Jump to content

User talk:Cumbrowski/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cumbrowski. Do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion with this User or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
User:Cumbrowski  -    Current Talk Page  .oOo.      < Archive 2    Archive 3    Archive 4 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  ... (up to 100)


Affiliate marketing

Thanks for your message -- looks like a good place to spend some time looking over things and I'll be happy to spend some time there in the next few days. Best, --MCB 07:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

renewal of greencard

please confirm me the procedure of renewing my greencard which has been expired on 13 july 2006

I am no lawyer to give you legal advice and have no experience when it comes to the renewal of a Green Card, because I am still working on getting one in the first place. However, I spend plenty of time on Imigration Websites so I might be able to point you to a resource. I need some more information. Are you currently living in the United States? How did you get your Green Card, Marriage? If you got it because of marriage, are you still married with the american that sponsored your green card in the first place? A Green card because of marriage is at the beginning in "trial" status and you depend on the marriage with your spouse to keep it. Your status changes after 2-3 years (I need to check the exact time fram), but I don't think that this happens automatically (also something to check). The INS often reviews the application and marriage at the end of the trial to determine if it was a "fake" marriage (to get a green card) or not. Best thing to do is contacting the lawyer that helped you with getting one in the first place. If you did not have a lawyer back then, have a look here for resources to find one. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the resolution of this has been for you -- hopefully you're still in the U.S. All I can say is that the U.S. was inept at processing immigration paperwork before 9-11; my impression is that they've gotten better in some ways and worse in other ways. My only advice is to make sure you watch a copy of the old movie Coneheads while you're delaing with this issue -- it seemed like a pretty accurate depiction of INS when I watched years ago.
Good luck, --A. B. (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SEO

Please check first paragraph of SEO and edit as you like. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 20:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you mean the beginning of "Early search engines and the Origin of SEO"? Sorry, but I had to remove the statements to "who coined SEO". See my comments at the articles talk page. I also nominated for deletion the article Rich257 suggested to merge into the SEO article. You can provide your take on that here. Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your message

thanks for your messgage. I won't pretend I have read it but I will promise to read it properly when I've got a minute and think about it. Prior to reading your message my general view is that WP should go for a whitelist but I am not yet convinced. One observation you may be able to throw light on: mainspace talk pages (and only these not wp or user talk pages) have ceased to be cached (or given pr but that's irrelevant) by google since nofollow was introduced on them late March. There is nothing in robots.txt or the links to them from the namespace pages I can see to prompt this. So somehow google has decided they are less important since the links out from them were nofollowed. Why/how? Perhaps (reasonably enough) you don't care. --BozMo talk 12:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Take the time to read my post. I also had to print out yours first and read it when I had some time.
Btw. I checked the Meta Tags and robots.txt. None of them indicate anything that SE should treat talk pages differently than article pages. I heard something not too long ago about Google filtering out manually (not via algo) some of the Wikipedia/Metawiki content, but it was not the articles talk pages, because that I would have remembered since I blogged about this odd fact back in July. I first hesitated to write about it, because I believed it to be a glitch, but that is obviously not the case. I have unfortunately not found a concrete answer only strong circumstantial evidence. There is another SEO post that cuts the topic tangential, which you can see here. See Question 9. The Questions were made towards Google Engineer Matt Cutts who also answered them. His answer is along your opinion.
I gave my 2 cents and another Wikipedian with the name "Joost de Valk" also left an interesting comment. An Issue which I try not to make part of the agenda did I mention here. I hope that the re-activation of nofollow in the main name space would help with that as well, as a side effect. Well, there is plenty to read. Take your time with it. Its on and off for me since April so I don't need an answer tomorrow hehe. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 13:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tiny thing. Reactivation is surely a misnomer? AFAIK except possibly for a couple of weeks nofollow has never been activated on namespace? --BozMo talk 14:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mhh. That info came from somebody else. It was mentioned during my discussions in April [1]. Keep in mind that I created my Wikipedia Editor account just pretty much 1 year ago. The last bigger discussion about this was much earlier in 2005. It does also not matter really. There changed so much in search marketing over the last 1 - 1 1/2 years that a new discussion is due anyway. My last discussion did not answer much of my questions when I asked for pointers to resources and contacts. When I saw your response at the WP:Spam project did I "jumped" right at you since you seem to have some better understanding and practical knowledge about the topic that most other I talked to (I am abusive from time to time hehe) ;) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 16:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am now watching your talk page. I always return to old talk anyway. But I am very busy for the next couple of weeks... Be interesting to try to collect and review the history and arguments anyway. I kind of promised someone else I'd do this but it never quite gets to the top of the list... --BozMo talk 16:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. I am busy like crazy too. Well, you know now where to find help. That will make things easier a bit.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 16:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read your message now and (I think) all of the attached discussions. It is interesting but for my money a bit to revolutionary. I cannot fault your logic about what would happen to SEs etc with that route BUT as with all driven-change there is a period of blood-shed, anarchy and uncertainty about which order would emerge at the end of it. It is more likely that we would have 5 years with rubbish search engines than that they would turn in a second and do things differently. Maybe when I see more and more cracks in the ceiling I would join you.. --BozMo talk 10:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me. Happy New Year :). Even though we differ in our ideas how to go about it, are we still having the same goals. Keep that in mind and don't be shy to ask for help if you need it for whatever is up your mind. Since you know Wikipedia a while longer. If you could point me to anything that could be useful for me, that would be great. I am especially interested in means to measure the amount and impact of spam, automated (bots) or manually created. Thanks. Carsten. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Performics

