This is an archive of discussions from 2008. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, do so on the current talk page.
→ In re: deletion of Ultra Sonic Edukators article.
I noticed today that you recently deleted the entry for the band Ultra Sonic Edukators. You didn't leave a reason with the deletion log, so I wanted to ask if you could please give a reason.
The entry has been there for nearly a year now and ironically the band has recently been signed to a label and will soon be in the studio recording in Los Angeles with some well known names in the music industry. They have been recognized by Rolling Stone magazine as one of the top 25 bands on MySpace and are regularly playing at well known Chicago venues.
For some reason my Wikipedia page on my favorite film, "The Anna Cabrini Chronicles," an award-winning avant-garde and experimental film, was deleted. I'm not sure why. The reasons state that it was "advertising," but I don't see how. I included everything I could possibly find about this film, all of its IMDB information, etc. So why is it not allowed to have a Wikipedia page? I see a lot of film Wikipedia pages, why is mine different? How can I have it re-instated? Thank you. -Bionicplatypus. 11 Jan 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bionicplatypus (talk • contribs) 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been helping Susan Webb with the Speaking Dictionary article, which has now been deleted under 'blatant adverting'. Having been accused of being trigger happy with CSDs myself, I can quite safely say it breached absolutely no guidelines - but if there was sufficient reason for a CSD in your opinion, then I will quite happily rewrite it from Google's cache and make sure it is within guidelines before resubmission. Sound fair? Asenine(talk)(contribs)17:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User Susan E Webb is being paid by a client (who has certain specifications as for example noted here) to write Wikipedia articles which promote a company and its products.
the Notability guideline: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliablesecondary sources that are independent of the subject." [emphasis added]
Just a note to say I added some press cites I found to the Speaking Dictionary article and a note on the debate page--the more I look into this thing the more I think it merits inclusion. I can see that the original source of the article is a problem, but hey that's what other editors are for right? Regards--Wageless (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for setting up the discussion page for my Speaking Dictionary article. Do you know roughly how long such discussion pages stay active, and whether the links to them remain active after a discussion is closed? Thank you and best regards, Susan E Webb (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know why you deleted the page on Speedel. As previously discussed in the talk page of the article, all the material was from a reliable source. I would like the chance to edit the article instead of it being completely deleted. 62.189.228.102 (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After my last entry on WP:THIRD, I don't think something this complicated should go there. I'd like suggestions on where to take problems like this. If you want to get involved at resolving it, feel free:
The Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is truly an excellent venue. Most (not all) issues receive attention fairly promptly, are addressed effectively, and often resolved within a week or two.
It's best not to try to be NPOV-in-residence, so to speak, trying to resolve issues single-handedly. That's too stressful for any individual. The community processes are designed to relieve that. If you detect a mild suggestion in this that it would benefit you to back off from some of the issues in which you've been involved, that's because it's there :-)
Internet searches suggest Lockezachman is Stan Locke, managing director of Zachman Framework Associates. If so, COI definitely applies. — Athaenara ✉ 05:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a go at MM right now. He kept adding US Chaos to the Ritz article, and himself to The Clash & Joe Strummer. It's evident he wrote his entire article himself. He should at least have the grace to accept the tags, eh? If you'd keep an eye on it and revert him next time he removes them, we'll get him on WP:3RR. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history is a bit more complicated than that but, yes, self-promotion and vandalism (to both the article and its talk page) have been a problem. — Athaenara ✉ 14:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never tried to figure out WP:3O; it seemed very complicated, and it had many rules. However this capability is surprising and impressive. I note that WQA is in trouble, perhaps because they seldom tell people to go away. It seems that you guys, who have some similarity to WQA in your motivation, have mastered the ability to send away disputes you don't want to entertain. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As eloquent as EdJohnston is, I have no intention of letting this go with a snide quip. I have asked for advice in the Village Pump and have every intention of following this up with an entry in AN/I if needs be. This was way out of bounds and I will find the appropriate response. Please try and refrain from further co-opting WP policy until I can get this answered. Padillah (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you are going to be helpful and rational about this then we'll never get anywhere! Thanks for taking this so well, I hope I wasn't harsh, if I was please let me know so I can correct my presentation (see above sarcasm). Padillah (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my tactless remark about WP:3O which may have caused some trouble. I see some of the advantages of sending email rather than posting on User talk pages; it causes fewer ripples!
