User talk:Argyriou/Archive7

The ClueBat archive. Sometimes I'm administering the cluebat, sometimes it's being administered to me.

China and clues

Okay I'll grant that I may have made a careless edit, it's virtually a given in 540 edits or so, but I don't know the article you referenced on my talk, so that's not helpful. Also writing "...even if it were more correct to state People's Republic of China instead of China, your edits detracted from the quality of the articles" is so hopelessly vague and rude as to be unhelpful, too. How did the edits detract from the quality of the articles? Is it better to have them redirect to the article about ancient Chinese civilization when you are conceding that the reference in the article is to the modern Communist state? That's pointless complaining; do you have any constructive criticism? If not, why are you posting on my talk? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for your reply

Hi! I removed your edit to Cooperative because it violates the principles in WP:NOT, particularly: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There is some useful information in what you posted, some of which wasn't really covered in the article, but it would be much better for you to look through the section you edited, and see where individual points you wrote about would best go. Please also remember Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view; your beliefs about what a cooperative is or is not may not be shared by everyone who has experience with cooperatives. Your edits should not state an opinion not shared by all as a fact. Argyriou 05:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

To Argyriou, I have noticed your action regarding my contribution.

Let me add few comments: - English is not my primary language, so it is possible that a meaning very clear to me sounds or understood differently to an English speaking born.

- A page about cooperative should contain, IMHO, a complete information about cooperatives and cooperative movement worldwide. The page now is limited to the official ICA approach, which is not the only one. I may say that this approach prove to be a failure in many parts of the world.

- I have tried to present a another approach to cooperative, and an approach developed in Israel during tenth of years. I can't see a reason why this approach shouldn't be presented on the Wikipedia. More than this: there are cooperatives in the world who have followed in one way or another this approach. More information can be found: http://www.coopgalor.com/realization.html A very successful example in the U.S.A can be read here: http://www.coopgalor.com/realization/Oklahoma.html

- This approach is backed by papers published in different places, including ICA. These papers can be read at: http://www.coopgalor.com/i_publications.html#Whats_coop I hope a reconsideration of your decision would be possible and that my text would find its place on the Wikipedia.

Regards

Coopgalor 08:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

cross-posting

It really looks like you cross posted to WP:RFI in good faith, so please take this as a friendly tip rather than a warning: it's better to post a page diff from the edit history or introduce a quotation and use italics if you really feel the need to cut and paste. Emulating another editor's signature is bad form, and an administrator's signature is dangerous territory. Another user (who was in a very different position from your own) when from a one week block to a site ban for impersonating an administrator the other day. I don't think anyone will misinterpret the particular cross post you did, but don't make it a habit. Regards, Durova 04:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that Network Marketing link. I thought it might have a chance of being worthy of inclusion because I've got experience in the NM industry and wrote that post about how to know the difference between a legitimate company and a pyramid or other type of scam.

Thanks for the quick action. Bill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.36.51.19 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, see 71.36.51.19 (talk · contribs) --A. B. 23:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf

Ah, after Dmcdevit blocked him, there was a big discussion about it at WP:AN/I. I forget all of what was said there, but no one unblocked. Some people suggested decreasing the block, but no one really objected, so it just seemed to me that he was banned. Also, {{indefblockeduser}} means that his userpage will eventually be deleted. That's why I made the change, but I guess he isn't on the list, so... Khoikhoi 05:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Berkeley City College

Comment

I just changed the Berkley City College page for the best. I work for the Berkeley City college promotional department. I Just edited the page so it would be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkeley City College (talk • contribs) 16:37, 12 December 2006

....

Okay man. You win. I just work for the Berkeley City College advertising and promoting. I'm using this Username because I re present Berkeley City College.

And also, why do you keep meesing up what I make?

You messed up my uploaded pictures, userpage, article and now my username? Give it a rest please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkeley City College (talk • contribs) 17:33, 13 December 2006

Berkeley City College

You're doing a good job, being polite and professional with this user. KP Botany 16:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay..