Carsten, this Performics article needs to be overhauled. Can you clear out all the PR sunshine? Make it very neutral and get three solid references to well known sources. I think the article has a better chance of survival if it's small and well referenced. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 22:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jonathan, I added the references because the article was almost flagged for deletion because of "lag of references" and "notability". The same old. The wording needs some trimming down, I agree. It's always a bit hard for me, since I am a marketer and why I consider trimmed down is still seen by others as to promotional hehe. If any extreme phrase jumps right at you go ahead and cut it down. It would help. Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 03:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
okay... radical clean up.. better? See Performics. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 04:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email Marketing and opt in to be merged, No say's Ema Brunton

These are 2 totally different subjects that need to be tackled individually as opt in emails are usually for customers already signed up and have given consent to be contacted, wheras email marketing as a whole has many avenues such as spam, follow up marketing emails, exclusive offer emails, competetions and much more.

You do not have to opt in to anything to recieve marketing emails, even the ones who do not spam.

Thanks

Ema Brunton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.127.20 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

E-mail marketing/Opt-in e-mail advertising

Thank you for merging these two articles. This has been on my TODO list since I added the merge tags. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrs1864 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

on my list was forever the merger of "online marketing" into internet marketing until somebody else came and just did it. I felt that I owe somebody or something for that one and was now able to pay it back ;) cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 14:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* I just notice this: Online advertising. Wrs1864 14:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
shoot.. E-marketing was merged into internet marketing... online marketing not yet.. I am getting old I guess. Okay, your turn! :) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, online marketing has been merged, this is online advertising. Both online advertising and internet marketing have been around for years, apparently without editors of each knowing about the other. Wrs1864 15:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, how much more are there? Online advertising is a subset of internet marketing and could stay as independent article focusing on everything that has to do with display advertising and CPM based Ad buys. Email Marketing/Email advertising is also a subset of Internet Marketing as are affiliate marketing and search engine marketing. PPC advertising , Paid inclusion and search engine optimization are subsets of search engine marketing ... one step at a time I guess.. we are getting there ;) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion at the Internet marketing talk page that might be of interest for you. I think it would be a good idea to have some kind of general plan. I contacted a friend and wikipedia admin to get his advice on how to approach this. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I'm actually an email-person rather than a marketing-person, so I think I'll just watch this. I guess the only thing I can add is that, to my techie understanding, advertising is a subset of marketing. Marketing includes all aspects of selling through a market, including shipping, warehousing, product display, etc., while advertising is the parts involved in calling attention to your product. (yeah, product display can include advertising aspects). This point may be useful for breaking up larger articles or the choice of names. Wrs1864 15:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the Advertising / Marketing definition. Ad, Advertising. Almost evert form of marketing expresses itself in some form of Advertising or to be specific, an Advert or Ad. Good Idea with the breaking things up from the start. The whole thing will go on for a long while anyway. I have (a lot) other things to do as well :) cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Marketing Page