Don't archive any Killian stuff for a while. Looks like someone finally wants to get more attention rather than cause a miracle himself, and people will need to see what is there. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for third party advice on Shaftesbury. As a fellow Mensan (although you have lapsed) I will of course accept and adhere. :-)
Please however teach me about Wikipedia. I am VERY new to this and just trying to provide visitors to Wikipedia with the most up-to-date town link. (compare the events diary with the blank one on the other site linked in the article) Can you please tell me how I get 'others' to look at the Town's website and agree to its inclusion if it is constantly removed from view in the external links page. I thought (I now accept wrongly) that the link could be inserted by a single-purpose account and only removed if Editors deemed it unfit. So, I inserted the link after dialogue with a couple of Editors on 'en-help' and put the explanation they recommended in the discussion page.
I really would be very grateful if you would guide me through the process of getting the link to the official town website reviewed by editors for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgts (talk • contribs) 20:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Say 'Hi' to SFO for me, I used to live in Sacramento and still miss the Golden State. Take Care :-) Sgts (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sgts, have you also been editing anonymously? The 86.130.11.251 IP has now been blocked for edits which were the same as yours. — Athaenara ✉ 03:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to look into the shaftesbury page, I am glad you have seen that shaftesburytown should keep its place on the page. While I agree that there is reason for shaftesburydorset to be listed I can not help but feel that by allowing it there (at the moment) it is vindication of those who have put it on there and their complete disregard for wikipedian rules. Personally I would have preferred them having to wait a month or two and then reapply esp considering the 3RR breach. I would ask if since the consensus among others was not to have it on the page if you would consider a compromise in leaving it there but only for the time being. You seem of high enough caliber to make an independent judgment, would you consider having both there and then in say...3 months time reviewing the situation and assessing if one site is the definitive link or not then cleaning the page based on which has more value to wikipedia. I know all the pro's of shaftesburydorset are things that shaftesburytown either is implementing shortly or already has but does not chose to use. Further more the biggest weakness of shaftesburytown is its lack of events which was taken offline after the massive amounts of spam (highly offensive spam) that clearly originated from sources loyal to other web sites about shaftesbury and as a result is due to reopen soon with a very powerful ip defense software.
It seems that to give both sites a chance to improve, ie shaftesburytown to implement more features (like translation) and shaftesburydorset the chance to renounce their unjustified official claim and de-commercialise would be a fair move. Regards --Curuxz (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also noticed the completely unjustified personal attack on me on their talk page, I have made no secret of my identity and any conflicts of interest and am disgusted that a public organisation would act in such a childish way when they do not get their own way. --Curuxz (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I have never edited the article. I did have some input on the article's talk page in response to requests for assistance during edit warring and conflict of interest allegations. Thank you for notifying me of the AfD discussion. — Athaenara ✉ 20:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript: I have since edited the article once: two days ago I restored full {{cite web}} format, which had been removed by another editor, for one citation. — Athaenara ✉ 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Athaenara, may you kindly tell me, does wikipedia have a policy on stalking? If there is not one, how would I go about putting such a policy forward? Also, is there a support group to help victims? How can victims get in contact with each other? thankyou kindly for your help on this Susanbryce (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking an interest in our talk page. We are under strict orders to only edit the article by consensus, and that is requiring us to have the substantive discussions you tagged--so we may not really need that tag. Could you weigh in on the RfC on that talk page? Thanks. Academic38 (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read the discussions on the over-160-kb talk page and saw that the earliest were inactive and could be archived, so I began doing that—it's just one of the things I do.
