Jump to content

User talk:Dan1679/Archive009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help me out here. Explain your rationale for removing the Art The Doorman article external link as linkspam on The Ambassador Hotel article? Thanks. 76.170.239.56 05:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Opinion on article up for deletion

Hey Dan,

could you please give your opinion on this article: [1] ? I think it should be a keep, but i'd like your opinion!

Regards, Joost --Jdevalk 10:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

what if i have a website..

hey thanks for your reply...

i have a website...will it be accepted.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Probuzz (talk • contribs) 07:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC). [reply]

Brickell key image

Gone, thanks. NawlinWiki 01:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Nonviolent Communication

I noticed that you contributed to the Nonviolent Communication article at some time. A friend just recommended NVC to me because I am trying to mediate for Sri Lanka related articles. I really love it - I'm just devouring the eponymous book, but I am still very inexperienced. Moreover, applying the techniques to Wikipedia-style communication has its own challenges. Therefore, I could use some help from people who have more experience with NVC. You could help Wikipedia, Sri Lanka, the nonviolence movement and me greatly by looking at some of my edits and giving me honest feedback on User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC. — Sebastian 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Should I continue to rewrite the prose on the "employee survey" article?

Hello AbsolutDan: I'm very, very new to this, but it seems as though the original author of this article reverted all my edits back to the confusing prose, and that you restored my edits? If so, should I contiue working on the article? When I saw the confusing prose had been restored, I thought I'd just give up (unloved and unwanted, sniff, sniff, hahaha), but I'd love to continue to be helpful. Advice? Soltera 16:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response and encouragement. I'll continue to work on the article. I was mainly having trouble "seeing" how to "read" the history page of articles, as well as my own watchlist. Getting the hang of it, by and by. Soltera 18:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Richardson article

I believe Ben Richardson deserves a brief bio in Wikipedia by virtue of his membership in 'Grady' and his work with Alejandro Escovedo and in film. He was the only member of 'Grady' without a writeup. Macadavy 04:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Macadavy[reply]

Hi Dan: I'm responding here rather in the 'talk' for Ben Richardson as I have met your challenge by deleting his 'unworthy by reason of lack of notability' article. Thanks for teaching this newbie wikipedian a valuable lesson: never 'be bold' by correcting a factual error (Luck, TX = Luckenbach, TX) in a Wikipedia article lest this invite the unwanted attention of a changelog-trolling editor who will promptly challenge the entire original article, even if it has been beneath his notice for nearly two years - count your slapdown of a newbie a success! Macadavy 17:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Macadavy[reply]

Michael Donnelly AfD

Thanks for letting me know, I didn't notice the Trilogy article -- Samir धर्म 00:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thefreelibrary.com article

Hello Dan,

I added a {hangon} tag and a note on the TheFreeLibrary.com talk page. Please let me know if I can be of help.

Sincerely, Steve —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reader001 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC). [reply]

Hey - Sorry about the performance management link. I subsequently found 2 other lists of products that it fits on.

Timventura 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Timventura [reply]

Deletion of articles

I think you have made a mistake deleting articles like recently "pushcasting" or "hollywood-class handsets" I have prepared. Novelties of this kind can be very interesting for significant segments of your audience - in this case people of media industry. Excluding them will mean that you will have only old and obsolete things. Nevertheless, people look to your wikipedia if they are involved in current discussions and hope to find something helping to understand circumstances. Look on example of "MobiTV" in your wikipedia. This is a typical promotional article about a startup in Los Angeles in media industry. There isinformation, which can be truly understand as a crypto advertisement, despite the company is not very successful with what it promotes. On another side, there is nothing about things, which could be interesting for readers: service model, business model, intellectual property, technology. All the things, which make it different in the market place, and can be important for readers interested in things happening in media industry. Dr. Mark Skarbek —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skarbek (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I got your message about sources on my Normandy Village Florida page.

This is all new to me. I have now LINKED the page, and CATEGORIZED the page.

I am working on reformating it to wiki standards. please give me suggestions if you can.

As for Sources.  ? The Village was built in 1957, and I have lived here since 1962. I am about the best SOURCE you could find about the history of the Village.

What do you wish me to do ?


Thanks again for your help. This has been fun I have all this knowledge on the subject, but just need to focus it for you I guess.


Starfleet7 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starfleet7 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Entry on Network Management page.