I wouldn't relate what I put up there as a directory. Details and industry evaluations from companies such as Marketing Sherpa, Forrester, JD Power, Jupiter and others are extremely important details, significantly more important than providing the "directory links" to SEMPO which were approved. In an industry with thousands of hucksters and used car salesman, Wikipedia should want to help people with resources to solve their problems. Your decision to remove is really offbase. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tddaly (talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Searsearch engine marketing is a very broad article. Links to forums and other sources are available at the articles to the individual SEM topics e.g. PPC advertising , Paid inclusion and search engine optimization. "Wikipedia should want to help people with resources to solve their problems." Wikipedia is not a service, but a resource. "Your decision to remove is really offbase." removing an affiliate link that would make you about $40 per sale in commission is certainly off-base. A link (without affiliate id) to the MarketingSherpa Homepage might be more appropriate but that remains to be seen. Keep in mind, that not every page that is related to the topic is okay to link to. There are directories for that. Yahoo! and Dmoz are the most common ones, but even a Business.com listing might be appropriate. You might want to check the Wikipedia guides What Wikipedia is not and External links.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 05:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliate Marketing 2

Media:Example.ogg Hi Roy, Oops!! Sorry!! I don't think I had added any link to my website.I was trying to learn how to add hyperlinks in the References section. If you had looked at the change log completely then you might noticed it(addition and deletion). I was trying to learn it and still haven't figured out how to create hyperlinks in references section. Anyway, I will try it after learning it from discussion with other contributors. I am quite new to this and now I realise that you might be receiving a pile of change logs. BTW, I never claimed myself to be a Guru, I choose that name because all other domain names related to affiliate programs were registered already. Cheers

Hey. You might want to checkout the Wikipedia:Sandbox which was created exactly for that. This way is it not necessary to mess around with live articles and "break" something by accident. Btw. I compiled a list of interesting and helpful links to Wipedia related resources at my user page here. Might be worth checking out. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 05:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nofollow on Wikipedia -- finally

FYI:

At Jimbo Wales' directive, all external links within the English language Wikipedia are now coded "nofollow" -- this should help cut spamming immensely once word gets out in the SEO community.

This change was mentioned in the discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Globalwarming awareness2007/SEO world championship -- expect a spam onslaught.

If you pull up any article's source code, you can see this is now in place.

Thanks for fighting the good fight in pushing for this. I'm glad Wales overruled the very naive, foolish consensus against doing this.

If you can, please put the word out within the SEO world. I think many white hats will be pleased and hopefully the gray/black hats will move to something else. --A. B. (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carsten,

Its me Tino. I found you on the Wiki.

Have a Good Day

Tino

Great news. I will blog about it. Thanks for the info Tino. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is It was picked up by Digg.com, but did not make the homepage yet. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 02:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Cumbrowski! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk 23:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I will do that. I appreciate that you recognized my contributions since my last application and accepted my request. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Landingpage.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Landingpage.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carsten,

This is Tino!

I like your posts.

Tino --Added by Anonymous user: 2007-02-02T22:47:04 69.106.185.60

sorry for the delayed response. I double checked the article and re-added the image and removed cleaned some other stuff in the article up while I was at it. It's the Landing page article. Just FYI. Thanks for the note though. I appreciate it. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and SEO

Carste, I tried to post the following comment, but SEJ seems to have a server configuration problem because the submit button isn't working right. Please debug. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 15:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, it worked for me. You had an account there before right? What was the error message? Anyway, I added your comment. See [2] --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 17:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It also must be clarifying. If something is often confused with something else, then it is important to state that it is not and why. Affiliate Marketing for example is often confused with Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) what it is not. To clarify that, a paragraph was added that addresses that misconception. I also don't think that my changes violated NPOV nor am I pushing an agenda, except to provide correct information and fight prejudice and misconception, but that is a good thing, I believe. I have no commercial interest in what is said or not said in the article, because I am not a professional SEO. That was also the reason, why I did not do too much on the article. The changes I made were even obvious to me, who you could consider to be an Amateur or Hobbyist. Since corrections to the article did not happen, did I decide to do it and asked for help with it. I also did add a bunch of reliable sources where they were missing throughout the article, including for the additions I made.
Lets have a look at my comments at the SEO article's talk page and take it from there. Nobody gains anything if we get stuck in a pointless generic debate rather than the specific issues at hand. What do you think? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 17:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