(The whole thing reminds me of a quote which has been attributed to Henry Kissinger: university politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small ... )
I'm new here, so I apologize if I don't have all the terminology correct. You placed the talkheader template on the ORT talk page, I believe (at 07:08 11 March 2008). The version you put there contains the line, "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." That is the line I was remarking about in my first note here. We are having general discussion about the article's subject in an attempt to reach consensus, which is very difficult because there are two sharply contrasting viewpoints. So far we have managed to keep it on the talk page and not edit war on the article page. However, no one has replied to Nomoskedasticity's RfC, and if you could do so, we would be very appreciative. I hope this is a little clearer. Cheers. Academic38 (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, I commented. I frankly don't understand why the proposed sentence would be controversial, and that's exactly what I said :-) — Athaenara ✉ 07:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take a look at this? PigeonPiece clearly has a COI (as in undoubtedly works for the Oxford Round Table), as far as I can tell, but has never been given a COI warning. By contrast, Nomoskedasticity and I were both given COI warnings simply for having posted to the Chronicle of Higher Education thread on this subject. It would not be appropriate for Nomoskedasticity or I to give her/him a COI warning, so I wondered if you could look at the evidence as presented by Nomoskedasticity and see if you think a warning is warranted. Thanks. Academic38 (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted a page created and said it was blatant advertising. I put a short hist of a company and was going to add a time line form 1935. Could you please explain to me how this is blatant advertising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackwi (talk • contribs) 13:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hollywood Chicago dot com
→ In re: deletion of HollywoodChicago.com article.See also:
Why did you delete the whole HollywoodChicago.com article with no explanation? I didn't see any concensus. In fact, I saw the article being improved per Wikipedia editors advice. Your action doesn't seem right. --68.72.135.94 (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page HollywoodChicago.com has been recreated as a redirect. At this point I cannot do much about it without just repeating my previous edits.. which would just lead to an edit war... editors at the IP addresses Special:Contributions/216.177.119.154 and Contributions/68.72.135.94 seem mainly intent on creating the HC.com article and adding links HC.com in other article's references and sources, mentioning "Chicago film critic Axxx Fxxxxxxxx" as much as possible along the way. --Marcinjeske (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I considered undeleting it, complete with its tags
By the way, I borrowed the Status templates and created my own with the credit given to Misza13, as you did, noting that I found it on your talk page. — Athaenara ✉ 05:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, several others have worked on this one in the last several days and I think things are just about calmed down between Leedryburgh and Dgtsyb at Talk:Signaling System 7. While Leedryburgh was wrong to push his links, there was a lot of other bad blood on both sides. There's a good chance that the link additions from the Egyptian IPs (41.232.xx.xx) were someone trying to Joe job his domains. See the comment I left at User talk:EdJohnston#Strange IP address editing. --A. B.(talk • contribs)01:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - its highly unlikely that Lee was the 41.XXX addresses. The other addresses - at least one he's admitted is him quite openly - mainly edits when he simply hasnt logged in. No overt attempt to pretend to be different people. This whole sorry episode really wasnt one sided and everyone seems to be buddies now. Beardybloke (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with EdJohnston (diff): "User:Leedryburgh had the chance to dissociate himself from the IP's action but has not chosen to so far." — Athaenara ✉ 03:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I had checked that one out (contribs were empty at the time) after I saw that he had claimed it on his talk page. — Athaenara ✉ 06:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of further inflaming the issue he did disassociate himself from them [here] and [here] and I'm sure in at least one other place. The non Egypt addresses I think he's freely admitted were him and indeed another admin said that was fine in terms of it being known and not being used for subterfuge (its common for people to forget to log in or not log in outside of a known location home/office/etc) Can I just clarify one thing - is Leedryburgh actually blocked? Because frankly if he is I am flabbergasted that Dgtysb has apparently escaped censure for his part in all this. Beardybloke (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No the reason I want to leave is you - nothing more nothing less. I dont know of nor have I ever met leedryburgh until this whole fiasco. You're bullying just rubbed me up the wrong way. You have victimised Leedryburgh (constantly editwarring with him is I suppose fine enough - but then trying to get him blocked and banned is frankly beyond the pale) - and despite repeated requests by admins to step back you keep picking at it like some sore which never heals. Where I grew up we dont like bullies. I'm a simple telecoms techie who wanted to update and upgrade telecoms pages over time and when I had a spare hour or two here or there. But you spoiled it for me - I know based on your modus operandi that this will be hugely amusing to you as you appear to get off on pushing things just to the point of disruption but just under the wiki radar but I have to say it to get it off my chest. Even now as someone who tried to help/mediate but perhaps didnt support you outright you now switch to me - thats fine - you go for it, knock yourself out. In the real world we deal with issues by discussing them. Beardybloke (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's strange too: because I thought that you said here that you thought you may have worked on the same project. Now you are positive that you never met him or knew of him?
