This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This article has terrible sources for the same reason that you have never heard of CBA cable before, and wouldn't know that this is the ubiquitous coiled cable found on everything from keychains to telephones to keyboards, without a resource like Wikipedia. I just found this out today while searching for a method of untangling Bell Knots. I discovered the sparse information which I have submitted. This information is not common knowledge, but belongs on Wikipedia because CBA cable is common enough to be worthy of admission to an encyclopedia and unknown enough to need that encyclopedia to be Wikipedia.
I am going to create another article about Bell Knots. Have you honestly ever heard of these? Again a ubiquitous but unmissed phenomenon that affects us every day of our lives.
But mostly wanted to know why you removed my Mother's Day link. Did you go to the link or just removed it because I wasn't logged in and there was no context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgifford ( talk • contribs) 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you please let me know where there is a bias on the Solarmer Energy, Inc. article because I do not see it. The content on the page is nothing more than facts on the industry and the company. Let me know what parts I need to make neutral and I will. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarmer ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Re this warning [1] you need to check what appears on the screen when you're using Twinkle - what happened here was I moved the page (thus creating a redirect) while you were nominating it for speedy deletion. Result being that you nominated the redirect page for speedy and warned me about it! pablo hablo. 11:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
So noted. However, I was nominating it because it has no independent sourcing, questionable notability, and has a mass of unverified "success stories" tacked onto the bottom. Wperdue ( talk) 14:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)wperdue
Sorry... we got crossed up. -- Rrburke( talk) 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I undid your revert to this article, as it was done by the original author and it is essentially contesting the PROD (which anyone is entitled to do for any reason, with or without comment). He/she added references and some more information to the article, which I need to look at a bit and decide if it can be salvaged or taken to AfD. I am adding back the problem tags though. Cheers! § FreeRangeFrog 17:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I don't see a deletion discussion for IRBsearch. There isn't any Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IRBsearch. Is there one under another name? —Largo Plazo ( talk) 15:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wperdue. I wrote the Intervision Network Corporation article. Can you provide some direction as to how I can give facts about the company without making it seem like an advertisement? I thought that I went out of my way not to talk about product lines or anything else, even though some of the other competitors in the CDN space do exactly this. Check out some of the others which are much more sales-product-service oriented.
I believe that there is no problem. If you could, please explain what EXACTLY the problem is and be precise. I like to keep tabs on the CDN space and I ran into these guys with a revolutionary cell phone that broadcasts live feeds though a Mobile CDN. I think this is noteworthy. Check out some web chatter about it: Real Time Media Phone.
Can you please review Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saasonomics as an editor has added the author's article to the AfD. You should verify that your vote is still applicable to both. -- samj in out 06:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. your message regarding the meera sanyal page well taken. But the problem is sometimes you have to use common sense as well when the subject one chooses to write about has certain accolades that if mentioned might sound like excessive use of adjectives to promote that person. If one takes the effort of looking through the links I've provided as references, one would see that everything mentioned there is factual and hence deserves to be there. Hope you understand. Cheers Shahid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahidb ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for taking the time to explain the logic. Am learning on the fly here and it is a working progress, I have a feeling it will take a few more edits to make it acceptable, but will keep trying. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahidb ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
for defending my talkpage. Soxwon ( talk) 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
...I'm not even sure what to do! :) Seriously, thanks for the nice note. You made my day. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 01:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhills,_Ohio#External_links
As far as the editing of the Greenhills Ohio pages goes, the link I submitted is the same category as the Pioneer.com link. We are both community based message boards. Junedale.com is a non-profit site that servers the Greenhills OH community by promoting upcoming events and neighborhood discussions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge97x ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a friendly note on Surgical light. I declined the speedy deletion request because it's pretty easy to identify the subject of the article. If you think it's not notable, merging or AfD would be the way to go.-- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Good question. It used to be that even something as nearly useless as that substub was treated as sacrosanct if it was about a school. That seems to have relaxed quite a bit, especially as it applies to anything under the high school level. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 01:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for reviewing my page. I had a hard time in the beginning (earlier today) and finally I am getting closer to what seems to be acceptable. Thanks to another admin. who was a huge help! :) I understand what you mean about the peacock comment. However, its just the way the article was written. I am writing about this artist to inform the public of what industry followers have said about his music. Its just informative writing that doesn't mean to boast "the best" in the industry but means to excite the reader and be interested. I had explained this to another administrator that I'm not trying to advertise or provide false information. This is what I have so far on record for this artist, who does seem to have a huge presence in his industry. Its hard to compete with mainstream performers but i was hoping wiki would be a good place to have a bio. As for the references, believe me, I am hoping to see him on tv and in mainstream periodicals but these references are exactly that, references. He is breaking out and the references seem to be directly related to the content. I'm am trying to work with Wiki not against the admins! I just want to have my opinion heard. Music27 ( talk) 02:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
— LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC) You are welcome, Wperdue
Hi, I removed your db tag, since the article states that they are listed on the London Stock Exchange, which implies notability.-- Terrillja talk 20:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I had four sited listed for the article I wrote for Jacob Ginsberg. However, many of my other sources are humans that have either employed Jacob with the Zephyrs, or his co-workers, and therefore do not have websites. How would I cite these people in order to have this article created? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrotal69 ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
im the creator of the Angelus - Angel article and i would just like to say how dare you say i have made up that information that information came from a 65 year old bible and i would never have just put some random thing up there that is real so i demand that you take of the redirection to that other page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac136d ( talk • contribs) 06:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Wperdue - Looks like it was already speedied, but just to followup on this. I agree that before speedy we should see if anything can be saved. I can't explain why the prior AfD focused more on WP:V than WP:Websites... perhaps the prior article asserted notability but couldn't back it up.
This article, as I read it, and the list of external references did nothing to assert notability. It's been userified now so as you said they can work on it there. Thanks. ((I wish WP had a count of how many pages we simply patrol but don't tag or delete because I am afraid I might get a rep as a speedy-freak. )) JCutter { talk to me } 23:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
tempodivalse [☎] 02:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wperdue, re that hoax. user:Robert.lambton's account was older than mine, but looking at the deleted contributions as well as the remaining ones it was a vandalism only account since Dec 06. So I've blocked it. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Wperdue, I did not mean to antagonize him. I guess I just really can't stand vandals at all. I won't do it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWizarrd123 ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed the message you recently left to Wikipedia:Introduction. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Abce2 ( talk) 21:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)