User talk:Here/archive01

Rojo.com

You may not have read any of the policies that relate to advertisements, I noticed this article in VfD (Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Rojo.com), if you feel that it can either be speedily deleted, or kept for reasons other than advertising, please comment there. Alf 17:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, It's me again, RSS feed eh? Have you looked at Wikipedia:Syndication and its talk page? Alf 23:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, great stuff, thanks for all your help. Here 06:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Me again, just seeing how things are going. From the look of your user page, it appears that you're doing ok. I like the geographic unbalance - made me laugh. If you need anything, drop me a note. Alf melmac 14:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: rojo deletion

Good evening. You asked for an explanation of the deletion decision. I am not sure that I will be able to satisfy you but I can at least clarify the reasoning I used when closing the discussion. If you feel the decision was in error, I encourage you to nominate the article for undeletion at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion.

During the deletion discussion, there were two main concerns which I saw raised in the discussion.

  1. The content was alleged to violate Wikipedia's proscriptions against advertising. Only one person made this allegation. You clearly researched for the relevant policy and made edits to correct that impression. I did, however, note that the person who made the allegation did not return to the discussion to change his/her opinion. As you clearly did, experienced Wikipedian's return to deletion discussions to see if new evidence has been presented. The failure of Alf to change his/her opinion could represent a failure to return to the discussion or it could mean that he/she was unconvinced by your argument. I did note that none of the subsequent participants in the deletion discussion made the allegation of advertising.
  2. The subject of the article failed to meet the community's standards for inclusion. This was the most frequent allegation made. You did present several facts in an attempt to rebut this claim.
    • Of your counter-arguments to the non-notable claim, the first was that this website is no worse than other websites which do have articles. Wikipedia generally considers that to be an invalid argument. First, Wikipedia is inconsistent. (That's immortalized as a principle somewhere but I can't remember where just now.) Second, it may just be that we haven't gotten around to deleting those other articles yet.
    • Your second counter-argument was an attempt to tie directly to the recommended thresholds from the Guidelines for Websites. You must remember that they are only guidelines, not bright lines. Some websites which fail to meet any of those guidelines are still notable and appropriate for inclusion in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Others which meet one or more are still inappropriate. It is a judgment call. We use the deletion process to help the community make that judgment call. Unfortunately, none of the other participants returned to the discussion to change their opinions after you presented those statistics. Several of them are editors who I know have a strong personal ethic of returning to discussions and changing their minds when convincing new evidence has been presented, so I considered it unlikely that they were simply unaware of your edit.
    • This second counter-argument was further complicated by the fact that the guidelines are still merely a proposal. They have not yet become generally accepted guidelines. It is possible and in fact likely that the discussion participants disagree with one or more of the guidelines. As an example, I personally consider the "national media" standard to be much too low. Anyone can find 15 minutes of fame. That is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article in my opinion. My point is that the standards on that page are still in flux. Discussion participants may or may not be persuaded by them.

Cori.schlegel was convinced by your argument but his/her opinion had to be discounted because the user's contribution history was suspiciously similar to the typical contribution history of a sockpuppet attempting to bias the decision process. I always hate to be unable to assume good faith but we've had serious problems with sockpuppets. I could not in good conscience weight that opinion equally with the opinions of other, deeply established members of the community.

Taken as a whole, I concluded that the community consensus was for deletion of the article. That also was a judgment call. I'm sorry the decision didn't turn out the way you wanted. I hope that I have explained my reasoning more clearly, though. As I said above, if you feel the decision was in error, please read up on the undeletion policy. Good evening. Rossami (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My "failure"... I made a comment on the AfD not a vote. I must admit, I returned to see what was happening and didn't cast a vote either way, simply because I didn't enough knowledge to make such a decision. When I can see that an article is clearly an advertisement, my habit has been to "Delete as Badvertisment" (the B standing for Blatant, Bad or the other usual B-word), as I could not see that this was the case, I refrained.
I personally have stopped taking notice of the "non-notable" idea that is bandied around. If it is a good, enyclopedic article of value to readers I make my overall decision based on that. If it were also properly wikified I would have great difficulty not supporting a request for undeletion. Personally I would create User:Here/Sandbox, write it up there, get some feedback and then decide whether or not to release it into the mainspace as a different article. Clocking the Alexa ranking would also help substantially. Alf melmac 06:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. On the whole, I've been impressed by the community's attempt at unbiased and encyclopedic content. I will watch rojo for a time, Alexa, etc; and potentially resubmit after a month or two. This whole deletion episode accomplished furthering my involvement in the project. Best. Here 04:35, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