I added an entry for our NMS solution to a page and it was removed. It was no different then the others. Can you advise why it was removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KKlapproth (talk • contribs) 14:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC). [reply]

Removal of signature

Hello there. Not that I am particularly bothered, but I was wondering why you removed my signature from the prod template of Ken Standfield? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Leadership Development Wiki

Hi Dan,

The link to the Leadership DEvelopment Wiki is not sales of any kind. Simply information for someone interested in the topic. Thanks for your consideration...wiki.centerforleaderdevelopment.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

Sincerely, Scott —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.170.199.24 (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Party article - rainbow parties

Dear AbsolutDan, Why did you choose to revert the addition of the mention of rainbow parties in the Party article? Is there some sort of hidden moral agenda that Wikipedia forces upon its audience? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.185.215.144 (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC). [reply]

ILCP

Dear Dan:

I believe you deleted a stub article I am trying to create on the International League of Conservation Photographers. When a colleague went to find it today to expand on it, she couldn't find it. I had placed a {holdon} tag on it and provided an explanation.

Would you kindly restore it? The ILCP is not spam or self-promotion, it was named one of the top 10 innovations in photography in 2006 by American Photo. see http://www.popphoto.com/inamericanphotomagazine/3524/2006-innovators-conservationism.html

Thanks

Cristina Mittermeier —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cgmittermeier (talk • contribs) 01:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dan:

I believe you deleted a stub article I am trying to create on the International League of Conservation Photographers. When a colleague went to find it today to expand on it, she couldn't find it. I had placed a {holdon} tag on it and provided an explanation.

Would you kindly restore it? The ILCP is not spam or self-promotion, it was named one of the top 10 innovations in photography in 2006 by American Photo. see http://www.popphoto.com/inamericanphotomagazine/3524/2006-innovators-conservationism.html

Thanks

Cristina Mittermeier —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cgmittermeier (talk • contribs) 01:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, please un-redirect to Conservation International. This is a separate organization (run by my husband) and your edits will get me in legal trouble

Thanks

Cristina —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cgmittermeier (talk • contribs) 01:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


DEAR DAN:

YOU MIGHT HAVE GUESSED I AM NEW HERE. I TRULY APPRECIATE THE GUIDANCE AND PROMISE I AM TRYING TO LEARN AS FAST I CAN. I WELCOME YOUR SUGGESTIONS AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ON OTHER ARTICLES.

MANY THANKS

CRISTINA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cgmittermeier (talk • contribs) 16:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advise Dan. I will try to get people who are not affiliated with this organization to expand on the article.

Cristina —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) 20:10, 24 January 2007 Cgmittermeier (UTC)

Howdy

Long time no see! glad to see that you are still alive! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 20:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (I noticed on an AFD). [reply]

References

Nice talking to you on Talk:Leakage. Since that article, and many others alike, lack references, I'd like to ask if it is legitimate to use dictionaries, university reference books or secondary school textbooks as references? Moreover, can we cite other published (internet or written) work of ourselves as references, if any? Please reply to my talk page. Thanks. --Deryck C. 14:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I hope we can work together finding references for the article ^^ --Deryck C. 07:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a number of website and book references onto the article. Have a look and edit if you find necessary. BTW, you said that not all contents of textbooks are factual. I agree with the statement because the vast majority of books contains personal opinions; however the factual part of those books should serve good reference. --Deryck C. 06:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your appreciation! In fact the Leakage article is quite an easy job for reference finding because there are so many definitions online. For the sorcerer lab reference, I think it's good enough a reference already since it is at any rate published material and therefore is not original research. --Deryck C. 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing really "reliable", but at least the website is a proof of non-original reserach. --Deryck C. 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile local search article

Hi AbsolutDan,

I added some links to this article as references - references are clearly needed - then realized after reading the guidelines that they are all commercial sites that fit the definition of spam in the sense that they sell their reports. {{Cleanup-spam}}

I am not associated with any of them, and have no interest in promoting them, but they really are the most credible sources of research and opinion. A casual reader would not consider paying the (often outrageous) prices they ask for their reports, but an industry professional would most likely already subscribe to them and see them as adding credibility to the article.

Should I cut out this section? Just remove the links?

My problem is that I do not know of any public-domain references on this subject that would be considered authoritative. There are some free online magazines, not cited, that often run articles on the subject, but they are advertiser-funded and usually extremely biased - they publish what they are paid to publish. Academia has yet to take notice of MoLo, which is sordidly commercial. The companies like Kelsey, Pierz and Whitaker, which run the big trade shows, are the clearing houses for industry information.

Help!

Aymatth2 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

OR policy etc. again

It appears to me that we are not referring to two different definitions of "original research"; we're just focusing on the two different aspects of the definition: you stress "reputable source"; I stress "unpublished". --Deryck C. 11:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A potential blocking issue

As you may remember, there was a recent blocking incident with Qatar. This was related to the country's ISP sharing a similar IP address.