I don't really mean to aggravate you. I hope that you will stay with WP and the Telecommunications project, and contribute to as many articles as you can. It is a whole lot more fun and rewarding if you stay out of fights on talk pages. ;) — Dgtsyb (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said we had worked on the same project but that I had no recall of his name. The project ran for many years before I joined the company and is still running many years after I have left. It also was run across 4 or 5 sites (I dont recall exactly, but Edinburgh, Palo Alto, Colorado Springs, Bangalore & Beijing spring to mind. In Edinburgh there were 2000 people on the site at one point, of which I knew a handful who worked in my area or I bumped into at the company gym. On the entire AcceSS7 there were 100-150 or so in development, and probably the same amount in marketing/sales and support (if not more - the memory dims). Across the other sites there were small specialised groups which I never interacted with much - so it would have been possible for my own brother to have worked on the product and I would have never known unless he mentioned it when I phoned him one time. Large scale complex projects like telephone exchanges or massively distributed and equally complex monitoring systems are like that. The AT&T/Lucent 5ESS switch for example was AIUI the largest non-defence civilian software project of the late 80s & early nineties, there were huundreds if not low-thousands of people on it - I could tell you less than 1% of the people who worked on it - but if they mention it on their bio pages then I know they worked on it too. Not all software & hardware projects are written by 6 blokes who live in each others pockets and code in their bedrooms. Looking at my linkedin profile it appears we dont have any common colleagues as he's listed as a 3rd degree connection (ie colleagues of his know colleagues of mine) I guess that doesnt exactly make us lifelong buddies.
Hi - any chance of removing the "blockable" warning on my Talk Page please? There has been no sock puppetry as claimed (note the IP mentioned 40. whatever is nothing to do with me) and I never added any spam links as claimed. Another user Dsytb made such claims but then failed each time to provide true verification. Thanks Leedryburgh (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you have deleted all the work I did to write a documented and Wikipedia-compliant article about Ulteo. If you think that Ulteo is not notorious, just look for it on Google and see the number of pages about it. If you think my post was a repost of the previous Ulteo page, you are wrong: it was written from scratch and took me hours to search for information and references.
So please get the Ulteo page, I think there is no reason to delete it.
Sorry if it's not the good place to discuss but I don't see any other way to get in touch.
As requested by yourself... Deletion review for Ulteo
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ulteo. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Getupstandup1 (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, let me ask you your point of view on the Ulteo topic, because as an admin, you seemed you had a balanced and "human" behaviour. But there are two guys, one is Sandstein, the other is Pmedema, and they now are really fighting against Ulteo. Sandstein, who wasn't active on the topic until that, has deleted again the Ulteo page while the discussion seemed to show that the consensus was to keep it, and when I read carrefully the Wikipedia policy, I think that Ulteo meets the notability criteria. Who is deciding about the concensus? Is Sanstein the so-called "consensus"?
Now the two guys (I think they known each others) are removing all Ulteo entries from web pages such as the web desktop page. And when I put it back, they accuse me to do some advertisment! I don't understand that: it seems to me that it's not because a project doesn't have a Wikipedia page that it couldn't be mentionned in a page where it makes sense, right? Furthermore, these some of these entries where here for a while, but now they consider they shouldn't be there anymore.
Don't you think there is a problem here? Where there cases of abuse from some Wikipedia admins in the past? What can I do to have them stop such a fight against a project? Sorry to ask that but could these guy not be independent? What can be done in this case? Thanks a lot for any feedback. Vautnavette (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the notion that anyone is ganging up on Ulteo. Further, it is standard procedure to unlink deleted articles from other articles to which they have been added, particularly when the articles have been deleted more than once.
Hi, may I request you to review the last section on my talk page, perhaps comment on the notability examples and suggestions ? Thanks in advance Gary WebTrain (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have much to offer on this, but if it will help to copy the infobox code back to you (from one of the deleted versions) I can do that. — Athaenara ✉ 01:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little worried about this, too, and am at a loss. I may not have handled the situation as well as I'd hoped... There are only 2 citations that I've seen that establish some notability: 1 is from an association that redlinks, and 1 is from a 2002 tech mag article. If he can provide sources (that are not self published nor provided via his webpage), the article has a chance.
Since you comm'd me and him, he'll probably see this (I apologize for the 3rd person, in that event) - WP:NOTABILITYneeds to be established from reliable secondary sources (tech mags, etc).