RSS and wikipedia

Hey, from rss. Do you use any readers with wikipedia successfully for watchlists? Trying to make it happen, or figure it out. meta:talk:syndication_feeds, at the bottom see meta:syndication_feeds. --- Here 04:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I don't use RSS, I merely guard over the article… --fvw* 04:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Cave

Hi. I certainly don't doubt your intentions, but an article really should be more than a single sentence. You can always flesh one out in your user space before committing it to the article space. In fact, once you do, feel free to recreate the article. My deleting it wan't a personal affront; I regret you took it as one. - Lucky 6.9 04:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't take it personally. Thanks for the response, will do ;) ∴ here…♠ 05:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on Green Tortoise

Good work digging up all those sources on the Tortoise! I look forward to their eventual integration into the article. Kit 11:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the compliment, it's nice to be noticed in the sea of edits. I've only been aware of Wikipedia for about six months and a participant for one, but I grow more passionate about the project every day. Craig R. Nielsen 00:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to let you know, the link that you moved from Backpacking isn't entirely appropriate for carpooling, because the external links in Carpool have just recently been cleaned of spamlinks. External links for the Carpool article should really only be for definitions and extended explanations of carpooling (plus, the external link already in there also has links to other carpool sites, so that's covered). needaride dot com dot au isn't notable enough and doesn't provide any additional information the way that the current external link does. I'll be removing that link, but I thought I should let you know. Cheers, Deathphoenix 06:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Good to see that the fight against spamlinking carries on. :-) --Deathphoenix 14:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

Thanks for your comment. "Further reading" is another consideration for articles such as you cite, when evaluating "External links". --Aude 01:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: SimulEdit

"On top of each other, thankfully without issue. Feel free to IM." - come again? -- Zondor 08:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"subpages to tools don't need to be in tools category" - why not? its better that way. -- Zondor 09:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia:Tools/1-Click Answers deserves to be categorised. user script sub pages are to be moved into its own sub category -- Zondor 09:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CFD

Thanks for pointing that out. It turns out the CFR/CFM templates were modified since I last used them. They're fixed now to match the style of headings actually used on CFD, to the best of my knowledge. Yours, Radiant_>|< 23:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait, let me rephrase that. I see people are using different headings on CFD as well, but sometimes they're not. I believe this is the point of having {{cfr}} and {{cfr2}}, isn't it? Sometimes it is unclear what to rename it to, for instance, so a CFR template cannot always list a target name. Radiant_>|< 00:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Auto AFD

I replied on the scripts talk page, but since it was a personal problem:

Did you refresh your browser cache? It may be that you're not looking in the right place: one difference between Auto AFD and the nomination feature of afd helper is that the latter puts a 'Nominate AFD' button in the toolbox when viewing a page; the former puts a tab up the top of the page when you are editing the page. This is now being clarified in the scripts table.

jnothman talk 08:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, didn't know to look only after editing the page. Looks good, won't try it here :). ∴ here…♠ 08:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XD

XD is a hosting page for mediawiki deletion experiments. If you want to actually write policy for en.wikipedia, please don't do it on that page, else things get seriously messed up.

The proposal you had hosted on WP:XD basically amounts to the nl.wikipedia normal deletion procedure, albeit minus an actual listing on WP:AFD. I'm not sure what it has to do with mediawiki experiments? If you like you can host your en.wikipedia procedure elsewhere though.