Well something similar occurs within the NHS Wide Area Network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N3_%28NHS%29

It uses a pool of addresses as an internet gateway (194.176.105.0 - 194.176.105.255). These addresses mask internet browsing for over 1.1 Million potential staff (I think the number using desktops is probably half that).

Any blocking on IP address could cause problems..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.176.105.35 (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC). [reply]

huh?

What are you going on about?

(194.176.105.35 13:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)) [reply]

Why are some external links allowed and not removed while others are removed?

On the employee surveys page, all of those links are to companies that can help a wikipedia reader with his or her surveys. All are links to promote websites.

Why do you keep removing the link I've added to the exact same type of company? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Covelli7 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC). [reply]

NoobJ

This user [2] blanked your warnings to 24.118.235.138 and vandalized Gem Lake, Minnesota. I reverted both. Edward321 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

added citation you asked for

hello. i finally found the citation you asked for about the multi-generational nature of Normandy Village Florida. added it. hope i did it right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starfleet7 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Link on Los Lobos article

The Los Lobos link you removed is the link to the band's site. I don't think that is spam... Mikieminnow 23:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob! Thanks for the quick reply!Mikieminnow 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

 Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words.

I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we?

Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be.

Again, thank you. –Luna Santin

Only a little late! I'm finally getting around to finishing these, I hope. Thanks for your support, back then, and you'll be happy to know that I'm still as active as ever, on RC patrol. :) See you around the wiki. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

PROD

Heheh, encouraging! Thanks ! That's my first prod, unless I've suppressed some memory. I'll go do a few more. We sure have enough rubbish pages to practice on. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC). [reply]

Electric Fantasy's Deletion

You said I could leave a message on your talk page. So why was it removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doublefantasy80 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC). [reply]

Interview with Jimmy Wales considered spam?

Hello,

Thank you very much for pointing my mistakes to me. In some cases I can agree they are true (though not always) but in the Jimmy Wales article I think a link to an interview with him can not be considered irrelevant. An I wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by S Gladkova (talk • contribs) 10:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi. You removed actual academic links (did you visit the links) on Social Science Research Network because you thought they were spam. If you visit the links, you will see they are actual papers that have been presented at conferences and received awards for their respective subjects; I'm not out to make any money off of this nor am I doing it to increase my citations. They are, in fact, relevant to the articles involved... visit the links and read the papers before removing the links. SSRN is a community of academics that make their publications freely available for others. 68.223.56.104 18:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

INSTEON Page

Hi Dan,

Do you have any tips to get the tags removed from the INSTEON page? It's extremely hard to write about it in a neutral way when you firmly believe it's the best technology of its kind. Any input you have would be much appreciated.

Thank you so much,

Trevor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.173.162.2 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 June 2007

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

Signpost portion of this post removed --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me understand why I am not allowed to add a link to CarTech's website. Other publishers listed on Wikipedia do have links to their website(s). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_publishers

Thank you.

recen changes to entry for "business Coaching

Hi Dan,

I notew the recent changes you made to the "business Coaching" entry, after I did a major update on the entry in June. in essence you threw out everything I added to the entry, and I wonder why you did so, I could go back and ammend it all back again and we could go like that forever, depending on who dies first, and that seems somewhat silly. Can we have a chat about it? I figured that my additions and entries were a significant improvement on what was there. regards roland hanekroot feel free to mail me at E-Mail address removed from post so this fellow won't get spammed --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AbsolutDan, I just received a message from you about the fact that I have advertised or something else on a site? I have never been warned of this before (as I don't do it) and so I'm just curious of where you thought I did this. Thanks, Canking 04:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dmoz

Hello. I see your vote at the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_15#Template:Dmoz. I agree with you.

Best regards, nejron (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lean manufacturing

Hi Dan, Long time no hear - glad that you're still active. I see that you had earlier interactions with User:jbillh. His only edits still pertain to this link: Links to Value-adding Lean Resources NOT Available on Wikipedia. He additionally adds claims about "consensus", "established practices" and "conversations with editors", but I see no evidence of such. Before I start treating it as linkspam, I'd appreciate your view. Thanks and a happy New Year. Nelson50T 13:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -good advice. I've taken it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam as you suggest. Meanwhile User:Ronz has taken up the case here, although he's been reverted already. I plan to re-open the debate on the talk page. Cheers! Nelson50T 14:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag on career management