How am I supposed to act, KPBotany? I'm an intern. I work 2 hours a day and im 15. I don't have the patience as a 30-50 year old guy like you would have. And also Argyriou, I first made my user page from scratch and then checked up on it. I saw that the Berkley City College page was changed from what i had it. So i made it as i made it. I didnt know you had to make a different article. I'm barely just starting to understand alot of stuff about Wiki. So just give me some time to go over regulations and rules so you don't erase what ever I put up. Thx for you help and comments ( I'm not being sarcastic). —The preceding comment was added by Berkeley City College

Rex Germanus vs. Matthead

You have made an entry on Rex Germanus (talk · contribs) talk page regarding his original report [1] on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. He has filed another report there since. Please check the case again, especially since it was me you called "being incivil", and update your comments. Thanks in advance. -- Matthead discuß!     O       00:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were being incivil, as far as I remember when I looked into it. And some of Rex's edits were better than yours. But I don't really care. I don't edit those articles, and I'm not an admin, so I can't do anything to either of you two. I was just going through WP:AN/I on a slow day, and thought I'd point out to Rex that he wasn't completely in the right, either. So far as I can remember, you both have some valid points, you've both stretched them too far, and you're both being assholes to each other. And I don't care. It's not my problem, and I'm going to ignore it for now. Argyriou (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to take issue with your claim that the irishdance wiki has "has copied most of its information from this article." While the posting here may have been a bit premature since the wiki is still very young, it appears that you only looked at the first section which will attempt to answer "what is Irish Dance?" At present the best thing I could do was link to a more authoritative source on that one specific topic. The wiki also contains a large (and growing) reference of schools and other resources for dancers such as books, videos and music as well as a comprehensive list of online resources. Please take another look at http://irishdancewiki.com, I think if you do look around you'll find that it most certainly has not copied most of its information from your article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelH99 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to reply. I looked at more than one article in the Irish dance wiki, and found that all of the articles I looked at were substantially copied from Wikipedia. That's generally ok, because Wikipedia is GFDL, but it doesn't make for an external source which provides significant value to Wikipedia readers. Adding bunchss of articles about various schools, musicians, and vendors doesn't really make the Irish dance wiki something which needs a link here, even though it's useful to the Irish dance community, because Wikipedia isn't here to support commercial endeavors. I'd suggest contacting the various schools and maybe some of the vendors and getting them to place links to your project, because that's still where most people active in Irish dance will look for information. Argyriou (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted

Clarifying was much appreciated, and I do understand that you are all just doing your job and that someone playing around on Wikipedia will not be ignored. I also do appreciate that the page was not immediately deleted as she did get a chance to see it (loved it and found it hilarious..she is currently an achitecture student and we do not yet have children, but everything else is true).

Also, the first link was just a link to the UofW's Bachelor of Arts diploma list way down at the bottom of a huge pdf file. Her name is actually there, just not super relevant.

Anyways, thanks again. Crash25 04:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chander P. Grover

You didn't tell me there was a big debate on AN/I about this. You should have.

It's not an article I would propose for AfD. It's the sort of thing I think should be on wiki for people's information. However, it is not referenced as it should be and contains some suspect phrases also. I would have preferred the AfD to run its course, even if for no other reason than it is often a spur to improve an article and its sourcing. If you're unhappy about the AfD, you have recourse at WP:DRV, which assesses whether an AfD was procedurally correct.

Tyrenius 06:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viadeo

Viadeo

Hi! I saw that you put a prod tag on the article Viadeo. I disagree somewhat with your reasons, though I'm not certain the article is really salvageable. If you strip off the first sentence, there is a claim that they have over 1 million members; this makes Viadeo notable, if it's true. If one searches for links to www.viadeo.com, there are a number of hits, though not much in the way of news articles. The primary problem with notability is that it looks like a primarily French site, and so any interesting or usable references will be in French. However, the article does read like a press release, and there are no reliable sources for their claim of 1 million members, so I'm not going to remove the prod tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Argyriou (talk • contribs) 18:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I note the article's subsequently been deleted by another user as a direct copyright violation. I would maintain that the article as it stood made no assertion of notability per our guidelines (see WP:WEB) and the "million members" was unsourced. Regards, └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find the source of the press release, but I suspected it was copyvio anyway. If they really have a million members, at least one of them ought to be willing to write a referenced article about it... Argyriou (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viaduc, Viadeo

Hello

It appears that you have deleted two posts for the company Viadeo (previously Viaduc).

One on the grounds of a copyright violation - as you found another article that I also wrote on Viadeo for members of the same business premises rental group as us. There is no copyright violation as I am the author of both articles!

Also on the grounds that this is 'advertising'.

This is unacceptable - I have taken great care to add only factual information and avoid all advertising statements such as the 'best' 'the most effective' etc. Viadeo has over 1 million mmebers in Europe and now over 600k in China and is one of the largest online Web 2.0 networks. Wikipedia users have a right to be able to find factual information on Viadeo - as they do with Xing, Linked-in, My Space none of which have been deleted.