At any rate, moving to a sub-page seems like the best course of action (I'm not worried about intention; he did request EA, and he may simply not know about sub-pages). In the meantime (after being moved to a sub-page), I suggest he edit other articles: he does qualify as a subject-matter expert, methinks (although that introduces company username problems) If he has no interest in editing WP, that's OK so long as he can provide notability for WebTrain; if he can't, and he doesn't want to edit aside from his own article, then I implore him to seek greener pastures :-)
Sorry I have no easy answers thought up. I just don't know if this is an uphill battle or a downhill snowball, if you get me :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I earnestly hope exposure on wider venues will dis-involve me from all this — I am not at all suited for intensive shepherding of individual COI editors! — Athaenara ✉ 22:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per the Wikipedia talk and COI/N discussions linked above, I moved the userpage content to a sandbox subpage with a note to the user. — Athaenara ✉ 16:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re WebTrain
Did you see the list of refereces (links) on User:Xavexgoem page ? I had problems posting them on my talk page. Also, I did not expect the WebTrain article to be published, I was just using my user page to be a content in progress page. A sub page is fine, no worries about that. Are secondary sub pages available too ? Gary WebTrain (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I changed my name as per Wikipedian suggestions, updated content is located User:GaryECampbell/Sandbox. I have taken the advice regarding Notability seriously and attempting to achieve it. Can you provide comments on the User:GaryECampbell/Sandbox content regarding NPOV and how it conforms to the WP:NOT#ADVERTISING policy? Note I also added an Impact section as per another Wikipedians advice. Thanks in advance. GaryECampbell (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're performing admirably, truly, but — please forgive me — I've done what I could to disengage from any further involvement in that particular article.
The AfD passed, thank you. I created a categorized list of a few hundred references on my talk page that can be drawn upon when editing the article. The article will contine to be improved. GaryECampbell (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that what's needed is closer scrutiny by neutral editors with no involvement in the web conferencing industry. I can only base my thoughts on my prior experiences on Wikipedia, which include using the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and the requests for comment processes. I'm sorry I'm not a better source of assistance—I'm not really suited as a coach of any kind! I'm more often apt to fumble and say well, maybe this, and maybe that, you see.
Please advise me on how I can go about restoring the contents for this entry, since I am hoping not to have to go through and mark up the article again. Thanks for any tips you can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.107.64 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More fully, the edit summary in the deletion log reads:
01:47, 17 June 2008 . . CorenSearchBot ... (4,204 bytes) (Tagging possible copyvio of [reductiotest.org])
01:46, 17 June 2008 . . Dibblego ... (4,156 bytes) (←Created page with '{{Infobox_Software | name = ℝ∊dμcti∅ | logo = | screenshot = [reductiotest.org/examples] | caption = | developer = Tony Morris | latest_release_version ...')
Forgive me if I've misinterpreted what you posted here, but you seem to be arguing that copying the text from another website was not a copyright violation. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion review#How do I do all this? and the other explanations, and then decide whether you want to add your request there according to the page instructions. — Athaenara ✉ 18:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Athaenara,
No, I am not arguing that copying the text from another website is not a copyright violation. I own the copyright to the text on the website and so I thought I'd submit some of it (the parts that are informative). However, after some reading around on Wikipedia, it seems that I am required to licence the text under the GFDL. This is fine and I have done exactly that - you'll notice the reference to GFDL at the bottom of every page of the website at hand. Now that this has been done, I'm wondering if I can have the article restored. Dibblego (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, too! So I suggest you follow through on the deletion review project page, where the volunteers have the expertise in these matters. Good luck. — Athaenara ✉ 03:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i don't understand why you deleted this page, it was not advertising anymore than any other band page here on wiki. if you think that's the case with this page then you should take it upon yourself to delete every band page or better yet every page on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.201.64 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are produciton company in the entertainment industry and are begining the process of releasing information about our projects and our entity. I have posted the basics for the company (similar to most other production companies listed in Wikipedia). I am unclear why our page is being deleted.
We will be up on IMDb and other sites in the coming days, Hollywood Reporter, Variety, etc. What do I need to differnetly for us to keep our page active on Wikipedia?
Thnak you so much in adavance for your assistance.
You previously speedied ANAD as blatant advertising. I just found it reappeared again at Anad, I've de-advertised it and moved back to ANAD as I think the organisation is notable enough to have a page, is that OK to stay now do you think? -Hunting dog (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It had been tagged as per WP:CSD#G11 by Blanchardb. As the {{Db-g11}} tags say, "does nothing but promote some entity..."
Good job on providing the needed "fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic" after one of the two accounts linked above created the page yet again. — Athaenara ✉ 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Deuce Snowboards deletion. Since I was not notified of a justification, I will attempt a guess. The WD:CORP guideline states that a company must have been in a secondary press source. Deuce Snowboards has been in the following:
In addition, I copied the Burton page and used it as the boilerplate on which to build the Deuce page. I changed the content to Deuce specific information, but the form and type of content was identical to the long existing, and still existing, Burton page. So it would seem that the Deuce page has been validated by the existence of the Burton page, or the Burton, K2, etc. pages must be removed as well.