Kim Bruning 08:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

response at User_talk:Kim_Bruning#xd. Kim's comment not accepted ;) Thanks for the pointer to nl.wikipedia procedure ∴ here…♠ 08:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, oh dear. Frankly, what's basically missing in your proposal is... how does it lead to anything being (visibly) deleted? Kim Bruning 08:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
see Wikipedia_talk:Experimental_Deletion#Refining_XD_to_only_1_option_.28lets_pick_one.29 ∴ here…♠ 08:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I think XD has mileage as long as the experiment is managed properly while it finds its way. -Splashtalk 20:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

But don't send me to the sandbox—I know how to edit. I only hope others reach the same conclusion I did, that "xD" degrades wikipedia's deletion mechanism from a consensus-driven quality control device into a mind-numbing edit war. Page blanking no longer vandalism? That's a hoot. Just have everybody form teams and play some three-on-three till they run out of fouls. Then shake hands and meet each other again tomorrow. Your idea is teh lame, and plus I can't help noting that it resembles an AOL-ish emoticon, so it could easily be mistaken for self-deprecating humor anyway. This is not a personal attack. I have no problem with the people but the idea is awful. 172.135.215.111 01:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User_talk:172.135.215.111. Please direct further discussion to the relevant talk page. thanks.. ∴ here…♠ 02:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sample Chapters!

Please do let me know if creating links towards sample chapters for free is a wrong thing to do on your site?

I suppose sample chater contents are a very important aspect about the subject matter and would help the visitor to more indepth knowledge about the subject.

I hope you would answer my questions and help me in this matter.

Dear User talk:60.254.26.7 - As I replied at Wikipedia:General_complaints#Deleting_Links. and via the email you posted there, the links you have been adding are considered WP:SPAM under current wikipedia guidelines. I also was confused about these edits, and asked here, feel free to add to the conversation. Thanks. ∴ here…♠ 02:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionists

I noted from your page, it directed me to Wikipedia:AFD_100_days and I was astounded. Here are some excerpted statistics:

  • 6314 out of 6912 voters make less than 20 votes.
  • These 6314 voters vote "delete" on average 56.2% of the time (just over half).
  • 46 out of 6912 voters make more than 250 votes.
  • These 46 voters vote "delete" on average 76.0%.
  • The overall statistic is that 70.6% of votes end in delete.
  • Yet the average voter would delete only 60%.

Conclusion is obvious - a handful of deletionists are pushing through deletions. Not only that, but the vast majority of people who make a lot of votes are voting delete!

Check out these snippets:

  • The number 1 voter, User: JamesBurns, has made 3,645 of the 79,077 votes (about 5%). He has voted for delete a massive 89.7% of the time.
  • The number 2 voter, User: Etacar11, has made 1,841 votes, of which an incredible 96.0% were delete.
  • Number 3, User: Splash is 1,318 votes, with 87.8% delete!

Now, number 4 and 5 are inclusionists (number 4, User: Kappa, particularly), but even still 18 of the top 20 contributors are deletionists. Thats pretty shocking really.

The ultimate conclusion to all of that is that the Vfd process is unfair. And that, other than deletion reform, what we can do in the short term is to vote vote vote as much as possible. Not just because you love deleting things (i.e. are trigger happy and like to see people suffer), but because you want this to be a fair process. After all, if everyone voted, then it'd work reasonably well.

Did you see what I wrote in the Wikipedia: Deletion reform article? Does that idea sound okay to you? Zordrac 02:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MOO and LambdaMOO

I am doing my best on cleaning and unmerging the articles. If you feel anything I do is inaccurate or unwelcome please voice your opinions and help support the changes. Thanks! Ian13 17:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!

My first ever "thanks" message! Woot! Now, if only they could balance out all of the negative comments... Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PoE bad faith AFD nom