green card renewal

hi i got with my wife in aug 2003, married in dec 2003 and applied for my green card in july 2004, i recived my green card in april 2005 but htne we got divorced in august 2006 now i have to renew my green card in april 2007, i dont have enough documents to prove my marriage was entered in good faith, i was sure that my wife sorry x-wife would come with me to the interview and that it would not be a problem for us to renew my green card. but now i think i have a problem as i dont have enough documents to prove everything. i am trying to see what can be done. ANY SUGGESTIONS ????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.11.57.41 (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would check how long the probation period is and if you are eligible for a green card without the need of a sponsor. It used to be 3 years, but I believe it is less now. What I also don't know is what date starts the trial period. The Wedding Date or the Issue Date of the Green card. Check in that direction and for sure pay an immigration lawyer for an hour or so consulting. Pretty much all of them do that. The $100-$300 or so spent should it be worth to you. You might want to check out my resources page here [3], specifically the resources sites and lawyer info's. I hope that gives you something to work with. Good luck. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 04:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Article:PrimeQ

Hi Cumbrowski, good to meet a more senior Wikipedian. I'm surprised that you contributed to the PrimeQ article without reprimanding them for not citing third-party references.--Simonay 22:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simonay. I did not contribute to the PirmeQ article (which I can't even find anymore). It is possible that I changed the category of the article when I cleaned up the Category:Internet_advertising_and_promotion and created a new sub Category:Advertising_and_Affiliate_Networks where I moved all the networks listed under "Internet_advertising_and_promotion" to. I did not go over every article, because that was not the idea. I might skimmed over it to check for spam, so looking for crappy links rather than for the absence of links :). I contributed to some networks I do know a bit better myself. I heard of PrimeQ, but never did anything with them. You can find the stuff that I do care and watch out for (more or less frequent, whenever time allows me to) at my user page here. If an article is not listed there, then chances are that the edit of it was specific and an immediate reaction to something I saw (like cleaning up a spammers trail through a number of articles etc.). --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cumbrowski, thanks for the feedback. I have censored the Primeq page until one of their employees or supporters cite valid third party references. Thanks for pointing me in the Spam Removal link direction.--Simonay 07:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my pleasure. If it has to do with internet marketing stuff, especially affiliate marketing or search engine marketing, leave me a message and ask. I do that for a while already and also have a personal resources site to those topics. Good for double checking or finding references to sites that have the information. You can consider my site a "hub" although I have also my own content :). Networks for example: Display Advertising and Co-Reg and Affilate and CPA. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with the merger.

As a consultant in this area, it's hard for me to accept that Internet Marketing and Interactive Marketing are similar. One can do Interactive Marketing totally offline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.122.75 (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello anonymous. Thanks for the comment, but I am wondering why you made that comment at my talk page. I already said in the past that I don't agree that Internet Marketing and Interactive Marketing are the same, see Talk:Internet_marketing. That means we agree on that. What made you think otherwise? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Kind request for URGENT HELP with Bus & Econ Wikiproject (non-experts trying to delete)

Dear Wikiproject Member, I beg your help urgently with a mob attack on a Business and Economics Wikiproject page, which was elected to the Business and Economics Wikiproject a few months ago, but which was never touched for edit – yet.

I am writing you as you are a member of the Business and Economics Wikiproject group, as am I. I joined, after the page I created for the agency of which I am Executive Director, was nominated to the Business and Economics Wikiproject page.

I welcome you to please look at the XXXXX Wikipedia page, or more importantly www.xxxxxx.ch/XXXXX/XXXXX_Wikipedia.pdf look at how it WAS, and the WP:ORG rules for non commercial enterprises (which allow for primary references, although these are discouraged). I ask you as economists to please edit the page. [It is a Wikiproject, and it is being deleted HERE by people who aren’t experts. They are gerrymandering the evaluation by taking out the Notability information and to Vanish sticking it on my Usertalk page. It is infuriating, and I got so sick of them, I asked them to just delete it. This is just childishness, and a waste of time, and a tragic one too.