Regarding Dual Edge Snowboard (DES). I don't know how to discover who did these deletions, so I am assuming it was you at this point. Please advise if it wasn't. I have no idea what the justification was for removing the DES page, so I can't even venture a guess and a reply. I can't defend what I created because I wasn't told what the charges are against it.
My deletions were based on (1) the original tagging of the DS article as per WP:CSD#G11: blatant advertising, and (2) the fact that on the face of it the DES article seemed to have been written to bolster the notability of DS. However—now having read both articles two or three times ;-) in the past 24 hours—I think they both have strong potential to be kept after they've been improved.
Hi Athaenara. I'm glad I have a real and reasonable person to talk to. Here's what I propose in order to move forward. On my end, I will ask a few people I know, whom are good writers, to provide me their specific critiques. I expect that this will take until early next week to obtain and consolidate some useful feedback. On your end, and trying to minimize your time, please provide just a couple of the things that stuck out as the most glaring to you, and I can then attempt to rewrite, offer an different statement, a reference or what ever is appropriate.
You are welcome. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ski—"a project to better organize information in articles related to Skiing and Snowboarding"—looks like it might be what you need.
Oh, that's useful. Thanks. And I just went to a blog of snowboarders that have a running discussion on the DES, and I emailed a few of them to consider Wiki-editing. (71.142.67.67 (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of the defenestrator. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I don't have a personal objection to your action, my issue is with the conventional logic behind it. Regards, Skomorokh21:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Athaenara - I have permission to use the text describing Threshold magazine. This is only the second page I have worked on in Wikipedia, so please let know if there is anything else I need to add to the page to address the copyright issue.
In addition, I just submitted an email (to permissions-en@wikimedia.org) granting me permission to use the text from the copyright holder.
I undeleted the article and tagged it {{Db-g11}} as blatant advertising. To help you as a new editor to understand this encyclopedia's policies and guidelines as they apply to your edits, I added {{spam-warn}} (note the warning not to remove the Db-g11 tag yourself) to your talk page.
"If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note [on the article talk page] with a link to where we can find that note."
→ in re: category created by HarryAlffa at 20:48, 3 August & 11:40, 4 August 2008 UTC (log)
Note: a section called "Origin":
"Usage coined and defined by HarryAlffa between 6am and 9am, on the morning of Sunday, 3rd August, 2008, while drifting in and out of sleep, with a slight hang-over, and dehydrated due to the consumption of alcohol and an Indian balti meal eaten to close to bedtime. It was inspired by an “Edit War” two days earlier on the Solar System article lead."
You deleted this Category on 3rd August claiming it had been empty for at least 4 Days. This was not true. The Category had been created earlier that same day.
Please obey the rule you provided a link to:
"Unpopulated categories that have been unpopulated for at least four days. This does not apply to disambiguation categories, category redirects, categories under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion (or other such discussions), or project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion (e.g. Category:Wikipedians looking for help)."
Note that this is one of those "categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion".
You shouldn't delete something just because you don't like it.
The category had logical reasoning behind it's creation.
Before being full protected, indef blocked User:Gdewilde used his talkpage as platform to launch person attacks against me and another user, Guyonthesubway, quoting me out of context and/or misrepresenting the context, and refactoring my remarks. Since the page is full protected, I cannot respond or otherwise defend myself, so I'm wondering if you'd be willing to blank the section in question. Thanks for your consideration. Yilloslime(t)00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for deleting the page. BTW, the user/hoaxster had blanked the page after some discussion and several warnings, but the Speedy Deletion tag was placed by yours truly, HG | Talk21:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right (in re the tagging) but your calm explanations brought the user around to seeking deletion himself (or herself), so that's what I recorded in the deletion log. — Athaenara ✉ 21:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Philip Sutton conflict of interest
Thanks for the Conflict of interst warning. I was not aware of this issue when I first made my contributions. I did however try to contribute from a neutral point of view. I will encourage other people without a potential conflict of interest to make contributions to these topics in ways that are fully in accord with Wikipedia policies. Philip Sutton (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
followed by a description of the COI and autobio problem and the efforts, so far, to deal with it constructively. I recommend posting it there. — Athaenara ✉ 07:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
why did you delete my page on cleanaer. I asked once for you to delete it so it could be modified and now i have done it, you have deleted it. Firstly its not advertisement. Its providing people with information about a new type of technology.Very similiar to a HEPA (which you could also call Advertising) or Air Ioniser. Im dissapointed to see you have deleted without notice. I would appreciate it kindly if you can advise me on how to make it 'correct' for wikipedia as the information i provide is of significant interest if they are searching air purifier technologies.
