film producer). As NPASR means "no prejudice against speedy renomination", I renominated it without paying attention to time. What is the issue? Thanks. -- CutOffTies ( talk) 13:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Electoral Calculus 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/Electoral Calculus 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 template from the top of the article. Kevin McE ( talk) 17:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John F. Ashton. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 18:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Sudo Ghost 03:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I reversed your non-admin closure of this AfD debate [3]. There was no input to Keep the article, but there was one Delete call and two calls for Merge. As I understand Wikipedia's rules, non-admin closures can only be done if there is a unanimous consensus to Keep an article. Since that did not occur here, the closure is being left for an administrator to handle. Thank you. And Adoil Descended ( talk) 00:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
... and you have another one that has now made it to WP:ANI ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much for re-listing and my apologies for being tardy in getting the updates done. Was very tied up with a huge case. Anyway, it was deleted before the 7 days was up. Can you tell me what the process is for appealing that decision? I am relatively new to Wiki so I greatly appreciate your help. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmatt123 ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi! We're seeking your feedback as a current or formal host at the Teahouse about the project. Please stop by and lend your voice at your convenience, here. Thanks :) Sarah ( talk) 20:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with Trevj. 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 > |
All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - ... (up to 100) |
This is an archive of past discussions with Trevj. 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 > |
All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - ... (up to 100) |
I was wondering if you actually had a chance to review the references which were added to the article on 22 April. The reason I'm confused is because you said you "found" (three references) - but one of these is just a job posting (?), and the other two were already among the 21 others which had been added to the article already.
Especially why http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19386389.2011.545006 doesn't count as interesting is of concern to me, because our own research group has built a slightly more advanced workflow for evidence-based ontology & term building in bioinformatics applications using Foswiki which we are considering publishing. What would you consider a more 'important' reference? Publication in a higher impact-factor journal? More of these types of journal articles? Or journal articles more specific to Foswiki itself, instead of just being mentioned as the enabling platform for doing work/research?
This talk entry is my first contribution to wikipedia in years, so it doesn't affect me if Foswiki has a wikipedia article or not - but I am curious as to what counts as notable; notability is a problem we also deal with at work when compiling community or discipline-specific information synthesized from literature, but I guess that's quite different to encyclopedic problems.
I should disclose that I am a Foswiki user who has been sucked into being a Foswiki developer (as with other open source software that I support our group in using).
For what it's worth, I agree that the Foswiki article content itself was quite lacking in substance, but it would be useful to clarify which of the 21 references you think are 'interesting', which are useless, and roughly what & how many additional sources you'd like to see.
Cheers, Paul Harvey Csirac2 ( talk) 00:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I was comparing the situation with one of your own articles which you rescued from deletion. I note that this article (with half the number of references) receives [1] on the order of 1/3rd - 1/10th the traffic the Foswiki redirect received [2].
Now, I'm not saying that this means Cyber_Chess deserves deletion, or that Foswiki doesn't; I guess I'm having trouble understanding why you voted for delete without any feedback (from you or the original delete votes) on the new references which were added, which was the thing that prompted the whole AfD in the first place!
Csirac2 ( talk) 11:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Constructive feedback is all I asked for, and it was polite to boot. Thank you!
Csirac2 ( talk) 14:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
hello...please kindly send me the link where I can change the username for kenyabankers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenyabankers ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 04:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Castle technology ltd logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vaccinium Cyanococcus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 17:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Truce called
|
---|
Your gall is shocking. From attempting a split without consensus to spurious notability tags to an attempt to dictate what users want when searching for Psygnosis and putting in a misleading and unnecessary section redirect, no one has attempted to assert ownership of the article except for you. I cannot believe you would dare to try to accuse someone else of what you are doing. Please stop being disruptive or further remedial action may need to be taken. Indrian ( talk) 13:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Now we've both had a dabble at it, it looks a bit messy. Any objections to deleting both your and my edits and changing the RFC to a simple "Should the Psygnosis phase of the company's life be split out into its own article?" ? - X201 ( talk) 15:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I think in one of your posts you mentioned something about me being around awhile, and that's true. I have seen a lot of stupid vandalism and POV pushing and personal attacks in my day, and I think its fair to say that has left me a little jaded and cynical on the whole wikipedia thing. As a result, I think I overreacted to your initial work on the Psygnosis stuff. Don't get me wrong: I still think my point of view is correct based on the relevant policies, but I succumbed to negativity in the discussion when I really should not have. Your more recent posts indicate to me that there was not an agenda behind your edits and that I was too quick to judge and retaliate. While I still respectfully disagree with your actions and your policy interpretations, I apologize for some of the more strident statements and hostility. Indrian ( talk) 20:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the third edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 15:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 05:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I received your welcome message, thank you. Minutes later I learned that an article I created Pulse Recording had been deleted, which is disappointing considering the effort I made to address all concerns by other wiki users. What really concerns me now is that wiki users have gone and proposed deletion of many other Music publisher articles, with the question of notability being proposed. Does this concern you? It certainly concerns me to think that wikipedia is in the business of deterring the creation of articles, specifically from the entertainment industry where client success always dictates company success, and independent sources are going to cover the client (not the company) 99% of the time.
Being optimistic that this experience will create a discussion with wiki editors like yourself, and maybe affect the general opinion on questioning notability to entertainment industry related companies, can you offer me advice as to when and how I can propose the re-creation of the Pulse Recording article? Could you also let me know where I can propose my topline concern (about all of these articles being deleted) to the wiki powers-that-be? Thank you for your help ( Jpoindex ( talk) 14:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!
We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.
Click here to be taken to the survey site.
The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!
Happy editing,
J-Mo, Teahouse host
This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Adding references, adding images, creating new articles (so far only a few), tagging articles to WikiProjects, occasionally introducing sections into unstructured articles, welcoming new editors, AfD debates.
Hello I'm confused. The first debate was closed as no consensus with a comment WP:NPASR. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Savage (film producer). As NPASR means "no prejudice against speedy renomination", I renominated it without paying attention to time. What is the issue? Thanks. -- CutOffTies ( talk) 13:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Electoral Calculus 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/Electoral Calculus 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 template from the top of the article. Kevin McE ( talk) 17:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John F. Ashton. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 18:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Sudo Ghost 03:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I reversed your non-admin closure of this AfD debate [3]. There was no input to Keep the article, but there was one Delete call and two calls for Merge. As I understand Wikipedia's rules, non-admin closures can only be done if there is a unanimous consensus to Keep an article. Since that did not occur here, the closure is being left for an administrator to handle. Thank you. And Adoil Descended ( talk) 00:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
... and you have another one that has now made it to WP:ANI ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much for re-listing and my apologies for being tardy in getting the updates done. Was very tied up with a huge case. Anyway, it was deleted before the 7 days was up. Can you tell me what the process is for appealing that decision? I am relatively new to Wiki so I greatly appreciate your help. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmatt123 ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi! We're seeking your feedback as a current or formal host at the Teahouse about the project. Please stop by and lend your voice at your convenience, here. Thanks :) Sarah ( talk) 20:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with Trevj. 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 > |
All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - ... (up to 100) |