I am very sad that the vandals that have been attacking my talker articles have now made a bad faith AFD on PoE. I had spent so much time working on those articles. Whilst I don't know what the policy is, they have said that they can get all of their friends to create accounts so as to make sure that it gets deleted. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it. New accounts are generally noted as such on AfD and taken into account. Further, the article was just nominated, as I noted on the AfD entry. No doubt it will be kept, and discussion should continue on the talk/article pages themselves. ∴ here…♠ 01:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am not overly worried about it. They said themselves that they found the page (CP) and decided to edit it so as to promote their site. But that's not what Wikipedia is for! They say that they don't want bad things said about them. Well, nor does Michael Jackson. Same kind of issue, as far as I am concerned. A few of them created accounts purely so as to vandalise the page and more so as to vote on the deletion. In effect, their reason to nominate the article for deletion is so as to prove their point that their talker is better than another talker, in other words disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. I am just trying to stay away from the whole thing until it blows over. I think it is pretty likely it'll result in a speedy keep, but if it goes through the entire process, well, that's fine. I have most of the history of talkers written now. Its just sad that these people couldn't contribute something worthwhile. They were just the kind of people I wanted to help to edit these articles. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Preachin to the choir ;) ∴ here…♠ 02:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I can remember how you said that some of them should be merged, by the way, and you should be happy to know that I merged sleepy's multiple worlds and fantasia's multiple worlds in to lintilla (talker). I did also merge the crystal palace article in to PoE because I thought that that might resolve the dispute, but my edits were reverted. I may be deemed to have now done my 3RRs, I am not sure, so I thought I probably should stay out of it for now anyway. But, if push comes to shove, the whole lot can be added to talker or else to a separate section titled major events in talker history or the like. I am quite happy to do that. What I am not overly happy to do is to delete history, especially not important stuff like that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't understand what you mean by "biased" in your vote. Are you suggesting that the article as written does not conform to the neutral point of view policy? I am confused on that one.

Anyway I have merged it already, so the only issue is whether CP deserves to be merged or deleted outright. Some people have suggested merging it just to stop trouble makers from getting worse. I am not convinced personally because there are 100s of talkers where, if we went to there and told them that they could write their own articles, they would. That's advertising/vanity in that case, and not encyclopaedic. If even one of the contributors had written about something else, then maybe it'd have merits, even if that was their first contributions. I dunno. The fact that they put up on their talker "come vote here" on the login screen suggests a coordinated attack to me. Actually, it more than suggests it, it proves it. So that means 1 vote between the lot of them, as far as I am concerned. But I don't see why the 2nd PoE vote was even allowed to happen. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skiing page duplication

Hello! Did you realise you turned the entire Skiing page, into two copies of itself? Anyway I've fixed it now...Stevage 09:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wow, thanks. Interesting bug --
  1. edit last section of a page.
  2. remove entire section.
  3. preview page. (looks fine, but has actually added full copy into last section.)
  4. save page.
only happens if you bother to preview. won't happen again! thanks for catching it ;) ∴ here…♠ 19:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion process

I'm sorry, I will oppose any deletion process which involves blanking of a page. That's vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to hear that. I would expect otherwise considering your tenure here dates back to a time when the deletion process was quite similar to that of which you now oppose. Perhaps you could expand on your experience? ∴ here…♠ 19:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent deletion

I very much agree with transparent deletion. Our current method is just a side effect of how the software happens to work right now, and that's just plain silly. As you've pointed out, non-transparent deletion only needs done in certain special cases, copyvios and such. It's bizarre to me how we've come up with WP:DRV and whatnot instead of just making deletion transparent. Anyway, I think maybe Wikipedia:Transparent deletion should be made, to advocate just the idea of transparent deletion by itself. I'll help however I can. I see tremendous value in it. Kinda makes me wonder why it's not already that way, since apparently the right people are on board with the idea. Friday (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Yes, I'm keeping an eye on user:here/delete too and may make some comments on it on the talk page. Friday (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering if someone would beat me to the punch on creating Wikipedia:Transparent deletion ;). I've been agonizing over a clever name, but have yet to arrive at anything better. (though I still like Wikipedia:Blankity-blank deletion, it doesn't really apply here) Absolutely! I would frame it as a compatible proposal to both existing process (AfD) and proposals (uncontested and pure wiki), but still list it alongside the proposals on Wikipedia:Deletion reform. I imagine support for this idea would find the rest of these issues falling quickly into place. In my ideal world, allowing for a delayed deletion (uncontested), instant deletion (pure wiki), or contested deletion (AfD) would all be available at any time. I'm sure rules as WP:CSD would still find their way between editors and their supposed intelligence, but that's not the end of the world. After all, it would all be transparent right? I likely won't get around to it for a few days, so be my guest, and I will contribute as I can.
  • Two new thoughts. 1) Using what links here instead of categories automagically orders pages by time to last edit, extremely useful if this xd6/7-ish technique was ever used on more than a handfull of pages. 2) I would be open to discuss transparent histories as available to registered users only, if only to help thwart anons stumbling onto vandalism inspiration and reckless search indexing. ∴ here…♠ 19:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider my Burning Man link as spam as my site is not commercial and it's not promoting any kind of product or service. Whether or not it is "a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose" completely depends on when it actually becomes what you'd consider an example of brilliant prose, which you imply that it isn't yet. I didn't put the link there out of vanity--some people actually find it of value, including those who regarded it as worthless when first encountered at a glance.