Hi, I just came across the article on career management, which you recently tagged with POV tag. The article definitely needs expansion to better cover the area, and suffers from a limited worldview. I am tagging it with a few other tags (stub, etc.) to try to encourage expansion. It doesn't seem clear what the POV issue is, so I am replacing that tag with the more specific worldview tag. If you think there are other issues that the POV tag will help, please put it back and indicate the problem(s) that need addressing on the article's talk page. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zodon,
I placed the tag there essentially because the entire paragraph following the Ball definition section is in an instructional tone, and heavily based on what can be seen as someone's opinion. My impression is that the paragraph in question is not part of an excerpt from Ball, but instead the contributor's prose. Perhaps tagging it with {{POV}} wasn't the best idea; I'll do now what I should have done, remove the offending paragraph. Regards, --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

national bankrupcy

iceland has been nearly bankrupt, but still not.

it was listed in the german WP from where i made the translation and i felt some of the points from the text apply already, others not, but tecnically speaking IT IS NOT.

the Problem with natonal bankrupcy is, it is a always a temporarily situation, until you have to renegotiate yor debt with the creditor. in iceland case they got money from a third international institution (IMF) to overcome their problems, until....??? does this help? --Stefanbcn (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I was concerned that perhaps if the country hadn't "officially" been declared bankrupt perhaps it shouldn't be listed. I see now that it's not quite so black-and-white. Cheers --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford Meetup: We need your help!

The next Connecticut Wikipedia meetup will take place sometime during April 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please list on the meetup page whether or not you can go. Also please contribute ideas for topics and dates! Hope to see you there!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Frank Lawrenson

Absolutely no problem whatsoever here, on the contrary. §FreeRangeFrog 18:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was totally my next move! §FreeRangeFrog 23:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Overdose Prevention" deserves a separate entry...

AbsolutDan:

No problem whatsoever with linking from an "Overdose Prevention" entry to the actual "Drug Overdose" entry for purposes of definition of that term. That said, there is a general misunderstanding of the statistics regarding overdose deaths and their possible prevention that the "Purple Ribbon" campaign will be addressing. Accordingly, I ask that that "Overdose Prevention" entry be restored.

In the linked-to testimony by Dr. Paulozzi before the Senate, he defines death by "overdose" (rather than "unintentional drug poisoning" or some other more clinical term) as unintentional or accidental, regardless of the legality of the drug, and specifically excluding alcohol poisoning.

Within that testimony he states that, according to the CDC's NCHS, overdose is now the second leading cause of unintentional injury death in the United States, exceeded only by motor vehicle fatalities. There were 22,400 such deaths in 2005.

Further, that the recent increase in deaths is not related to the use of "street drugs", but with prescription opioid analgesic use across many demographics. These deaths increased from 2,900 in 1999 to at least 7,500 in 2004, an increase of 160% in just 5 years. By 2004, opioid painkiller deaths numbered more than the total of deaths involving heroin and cocaine. People in their 40's are the most likely to die with the highest rates concentrating, not in inner cities, but in the more rural Appalachian states, the Southwestern states, and New England.

More people in the 45-54 age group now die of drug overdoses than from traffic crashes. Read that again: more people 45-54 die from drug overdose than from traffic crashes. Almost nobody is aware of this fact.

A number of recent peer-reviewed papers indicate that while the problem is real, nobody knows what is causing it or how to mitigate it.

This is a public health and public education problem just now being addressed by harm reduction professionals. The "Purple Ribbon" has been chosen as the symbol for this developing campaign and restoring the "Overdose Prevention" entry provides a place to post information.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Ron_in_Irvine Ron in irvine (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ron,
I see this is a topic you feel very passionately about. And overdose prevention is a good cause. However, Wikipedia isn't here to promote anything, good or bad, it's here to present facts. I redirected the article you created for a couple reasons: First, there was only one source. All material here must be backed up by reliable sources. After reviewing the source, I determined that it fit better within the scope of the Drug overdose article.
The remainder of the article was not written from a neutral point of view. Again, it's clear this is a topic you feel strongly about. This is actually the reason you should avoid writing about it; Wikipedia discourages those with strong emotional connections with a topic from writing about it, primarily because it's difficult to remain neutral.
That said Drug overdose has plenty of room to grow. If you can add additional (sourced) information, written neutrally, please feel free to add to this article.
Regards, --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Articles for deletion/MojoMojo

Hi AbsolutDan,

Please see the reply to Articles for deletion/MojoMojo on my talk page. We are seeking independent writeups about MojoMojo in specialty journals. Is there a way to keep the page alive in the meantime, perhaps by indicating that it needs more references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 March 2009