Regards
James —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBP44 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for understanding the information ive provided to wikipedia. Unfortnately since you undeleted Cleanaer another admin user has now deleted me. Im unsure what i have done wrong and i would be extremely grateful if you could give me some advice. I hope we can reinstate the page.
Is Mensa a part of Adolf's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics program? What's up with the Scopes image? It is in the main article. FYI, Bush could be charged with sedition. Read the 1st Amendment and what goes on WP carefully, and consider where Godwin and Wales arose. WP has no authority by law whatsoever. In fact, it has no authority whatsoever. Free Speech is a fundamental issue, and going out of your way to take down an image (still in the main article on Scopes) is a very serious act, unless you have an explanation. The Scopes possible copyvio rightfully belongs in Commons as a discussion issue. On .en, it seems like a toy to add a delete at a will. Why? Is it my prayer that bothers you or the evidence for structure in the genetic code? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.31.116 (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Athaenara, hi, I wanted to follow up on something. I'm not doing this for everyone who had participated in the request on my page, but I have respect for your own opinion, so I was wondering if you could go into a bit more detail as to why you endorsed? Could you perhaps provide a diff or two of specific things I've done, which you disagree with? I'm hoping that there's just some miscommunication here, and I'd like to see if we could clear the air. Thanks, --Elonka18:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I posted, I agreed with quite a few of the thirty endorsements which had been posted before that time (which was 04:33, 29 August 2008 UTC) and didn't want to reiterate them, but I can be more specific in the next quarter hour or so to make that more clear. — Athaenara ✉ 02:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the original proposal and, more specifically, I agree as well with the endorsements (many of which linked pertinent diffs) which had been posted previously (see diff above of my post for what was there at the time) by the following editors:
Hmm, thanks for compiling the list. But, were you aware that a few of the people that you're agreeing with there, were making false charges, are under ArbCom sanctions, have been cautioned about working in concert, tag team style, and/or have been warned and even blocked for harassment and disruption? This doesn't go for all of the names, of course. However, let me ask you flat out: Did you simply endorse my recall, because you saw names there that you recognized? Or can you actually provide any diffs of concern? --Elonka04:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not endorse for the reasons which you suggest, and the presumption of my ignorance and/or bad faith implicit in your post is startling. Do you really believe that I would endorse a recall proceeding merely because I "saw names there" that I recognized?
I considered linking every diff which concerned me then, and concerns me now, but I considered it unnecessary because specific endorsements I support include such diffs.
I became aware of the deletion review because user HarryAlffa posted a message to me (diff) about my deletion of Category:May contain nuts (see also the page which he created later which was userfied as per Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:May contain nuts.) I looked for the category among recent deletion reviews and stumbled upon another: the RfC/Elonka which other admins had deleted out of process at your request (deletion logs: WP and WT). That reminded me that you had asked me to do the same last December, which I did, and that spurred me to follow some of the related discussions and even contribute to them in a small way.
If you don't understand that my endorsement has nothing to do with content controversies, and nothing to do with other editors and admins whom I have encountered on Wikipedia, please read this:
I disapprove of the highly controversial out-of-process actions you pursued in order to shut down your RfC. Keeping faith with those who supported your adminship proceedings on the basis of specific declarations you made (e.g.this and this) does not mean cherrypicking interpretations of your intent and their understanding of it. — Athaenara ✉ 07:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you have no questions on specific administrative actions, your concerns were about other issues, such as that you disagree with my stance on RfC certification, is that correct? --Elonka17:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I not allowed to cite a published article in the gravitation page. There was no violation of policy. Please tell me where to go to when I have a dispute. Way to censor information Gravityforce (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
My name is Nebojsa Stanojevic
you did GREAT damage for my name.....
I dont care, as I have life, but you should go out of your room to see that there is REAL PEOPLE there.
my only problem is that wiki comes first on search engines, lot of people contact me for that...
I am busy sailing around the world, participating in Google Lunar X=PRIZE, and build so many schools around the world... to name few....
my life is public, google me,
but "thanks" for making it harder for me.
And btw, I dont use polite language..... FUCK YOU, and every time think of the kids around the world I helped, and you???
what the f... you do....