I took out the cleanup-spam template because it was somewhat of an eyesore and seemed like a hasty response to the addition of just two possibly commercial links which I don't think warrants a big warning that the section is prone to spam. I'm not going to remove my link but if you strongly believe that the spam template belongs, there, feel free to put it back, though I'd appreciate a note accounting for it in the article's discussion page.

MarXidad 20:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

big ty

just wanted to give new mexico's scene some much needed publicity since a lot of people still seem to think we're another country. lol plus, the people involved are really awesomely talented and deserve at least *some* recognition.

anyway, i wasn't too sure where to list the link so thanks for that. :)

(ThirdPlateauDreamer 05:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)) aka wiki newbie[reply]

Backpacking (travel) rewrite

Mike,just FYI, but I just did a big overhall of Backpacking and I'd like you to take a look at when you get a chance. I hope it's a lot better than the mess I found when I got there. --circuitloss 19:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the hard work!! It is certainly much better than the trainwreck that was. stick around ;)... ∴ here…♠ 02:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greets. I removed the link to rssclearinghouse for the second time today. I would entertain the notion of adding the link if I were not suspect of you adding your very own site to the article. If your addition is independant and belongs in the article, I apologize, and would recomment registering a username and suggesting the addition on the talk page ( Talk:RSS (file format) ). This article is particularly prone to excessive inappropriate external linking according to Wikipedia:External links. Best of luck, clearing house looks like a nice site -- though one of many simiarl. stick around here on wikipedia. ∴ here…♠ 05:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you felt my contribution was spam. I just built an rss resource and I want to share it with others. I don't sell anything, I'm just a student working on an rss related product. Should I register before I contribute? Sorry I'm not familiar with all the procedures here, I thought some kids were just messing around. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.118.254.80 (talk • contribs) 06:47, January 24, 2006.

No problem! If you haven't already, read Wikipedia:External links as a guideline for adding external links. Yes, I would recommend registering, as well as making a few edits other than simply adding external links -- especially to your own site (a strict taboo). While rssclearinghouse is a nice site, there are a rapidly growning number of similarly intended sites out there. Wikipedia is not the place to index these -- try dmoz.
Best of luck, feel free to ask any additional questions. My first edits were deleted in a similar manner. Hope you decide to stick around. ∴ here…♠ 17:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shared watchlists

( Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_15#Category:User_watchlists ). See m:Share watchlists for rationale. Had I noticed it was up for deletion, it would have received at least one keep vote. I plan to either recreate the same category (is there a forum for category undeletion?), or recreate a more aptly named category at your suggestion. cc: User_talk:Bobet. ∴ here…♠