Reply to Deleted MojoMojo

Hi AbsolutDan,

I am disappointed to see that you proceeded with deletion in spite of the few external non-related references links provided in the article. I understand the need to scrub wikipedia, and to that end it is my sincere hope that you apply the same standards of notability and speed of deletion to evaluating the plethora of other wiki software pages that you used when deciding to delete MojoMojo. Anything less would seem the height of impropriety indeed. Jayk806 (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, those articles will get their day. If not by me, someone else will eventually. I've already taken a preliminary look at some of the other products the "keepers" mentioned in MojoMojo's AfD and agree that some look non-notable as well, but just wanted to let this mess settle down first before taking any action. Articles that clearly have no RS's I'll probably flag for deletion. Ones that seem to have been written about in RS's, I'll tag with an appropriate "attention needed" maintenance template.
Just for the record, there's only 1 reason that I flagged this article for deletion and not one of others: I stumbled across it on new page patrol (a listing of new pages created within the last 30 days). Had MojoMojo been created 35 days ago and some other wiki article (similarly failing WP:V) was created 29 days ago, that page would be at AfD with my name right at the top like this one. The amount of free time I have to work on this project is limited, unfortunately, so I can't fix them all! Regards, --AbsolutDan (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J Hudson & Co Merge with Acme

Hi Dan... Hope its the right place to discuss.. or write you , I thought it is not a bad idea at all, ( Thanks ) to merge the two but did not want to touch the Acme page since I am new here ,The Acme May well go into the Hudson as a section ,since that was traditionally the name of the company and Acme was one of their trade marks,So hudson should defianetly stand in its own right, but I am not sure.It may well be that they can both have a seperate page since The Hudson page deals more in History and types and the Acme page is really about a currently active company. should propably wait & see what others say.. Kind Regards --Avner Strauss (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avner - thanks for your message. I agree that we should probably wait for others' opinions. From what I've seen, when a company changes names, the newest name is the article retained, with other names redirecting to it. I agree that there's enough history with J Hudson & Co that most or all of that article's contents should live on in one place or the other. Regards, --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dan, I read, would wait a while and then discuss again, and add some info.also I see a citation note on the Acme, would check it agian soon if I can find any,to improve, meanwhisle there is no harm in just linking the two pages or putting some names in Bold letters, or adding a note that one can also see more details, In the Acme about Hudson and Vice versa will check in a week or two. Regards--Avner Strauss (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dan I looked up the matter again, Acme whistles as you can see keeps the name J. Hudson and Co. Ltd (Right hand side of Acme pg. and acme is a registered trade mark So I think the Acme should be moved-merged into Hudson .may be you can do and take offtemplatetemplate. Regards --Avner Strauss (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrims

Hi. In case you didn't notice, one of the pages you tagged, Mayflower: The Pilgrim's Adventure (with the mispunctuation) exists only as a redirect. Not surprising it looks like a stub. Perhaps it's not properly identified as a redirect? If that's a problem, can you fix it? The other page, Mayflower: The Pilgrims' Adventure, on the other hand, was intended (by somebody) to be an article. My involvement was only to correct the mispunctuated page name. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for catching that. I'm using NPWatcher, and this is a bug [3] with redirect pages. Cheers --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That explains it. Thanks! Hertz1888 (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi. I didn't understand what I have to do about Sourp Asdvatzatzna Yegeghetsi, I bought a book about the Armenian churchs in Aleppo that is my source..., so what I have to do to verify it or provide references can you help me. Niceguy90 (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Just like when writing a research paper, all content at Wikipedia needs to have citations for its content. So, basically you just need to add the appropriate citation template for the type of literature you're using. In this case, being that it's a book, you would use the {{cite book}} template. Here's how:
  • Edit the article
  • Next to the portion of the text that the book is a reference for, add the following:
<ref> {{cite book | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | publisher = | date = | location = | pages = | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = }} </ref>
  • Notice how the {{cite book}} template is enclosed with the <ref> opening and </ref> closing tag.
  • Fill in the details of the template. Delete any variables for which you do not have information. For example:
<ref>{{cite book | last = Doe | first = John | title = The John Does of the world | publisher = JohnDoeCo. | date = 2010 | pages = 97-99 | isbn = 0-1234-5678-9}} </ref>
  • Add a ==References== section below the text of the article
  • In the References section, add either <references /> or {{Reflist}}
If you would me to help you further with this process, reply here with all the details you can find for the book (author name, book title, pages used for reference, publisher, isbn of the book, etc) and I will add these details to the article for you. You can also review the following guidelines for more information about adding references:
Best Regards, --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the help I did what you said. But what i'm going to do if there's no book about other article that I created or will create. Best Wishes Niceguy90 (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! If there are no books that can be used as references for other articles, try to find other sources. These can be well-known magazines, newspapers, and sometimes even articles on websites. The key is for the source to be reliable. See WP:RS for more information about what are considered reliable sources.
However, if no reliable sources can be found for a topic, you should avoid creating an article on it. Wikipedia's policy of verifiability (see WP:V) requires that there must be sources for the content of all articles. Articles lacking sources are subject to be challenged (and possibly deleted), so to ensure you don't waste your time creating such an article, be sure to have reliable sources to back it up. If you're unsure if a source is reliable, there's a helpful noticeboard (a message board) where you can ask other editors for their opinion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I hope this helps, --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{user delete}}