I request that you undelete these articles.

Peter Cunningham Viadeo UK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter Cunningham 2302 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Peter - take a look at the articles on smaller social networking sites such as Tribe.net, and the List of social networking sites. You will notice that there are references for their claims of their total membership, and that the articles have references to independent media coverage of the sites, to establish notability of the article subject.
There's a guideline at WP:WEB which states specific criteria which a website must meet to have an article on Wikipedia. If Viadeo does indeed meet those guidelines, the article must demonstrate that by use of reliable sources. If you can re-create the article meeting those guidelines, then feel free to do so.
The copyright issue is a little more complex. If you want to contribute material which you hold the copyright to (which has been previously published elsewhere), you need to follow the procedure set forth in Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission (except that you get to short-cut some of it, as you are the copyright holder).
You may also create the article in your userspace while in the initial stages of editing until you are ready to release it, do this by going to User:Peter Cunningham 2302/Viadeo and editing there first; once the article is in shape, create the article at Viadeo. I would suggest creating Viaduc as a dedirect to Viadeo, once you have the Viadeo article up.
Lastly, I am not a Wikipedia admin, and so I can't delete articles, only suggest that they be deleted. Someone has to agree with me for the article to be deleted. Argyriou (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you are heading that way... Tyrenius 03:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viaduc and Viadeo

Hello

I will try and change the articles to get around the absurd suggestion that I am violating copyright on another article I wrote for the members of our business exchange.

Viadeo has one million members - that is sourced from our membership database and is posted on our site. We are just begining a press campaign in the UK - there are two articles already in print. Hopefully that will prove that we are 'notable'.

Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter Cunningham 2302 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The copyright issue is not absurd: first, we don't really know that you're the real Peter Cunningham, and secondly, the article on the other website did not have an author credit. There is an established procedure for including copyright information into Wikipedia: either a notice can be placed on the web page which indicates that the material is released to Wikipedia under the GFDL or into the public domain, or the copyright holder can send an email to permissions at wikimedia dot org, and inform them that the contribution of copyright material is authorized by the copyright holder.
Notability, in Wikipedia-world, is established by finding articles written by people not associated with the subject of the article. Reprints of press releases don't count, independent reviews or articles do. (Additionally, the subject of the WP article must be the primary subject of the outside article - mentions in passing don't count.)
Αργυριου (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viadeo, redux

Regarding the previous string of comments on Viadeo:

The article on Workspace Group was an intranet intended for Workspace Group clients. I had no idea that this was referenced on the public internet until the assertion of a copyright violation on Wikipedia. I will add my name to this article.

We have recently had a series of press articles in the UK of late - blogs such as the Guardian. Press articles in themselves do not prove we haev one million members across Europe - the only way I can prove this is to show you confidential info on our membership database which obviously I can't do.

I will try once more to re-write the article in an even more bland format. I would not mind adverse comments on the page but merely pulling it off the site four times is really very annoying!

Peter Cunningham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.135.147 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 22 March 2007

The most important thing you can do to prevent the article from being deleted again is to include references to independent sources which discuss Viadeo - has any sort of trade press covered Viadeo? We'd prefer articles in English, but articles in other languages are acceptable. Αργυριου (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking this discussion to Talk:Viadeo for now. Αργυριου (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


NPA

Please read WP:NPA. Your edit on User talk:Kubura could be understood that way. --PaxEquilibrium 16:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need your assistance

As a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, I and some others have been trying to correct what appears to be grossly distorted information and not-so-veiled promotion of a particular professional clique at the expense of everyone else. This information seems to be controlled by a specific user. I notice through Google searching that you have singled out the same user for "vandalism" and threatened to have her blocked. I do not have time for getting involved in all the politics and intrigue of Wikipedia, but I would like your advice outside of the usual in-house channels. Can you please email me at esociety2007@hotmail.com so we can talk about this? I'd be exceedingly grateful. AR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unveiling (talk • contribs) 20:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Feel free to email me. Αργυριου (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look here

The same advice might be pointed at your direction. If you want to avoid escalating conflicts you can just remove the edits without making references to person adding the edit in your edit summary. Its not really cool to inflame the situation by using an edit summary that you know will upset another user. Spartaz Humbug! 20:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding edits to Ron Dellums

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Argyriou! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]