I’m working with several governments here in Geneva, to found XXXXX (done) as an international NGO, to supplant work that isn't able to be done by the UN and WTO. XXXXX may become an international organization, but that takes time, usually about 5 years. XXXXX is an agency for globalization statistics capacity building, education and assistance to developing countries. We are a partner of the UN Capacity Building group and the OECD - I attend all OECD meetings on Trade in Services Statistics in Paris, as well as OECD Globalization Inter-agency task Force meetings, in my capacity as XXXXX ED. Please help me to keep this site up. Please help me put the external links back on the page, that made it sensible. And or edit it to make it useful to economists and laypersons.

In addition to this thuggery, a number of Wikipedia pages I wrote, including Capacity Building, Trade in Services Statistics, and made contributions to many others, and these thugs are deleting the XXXXX reference to them. I spent hours writing these wikipages, which were relevant to the agency I was founding, and which deserves to be in this encyclopedic reference. These non-Experts don’t understand this. Please, help me stop this thuggery. And after this, please work on this page as a wikiproject. It is a worthy cause that deserves attention.

Please go on the page, and look at what it was (which I believe makes sense to experts – Ive got compliments on it from the UN and WTO people - of which I used to be one - former Economic Affairs Officer) and afterwards, please make reasoned edits to the page.

This is an NGO operating in an intergovernmental capacity. It is funded by the French and Swiss Governments, and will be soon by the US government. Please help.

Of course, you are more than welcome to visit the XXXXX Website. If you wish, I hope you will join in to edit this Wikipage, as XXXXX grows, and the work to build greater globalization statistics in the world grows. It really is better if external persons write this page, but my staff aren’t English native speakers, so the task fell on me. I welcome you to please edit and help XXXXX, to educate and build capacity in this fascinating field.

Thanks for your time, and sorry for the interruption.

User talk:Right to Vanish 06:54, 13 April 2006 - (Name of user is same as name of agency - Please not to be confused with the XXXXX Wikipage talk page -)

I looked at the article and discussion and decided to vote Strong Keep. I also provided comments as well as some original sources during the discussion. I recommend that when the AfD request was over turned (what I am sure will happen based on the facts that were provided) that you work in references properly and refer only to valid and verifiable sources. See WP:REF. It is not about quantity, but quality. Keep the tone as neutral as you can, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and NOT a magazine where you can get your sales letter published. Have a friend who is not involved with the organization read it and ask him to point out anything that goes beyond stating of facts on information. Eliminate anything that contains an opinion. Post that to Wikipedia, add a comment to the talk page where you ask for other Editors to review the changes. Check out Wikipedia:Consensus which talks about how to discuss issues regarding an articles content. I hope this helps. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Xxxx Xxxx Xxxx Xxxx

Hi - I see on the AFD for this article, you said The article needs a lot of work, but it seems that the organization is legit. I found tons of references to it on various websites, including universities. Mostly in europe. It seems that the organization, which is around since 1976 was never well organized, which changed last year with the launch of their global database in an attempt to get all the individual groups and activities consolidated.

This organisation has only existed for less than 12 months (since july 2006), so I'm a bit confused of the reference to it being 30 years old? --Fredrick day 09:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I made a mistake and got that wrong. I commented on that and apologized at the AfD discussion. I also tried to explain why that happened. A human excuse, but I elaborated how those things can happen. I am sorry for the time you wasted on this, because of my mistake. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the guy who edited XXXXX has well intentions and only needs the same little guidance and advice that I obviously needed to become a good editor who can contribute a lot to numerous articles with related subjects.