Thought you might want to consider adding yourself to Category:Deletionist Wikipedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv (talk • contribs) 03:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MojoMojo ended weeks ago. Let's move on, shall we? --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

balita Alas Singko ng Umaga

Hi!

Somebody just uploaded an episode of Balita Alas Singko ng Umaga on youtube. I'll add the reference as soon as I copy its url. In it, the program logo is seen running, the anchors themselves mentioning their names, the program name, and an invite to tune in to Alas Singko ng Umaga with Julius and Tin-Tin. ABS-CBN Newscenter is seen on top of the anchors, signifying that the program is indeed from ABS-CBN.

Besides, the video itself proves that everything written about Balita Alas Singko ng Umaga in wikipedia is in fact true. As to the legitimacy of the video as an acceptable source, I believe that the one who uploaded the video took it while it was being aired on TV, making the video public property. (Any court will agree, by the way.)


Therefore, the program video clearly shows that Balita Alas Singko ng Umaga is a notable and legitimate news program of ABS-CBN. I don't see any reason why wikipedia won't accept the video as a legitimate and acceptable source.


I would appreciate it if you keep the entry alive until you see the videotape for yourself. Thank you so much for your time.


Danielle1224 (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Danielle,
I have reviewed the video, but unfortunately there seems to be a problem with it; it last for only 1 second, and the images "fast-forward" extremely quickly.
However, even if the video were functional, Youtube is not considered a reliable source. See WP:RS for an explanation of what is considered to be reliable.
Furthermore, even if the news program that mentions Balita Alas Singko ng Umaga could properly be cited (without a Youtube reference), it would be considered a "primary source" (see WP:PRIMARY). According to our Verifiability policy (see WP:V), Wikipedia must rely on non-primary sources for references. In other words, some other source must have covered Balita Alas Singko ng Umaga in some manner.
Be aware, however, that I have only added a "proposed deletion" tag to the article (see WP:PROD). This type of tag can be challenged (removed) by anyone, including yourself. So, if you disagree that it should be deleted, simply remove the entire "prod" tag from the article (everything above "[[Balita Alas Singko ng Umaga]] was the earliest" in the article). I will then probably begin a full "Articles for Deletion" discussion (see WP:AfD), which will allow other editors to express their opinion about the deletion (including yourself), and will last for 5 days (so this will provide more time to find references).
Please let me know if you have any further questions. Regards, --AbsolutDan (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good day!
Please look at the first two youtube.com references I've added. The second source clearly states that the program did exist, with the anchors themselves mentioning the program name.
I'm just curious if you can understand Filipino.
Thanks for your time.
Danielle1224 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Danielle,
I recognize that you are working hard to find sources for this article. Because of your efforts, I will wait at least a few more days before taking any further action on the article. In the meantime, please try to find sources other than Youtube. Youtube is simply not a reliable source of material, no matter what the video is.
To answer your question above, no I don't speak or read Filipino, sorry. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Schools Campaign Deleted Page

Hello,

I just received word that the page I created, Healthy Schools Campaign, was deleted due to copyright violation. I have permission to publish this information, and have sent the appropriate email to the permission inbox provided in my notification message.

Can I get my page reactivated? I don't want to have to create the page all over again and run into the same problem.

Alicmill (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alicea,
While the page was initially deleted due to copyright concerns, copyright wasn't the only issue with the page. Had there not been the copyright concern, the article would have stood for deletion (or at least a tremendous paring-down), as the text does not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (see WP:NPOV). Simply put, it read like an advertisement. This type of material, while perfectly suited for the Healthy Schools Campaign website, is not appropriate for a corresponding Wikipedia article.
Your best bet at this point is truly to rewrite the article in your own words, ensuring that it is written neutrally (stick to the facts). You can use the use the Healthy Schools Campaign website for some basic citations, but also be sure to use independent, reliable sources (see WP:RS) as well, otherwise the article will fail our verifiability policy (see WP:V), which requires 3rd-party sources.
Don't worry about getting it 100% right on the first try, however. Most Wikipedia articles are a constant work in progress. If you focus on finding reliable, 3rd-party sources to back up the contents of the article, and write it factually, the article can start small and grow over time.
I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nye Lavalle & Sports Marketing Group