Nebojsa Stanojevic
Team Leader
Human Synergy Project
If you read the deletion log linked above, you will see that I deleted and then restored the article, which was subsequently deleted again by another administrator. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review for how you may participate in that process if you wish. — Athaenara ✉ 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, take my deepest apology for above text. I have no idea how to see this, I just saw your name, and I reacted. Once again, deepest apology. Best regards Nebojsa Stanojevic NebojsaStanojevic (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing... If you don't mind... Can you help me do this "clearance" as I don't know how to use Wikipedia, and plus I am EXTREMELY busy with my Moon Project, and REALY dont have time to learn. But, it is very important to me to clear this thing out. Thank's in advance Nebojsa Stanojevic NebojsaStanojevic (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you VERY MUCH for all your help and again sorry for my "rage" comment , I hope you understand me... Person, who do all tis tjin is Senad Svraka, as you can see in my "new" wiki page, but... thanks for all a lot
It is absurd that if Colin Powell decided to edit a Wikipedia article pertaining to himself in order to make it more accurate that you would delete it because it was written by himself. You seem enjoy censoring people and the truth I know no other term but to call you a ravaging monarchist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtsports92 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your hint regarding my articles "Swiss Quality Hotels International" and "Quality Label for Swiss Tourism".
Please be so kind and advice specifically what is to correct. The content of the articles are just facts, exactly the way they have to be for wikipedia. The text is written in an encyclopedic way and the references are mentioned.
So what do I have to do, specifically, to avoid the impression of "Conflict of interest".
Thank you
--Swordfish2008 (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned at your deletions and edits pertaining to the Lifeboat at Arbroath, both yours and others are not from Arbroath and have no idea what an integral part of Arbroath it is.
I have entered into the COI discussion with you but as yet no reply, I have no issues with the angling points you raised. But I would like to make you aware that I am not the same person you refer to as wikadm the most important thing I need you to know about the lifeboat is that it is a charity run as a non commercial enterprise by volunteers the website link is there the same as others, which is to link to the non commercial site to give more information about the voluntary rescue service and to allow those in the local community access to safety information. Coach3177 (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a CSD issue on one level but it may go beyond that. I am not sure how to read into this. I found Image:BILLmesitrell.jpg and tagged the image {{di-no source}} as it is a collage of images. But the image is sort of like a wallpaper and has a website URL on it that takes you too Money Well Spent, which appears to be a marketing business. It is not a website about the subject of the image, but this is where it gets more interesting. The site is very hard to navigate but I stumbled upon this page which contains the statement "WORLDWIDE "BRAND NAME" PROMOTIONS". This same page also contains a link that says: "Our WIKIpedia edits contributions" which, when clicked, takes a person to Special:Contributions/Lumal, who is the uploader of the image. This seems to imply that working on Wikiepedia articles is a service they offer and leads me to believe that the image is a somewhat disguised advertisement. FYI the image is used in the Bill Meistrell article. And for the hell of it I dug a bit more and came across one of his clients - Bill Meistrell. TIf you take a look at this website you will find links to Body Glove, Bill Meistrell and a link that did go to an article on Dive N' Surf but now seems to be a part of the Redondo Beach article. A photo in this article shows Dive N' Surf and contains with a link to the Dive-n-Surf website, which is another client, and Image:DIVEnSURFlogo.jpg also has the moneywellspent.com watermark.
As I mentioned on COI/N, I think every image which has the website url embedded in it should be tagged {{db-g11}} for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. — Athaenara ✉ 11:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought that as well however if you exclude the actual COI notice and the block of the user you have an image watermarked with a URL. To be consistent, if these are all tagged g11 so should all the other images on Wikipedia that have URL's embedded into them. My personal opinion is that having a URL as part of any image (Except perhaps a graph which cites statistics found at, say, www.census.gov) should be tagged as g11. But here is my question, the same one I have asked at the CSD talk - if an editor rejects the nom and "fixes" the image, say cropping out the watermark, is that really fixing the core problem? Some of these images I would be more prone to ask what the source is and for the photographer/author to submit an OTRS ticket. I am ok for trying the g11 first on the watermarked images. On the non-watermarked images I would be more in favor of trying the {{di-no permission}} or {{di-no source}} tags first if the image(s) warrant it. And than see what is left over. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The moneywellspent.com and lumal.com urls are specifically blatant promotion of websites which are themselves blatantly promotional and not reliable sources, aside from whatever issues may exist involving other images with embedded urls.
You're way ahead of me on the further intricacies of image tagging, frankly, but what you say sounds sensible. Can you link the pertinent WP:IMD discussion logs on the blocked user's talk page and/or in the COI/N section? — Athaenara ✉ 22:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