Well, see, the first problem is that m:share watchlists does not seem to have attracted any attention except from you (in other words, there's no indication of any people other than yourself who think this is a good idea), and the issue depends on a number of BugZilla feature requests that are unlikely to be implemented. I nominated the cat for deletion during a routine cleanout of Wikispace, and if you recreate it it is likely to end up deleted whenever such a cleanout occurs again. It's not that the cat is such big deal, but at present it's pretty pointless. I'd suggest you keep a list page in your userspace for the time being, until such time as you find additional interested parties. Radiant_>|< 23:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did bother to show up and participate at m:Wikimedia_Research_Network/Meetings/2005-12-03, where the idea was received with mixed review -- mostly confusion ;). Pure-research aside, almost every successful multi-user site out there these days uses some form of user to user networking as a social catalyst, I believe wikipedia is missing out on huge potential here. The category is intended as a workaround to the bugzilla requests which will never happen on the production mediawiki implementation. Furthermore, it serves as the only advertising that will ever bring new shared watchlists (meta: serves oh so few). In any case, thanks for the go-ahead. I've created Category:Wikipedia user watchlists and would be delighted if you jumped in yourself ;). If you don't want to format your watchlist, feel free to send me the source from Special:Watchlist/edit and I will send you a wiki-ready page. (Now to find someone to write a greasemonkey/User Style script to do it automatically.) Thanks for all your work. ∴ here…♠ 03:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

65.182.172.x

I noticed that you've had some interaction with 65.182.172.x on Talk:Green Tortoise. Cyberdenizen and I have filed a user conduct RfC on this user's behavior, and your input would be much appreciated. You can find the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/65.182.172.x. Thanks! - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 04:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hostels

We could really use some third party moderation for the discussion we're having on the hostel discussion page ([1]) if you have any insight or thoughts to add on the subject... -- User:orrd

Wikidemia and statistics

Hello Here! We're talking about getting a separate machine to run statistics queries; which are at the heart of much of Wikidemia questions and projects. If you have specific queries you'd like to run on a dump or subset of Wikipedia or other project data, leave notes on the project talk page. +sj + 23:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Evonews

Thanks for the welcome, perhaps I was a bit hasty about adding information under my name, sorry for that. However, I have created a page about The Evolution Experience which I do strongly feel deserves a listing. I have noticed that many DJs have listings under the wikipedia encyclopedia, many of whom we have helped make famous - but most importantly, how The Evolution Experience has effected the development of dance music culture in Wales is a story which needs to be told and which will receive a lot of contributions over the coming weeks and months I beleive. I have tried to add independant sources to the entry, such as links to the BBC NEWS website and references to published works etc. I know it is only me editing this at the mo, but please give it a chance. What do you say? If this article is still "outside policy" perhaps you could help me bring it into line, or tell me what i need to add... From EVONEWS - 22 FEB 2006

Although opinions will differ greatly, I would say you need a few sources which are written specifically about The Evolution Experience. All of the sources you cite are really about something else, but include a reference to your promotion company. Also -- if this article should be included in wikipedia -- which may be the case -- someone else should write it. In general, writing your own experiences, biography, or corporate summary is highly discouraged. If you are not heavily involved with The Evolution Experience, please accept my apologies. Either way, a few nice sources ( start at WP:CITE ) about the article's title will convince me. If anything, it appears that Mr. Sinclair may be more notable than his company! You wrote a good article, but this may not be the place. I hope you decide to try your hand at a few other subjects while you are here. ∴ here…♠ 05:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an extract of Ministry, a national dance magazine in the United Kingdom.

EVOLUTION EXPERIENCE, Terminal One, The Park House Centre, HaverfordwestMinistry Magazine, August 2002 Issue, Pages 148-149; "Club of the Month, Evolution Experience" (double page review in NATIONAL dance press)

(full article text removed ∴ here…♠ 08:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: Criteria for companies and corporations

A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

WIKIPEDIAS POLICY: The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion excludes: Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. 1 Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

The Evolution Experience more than meets this requirement with just the few articles we have mentioned...

    • Ministry Magazine, August 2002 Issue, Pages 148-149; "Club of the Month, Evolution Experience"
    • The Milford & West Wales Mercury, July 20th 2000 - "Clubbers advised to buy tickets early - or be disappointed"
    • The Milford & West Wales Mercury, July 27th 2000 - "All systems go for Evolution"
    • The Milford & West Wales Mercury, July 8th 2000 - "DJs wanted for Milfords biggest ever night out"
    • The Western Mail, August 2nd 2000 - "Dance Event for Milford Haven"
    • The Western Telegraph, August 3rd 2000 - "Evolution Revolution"
    • The Western Telegraph, August 9th 2000 - "Evolution Sets New Standards"
    • The Milford & West Wales Mercury, August 10th 2000 - "Evolution Revolution as dance fever hits County"
    • The Milford & West Wales Mercury, September 11nd 2000 - "Re-Evolution"
    • Pembrokeshire County Council Public Protection Division v Evolution Event Promotions Limited 2003, Swansea Crown Court. (public record of 500 page published report by a consumer watchdog organisation into Evolution.)