I see that you have already posted some comments on these articles and I believe you are aware of the conflict of interest that exists here. I invite you to examine the contributions of User:KrissyPope, and of Special:Contributions/TonyPew who also appears to have a COI. There seems to be an obvious pattern here to promote Lavalle and SMG through gratuitous additions to various sports and non-sports articles. I've tried to discuss this with her, but her responses all seem to be long-winded marketing speak and fail to address the problems with the articles. I proposed merging the articles and she removed the tags without explanation. At this point I would support speedy deletion of both articles. Simishag (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that serious COI issues are going on here. I suspect there isn't going to be an easy resolution to this. A merge of the 2 articles followed by a serious trim of the resulting article might be a good compromise. Improper tag removal and promotional edits are probably best handled with the appropriate warnings. I hate writing or even editing existing prose, but I might suck it up this weekend and do some of the cleanup myself. Cheers, --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Possible sockpuppet in User:BizzyBuddie. Restored content about Lavalle to Steve Wilstein almost immediately after I removed it. Simishag (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The edits I am posting are not to advertise Mr. Lavalle and Sports Marketing Group, but to add support to who and what they are and what they researched and reported for non-profit clients I have advised over the years that have been referenced in their research. Except for news stories that the AP and Chronicle of Philanthropy published, they have failed to promote and advertise their reports and are not willing to sell the information since they represent corporations and sports leagues who hoard the info. That's why we have added what we know to the appropriate sites.

Mr. Simishag seems to take exception to many of the findings in sports from his own personal bias' and doesn't seem to think women should be allowed sports. As a part-time contributor to research and sports and cultural marketing courses, I applaud and support good research and have given some students projects with regards to this area of work. I am sure you will see more contributions. If I or they can make it better (we've done interviews and sourced numerous clippings), please advise. I find one person's take on NASCAR and other work interesting and I think Mr. Simishag has taken the debate a bit too far in going around posts we have made on the subject, removing anything associated with the company.

Having gone through Wiki, we have found many obvious adverts and I don't even think they advertise their services much these days. If the sites read like news releases and ads, its because it is an area of marketing, adverting, and promotion as well as the stories are of news articles. If you have suggestions, please advise. The characters and company are interesting, I can assure you. Most recently, for Mr. Lavalle's advocacy efforts, he was sentenced to jail for 20 days and permanently banned from his condominium for sending his condo board an email of NYTImes article and publishing a website critical of his Assoc. (seriously, no kidding, I've read the court orders and transcript he forwarded to friends and colleagues).

I'll try to do more and have the others do as much as we can, but this info is important for not only the sports, cultural and non-profit world, but America since Mr. lavalle has been on a crusade over the past decade neglecting the good work he and his company have done in this area to take on Wall St.

Kris KrissyPope (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kris, it's pretty clear that you're quite passionate about these topics. This is the reason Wikipedia discourages people from writing about topics that they have a close personal connection to; while you see your edits as expressing the facts of the matter, you miss that the tone is full of praise. While much of it is sourced, it is selectively sourced to shine the best light on the topics.
The best advise I can offer is to review WP:NPOV. It has a well written explanation of the tone that articles must be written in. Taking a step back may be a good approach too; these articles exist now, why not let other editors decide how to handle them? Regards, --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to move this discussion to the relevant article talk pages but I must respond to User:KrissyPope on a few points here. First, I have never stated anything even close to "women should [not] be allowed sports" and I don't appreciate being accused of that. Second, my personal bias is not really the issue here; rather, it's what I believe to be KrissyPope's bias and conflict of interest, which she has still not addressed. Third, KrissyPope's view that I am "removing anything associated" with Lavalle/SMG is disingenuous; she has brought this attention upon herself through her pattern of edits. Fourth, we have made plenty of suggestions and I took the time to make a number of edits to the article. Finally, KrissyPope's use of terms like "crusade" and "good work" really doesn't help make a case that she is a disinterested observer. Simishag (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, I'd advise examining other pages of companies in this industry that have virtually no cites and are far more biased than anything written on these pages. I will have my students add more to these other companies and individuals with proper cites. You simply can't ignore a multibillion industry in America that keeps you watching and attending NASCAR or WWE wrestling or whatever floats your individual likes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN_Sports_Poll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Luker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMG_(business) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProServ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marketing_Arm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millsport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doyle_Dane_Bernbach

Mark McCormack was a billionaire and counseled everyone from the Pope to Tiger Woods and virtually every CEO in America. Without money, expertise, and research, there would be no NASCAR. To delete any of these companies or persons would be a tragic mistake. We are not the wiki police deciding what is relevant and what you may not find relevant is very relevant to others. Sports management and marketing classes are majors at many colleges and universities as well as MBA programs in the discipline. If you want to add, edit etc that is fine and what wiki is about, but don't let personal views dictate and cloud your judgments. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&as_q=&as_epq=sports+management+program&as_oq=college+university&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off

Many of the above wiki pages need to be beefed up and cited. We shall do in coming weeks. However, scan any company or person on wiki and I am sure you can criticize any. Few pages have as many cites and references as these pages do and the pages we've edited and added to.