I'm afraid I just don't see that - the use of multiple sock puppets, the presence of meat puppets, the personal attacks, the accusations of stalking, the misrepresentation of policy (after multiple explanations by multiple editors) - it all adds up to a single purpose account who's only interest is ensure that an organisation that they have a prominent role within (as the extensive director) gets an article. With the amount of effort expended, I can only concluded that they have been tasked in an official capacity in doing so. --Fredrick day 13:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I just saw your discussion at User_talk:Cyrus_Andiron#xxxx and asked the question you just answered here :). I left you a more detailed comment at your talk page. Look at their Website . This site looks like a hobby project of a passionate guy who does professionally something else than building websites. I believe that things got out of hand and reasoning has not much to do with what he is doing now. It looks like the desperation of somebody who believes that "wikipedia" is against him, because he (or she) does not understand how Wikipedia works. I left him/her some pieces of advice and also some positive words of appreciation at his/her talk page and hope to get him/her to calm down and think before act. How do you know that it is a she btw? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 13:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand what you are trying to do, and it is admirable. It is important to acclimate people into the policies of Wikipedia. However, I don't think we should save any article just because of an editor's unfamiliarity with procedure. In my opinion, the article should be deleted until some published, notable, non trivial sources can be produced. As I said, there is nothing wrong with taking some time to rewrite the article. If they take a few months, find some sources, and submit an article that is well written and cited, then I'm positive it would be accepted. What is angering many editors is that the members of the company are getting defensive and trying to strong arm their way to salvaging the article. Their approach is part of the problem. --Cyrus Andiron 14:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


How do I know she's a she? Because she's clearly identified herself by her real name by two other sock accounts she had - as far as I can work out, she's been tasked with PR and the like - which is why she seems to be so keen to keep the article up. --Fredrick day 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the name? I would like to do some digging :). Thanks --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 14:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xxxx last person listed --Fredrick day 14:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M stands for XXXXXX. More detailed information . I find references to her in other places, that back up information provided by herself. Stuff like this xxx and xxx . I would say that this is somebody with ambition and passion. What I found only strengthens my opinion stated above to explain the behavior shown by her. BTW. xxxx is non-profit, so "running away" with a couple hundred million dollars like the YouTube founders can be ruled out as intention, I believe. Leaves passion, which is good, if it is not too much, but controllable. It only requires somebody to remind her of that from time to time IMO. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Roy, I saw your comment here [4] reguarding you having found some legitmate sources. Could you please identify them and perhaps add them to the article where appropriate? I went through about 10 of the dozens of links and I felt I read enough to feel this organization is notable enough for inclusion, but i did not identify specific sources I felt should be added to the article. If you found those then please add them to help in this process. Russeasby 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Like User:TonyTheTiger I will change my weak keep to a strong keep if your able to do this. Russeasby 18:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer: If you want to reference a claim, refer to the original source. For example did you refer to this article [5], but this is a re-printed press release without a references source for the press release. Here is the original press release xxxx from 5 April 2007 released via the Business News Wire "Zawya", which was issued because of this article xxxx written by Rabi` al-Awwal and published on Thursday, 5, April, 2007 at[6]

In this case should the article at Arabnews.com be used as reference. It is a week reference to validate your involvements and partnerships, because the article mentions xxxx only on a side node, but some reference (not enough to carry the whole article). The article itself is not about xxxx . Does xxxx has no press coverage that can be found on the internet? Coverage by the independent press or even specialized media in your industry? Did you issue press releases yourself about things you accomplished, that were picked up by a larger and reputable newspaper?

You can validate that you were founded in Geneva, but not even the date xxxx Companies and non-profits in the U.S. have a public record of their creation, which is available online for most states (where companies are founded). Does something like that exist? I am almost certain that is does. Find out and refer to it, if it does.

You certainly have people from your agency attend numerous international events that are relevant for the space you claim to operate in. Is there no reference that actually validates your agencies participation and its role in the accomplishments that were made? There must be. Simple attendence could simply mean that you sent somebody to attend sessions and that sort of things and come back with information, without actually doing something else there. Do you know what I mean?

All what I saw were pages that show that your agency was there or you have a memberlist of a comitee where one person of your organization was a member.

A lot of indirect indications that you probably do what you say you do. Showing what you do and already did (very important) instead of showing that you were probably doing it is much better. You can find those documents, documents were your agency is not the source, better than me or anybody else. Not everything is indexed by Google and even if it is, is it hard to find the really relevant stuff in the pile of noise.

When I referred to strong, I did not mean a "single" reference, but the mass of indirect reference that point into the right direction, but to the from page (figure of speech). With all this indirect reference will I be damned if the real validating references would show that your agency is just the the attache of somebody who does things at those events and projects and that you really just cook coffee and and carry somebodies bags around all day. :)

Do you understand what I am trying to say? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cumbrowski/Archive_3&oldid=1146511281"