The largest attendance at an event was just short of 3,000 people, due to licensing restrictions, not popularity, but The Evolution Experience has a subscribed membership of 7,000 people who regularly attend different events. Surely, this is enough to meet Wikipedia criteria.... if not... please let us know from EVONEWS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evonews (talk • contribs) 13:24, February 23, 2006

Transparent deletion revisited

I finally, finally got 'round to putting a few words at Wikipedia:Transparent deletion. I think this idea is worth persuing by itself - people objected to PWDS for several reasons, but I don't remember seeing transparency as a major one. I'm not sure whether what I have in there right now is an essay, a proposal, or something else, but it's a start. Friday (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Thank you for setting the stage. I will contribute and monitor with great interest. ∴ here…♠ 18:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: all about David Firth

Greets ;) -- Where do you get your information about David_Firth and projects? ∴ here…♠ 04:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Firth's fat-pie.com website is the best source for much of the info provided in the article; but I had previously referenced deviantART as the source for Firth's previous clash with the art site (with his user page and dA submissions).

I believe references on the article's contents are provided at the external links section of Firth's WP page, including his musical interest. Thanks for asking, though. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 14:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

Anti-Americanism getting out of control

I need you to review something when you get a chance. "Phil," is fighting a revert war with me over in Backpacking (travel) and I need a second opinion on what to do. He's actually quoting himself as a source in the most recent revision of the article. Check out the "criticism" section to see what I mean. This seems wrong on several levels, not the least of which is No original research! Thanks! --circuitloss 00:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I reverted to your last edit and explained why on the talk page. ∴ here…♠ 01:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your backup. Keep an eye on that article. "Phil" is now reduced to name-calling and insinuations because he can't turn the article into a screed about his personal experiences. The article does need some work, hopefully I can make some time and find more citations and resources online. Thanks again, --circuitloss 16:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin

Hi, are you in Berlin? There's a meeting of en: Wikipedians in Berlin tonight if you're interested. Info under User:Lectonar/Berlin Meeting. Angr (t • c) 11:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, hope to see you there ;) ∴ here…♠ 13:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Boards

Hi there, Here.

Sorry for leaving so suddenly yesterday. I somehow thought you were going in the same direction. Drop me a note when your ankles are better - we could go "snow"boarding in the magnificient Berlin mountain ranges sometime. In the meantime, here are a few links to feed the addiction:

T'was a pleasure to meet you. :)

Best regards, -- Ravn 09:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't wait. Only two more weeks ;). Thanks for the links, I hope to make it out on the 14th for kill-hill. ∴ here…♠ 15:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP Berlin reloaded

What do you think about this? Sarazyn • TALK • DE 14:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do?

I thought you might enjoy this...Cheers. Lectonar 08:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

h0h0h0, lovely ;), thanks. ∴ here…♠ 22:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Burning Man Regional Events Infobox

I've started putting together an Infobox that can go on the Burning Man type events pages. When you have a few moments and can look at the example I've put together, I'd appreciate any comments you might have. Thanks, and Burn On! SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more Green Tortoise

Thanks for the words of encouragement on the GT article.

I just left a massive diatribe on the chat page. Between you & me, management is freaking out about the article. If I didn't personally agree that it's unfair I wouldn't have said anything (GT doesn't pay me for time spent on things like this - in fact, I've even resigned the webmaster position since I last posted) but the wikipedia article is definitely something of a hatchet piece and it just doesn't seem right. These people are entitled to their views, and entitled to post them on the web, but wikipedia shouldn't be promoting them at cost to GT's business and reputation. We'll see what people say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtwebmaster (talk • contribs) 08:07, September 28, 2006

replied and agreed at Talk:Green Tortoise, good luck! ∴ here…♠ 14:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]