User talk:Crazyjoe

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Crazyjoe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Apple Worm

Hey, Crazyjoe, one point about your edits. How can you justify adding a non-reference tag to an article which lists a reference: the Scientific American column, Computer Recreations, in the May, 1985 issue? No offense taken; I'm just curious about your reasoning. Thanks. William R. Buckley (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As I had not yet seen this change, I had not previously thanked you for adjusting the disambiguation page. Again, thanks for your help. William R. Buckley (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to put refimprove instead. Thanks for catching that. There is only one reference and it's hard to verify things when there is only one source, especially when you can't see it online.Crazyjoe (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your tags on Hollandia Produce

Hello, Crazyjoe. You removed all references in the article I just started that were to the company's official website, saying that they couldn't be read. They can be read - they are working links. What do you mean? As to links to Dun and Bradstreet Company reports, those, also are legit - even if they are "pay" sites. Dun and Bradstreet reports are the industry standard, and are accurate and neutral. This has been discussed many, many times on Wikipedia - the fact that not all references are immediately accessible not meaning that they are unacceptable. Many academic and other articles, for example, are available online only if you pay for them, or read them at your public library :) Please let me know how to improve this article. Leoniana (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware with the standards of citing Dun and Bradstreet. Those were the pages I couldn't read, the company pages were readable (sorry if my edit summary was confusing). I removed the company refs because they are self references and thus not very reliable. It introduces COI and makes the page look like advertising. If the company is notable enough it shouldn't be a problem finding other sources for those facts. Some of the other refs I removed were short offhand remarks that I didn't think were reliable enough. Crazyjoe (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, Crazyjoe. I took the liberty of pasting your response that you left on my talk page. Thank you for that, but since I have more to talk about with you I thought it would simpler if we had the thread. Does this make sense?

Could you please revert your deletions of the Dun and Bradstreet citations, since you do recognize their legitimacy? Thank you. (a note about them - though the online service is for-pay, many university and larger public libraries subscribe to this service and you can use it there.)

Regarding your removal, completely, of the company's official website. Please revert that edit, and I ask you to do this because it is wholly within Wikipedia best practices (such as they're agreed upon) to allow inclusion of a company or organization's Official Website as a reference, so long as it is not the only reference.

Next: editing, in good faith - this is another basic tenet of Wikipedia. The article was started in good faith, and frankly to give it under two hours to be contributed to/improved/ before tagging it and making deletions, etc. seems inconsistent with the principle and practice of "good faith." There are stubs and start class articles; they start small and grow. This is a cornerstone here at Wikipedia. Literally thousands, maybe millions of good articles started very small and grew without being tagged - at least not in the first weeks of their existence. As to the "orphan" tag: an article that is an hour or two old is often "orphaned" for a day or two or even longer - this is pretty standard!

Reference citation: you changed the ref citation styles. So far as I know, there is not one way to cite references on Wikipedia; so long as the system used is consistent throughout the article, several styles are perfectly OK. I generally use Chicago Manual of Style citation conventions.

I realize that this is a long post, but I wanted to discuss these things with you, and I will be appreciative of your continuing this conversation with me. Thanks! Leoniana (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my late response, I was away for a while. I suppose I was a bit overzealous with editing the page and should have waited a day or two. I was suspicious of the many refs from the company website and the lack mentioning of the company elsewhere on wikipedia. I thought my edits were making the page look more legitimate. The changes you have made in the past few days have made the article look a lot better and that one ref to the company website is okay since it is prefaced with "The company claims" My only concern still with the article is notability because it has only one link to it, but perhaps it's just that relevant articles in that field haven't yet fully developed. But anyway, the page is looking good. Don't know what else to do with it. Crazyjoe (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Apple worm a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Apple worm (disambiguation). This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Russ (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)