Sports marketing and management are a major part of American business and education see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&as_q=&as_epq=sports+marketing&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&as_q=&as_epq=sports+management&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off

Ignoring the companies and individuals that contributed to this massive worldwide industry would be wrong.

Additional comments. I have read the wiki policies and comments.

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic

I see tons of criticism, but no specific passages, elements or phrasings listed. Sim redid tons on the article. I'd suggest someone go and ID negative info about the company or Lavlle and see what can be added. Am I wrong here? Not trying to argue, but to discuss valid points. Also, anyone is free to report on any additional info. The info is all sourced, cited, and uses extensive quotes from reliable sources that are cited. I have yet to see such a well cited story here. I know I am in a man's world, but come on guys, some specifics as to what is not reliable, not fact, etc. is appropriate I think rather than any personal views or bias, yours or mine, that are all natural in their selection. Some of you all may like blondes over brunettes, small over big, individual sports over team ones... you get my point.

Let's address specifics, rather than personalities and personas.

KrissyPope (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Borgeet

Thanks for your msg. I've added an external link in the article for verification. Plz have a look.--Footage (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Footage,
I did see the external link you added. The reason I reinstated the {{refimprove}} tag is because the article currently only has one source; the "Folklore of Assam" book. Articles should rely on multiple, reliable sources. The external link appears to be one person's website (see [4]), and probably could not be considered a WP:RS. If you can find other reliable sources, feel free to then remove the {{refimprove}} tag again. Best regards, --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link I added is [5], not the one you show me ([6]). It is a site maintained by Govt. of Assam. I'm still confused, you plz advise. With regards --Footage (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these links are from the same website. The link I showed you is to help illustrate that onlinesivasagar.com is a personal website, not an official one. The site is operated by an "Abhijit Borah", not the Government of Assam. Look at the small print at the bottom of both of these pages. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I didn't notice that. Thanks again. I've got another link ([[7]]), will it be fine? Regards --Footage (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I think the new link will help, however what's really needed are what Wikipedia considers "reliable sources"; these have editorial oversight. A rule of thumb to determine a reliable source is: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". These can be other books, published magazines, newspapers, etc. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources & WP:RS can help you determine if a source is considered reliable. Cheers, --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So can I remove the {{refimprove}} tag now? --Footage (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not just yet, india9.com is not clearly a reliable source. So, right now the article has only one confirmed reliable source - the book. If you can find another book, magazine, newspaper or similar, I think the tag could then be removed. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Absolute Dan,

Good day!

The link I added in the University of San Carlos page was not in any form of vandalism (FYI) and that the link was a good resource (and verified since I am a Cebuano and an alumnus of USC) of old pictures of the University so as the site can be more appreciated by the readers.

I tried to embed the file so as not to post links but to no avail since those wonderful pictures of the old Colegio de San Carlos (Now University of San Carlos) was copyrighted by the owners of the blog site/pictures.

The first picture shows the then Colegio de San Carlos (University of San Carlos) at the old Martires St. site (now M.J. Cuenco) prior to being moved to its present site along P. del Rosario St.

The succeeding pictures shows the post WW-II University of San Carlos buildings at P. del Rosario St.

Thanks!

Erik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.248.138 (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erik,
I removed the link primarily for three reasons: first, the site is a blog, which are rarely considered to be reliable sources of information (information of any kind). Second, the text that was added to the article: "Click on the link, University of San Carlos: old and new photos" isn't appropriate for the text of an article. Lastly, we try at Wikipedia to limit our reliance upon external links. One reason for this is that Wikipedia content is intended for use in many different mediums, including print. In a print version of University of San Carlos, the external link would, of course, not be very helpful to the reader.
Because of this last point, the idea is to incorporate as much material as possible into the article itself. Are there other photos available that could be properly uploaded to Wikipedia? That would be the best way to improve this article. If the photos at this link are the best out there, perhaps you could contact the website owner and ask him/her to release his photos in a license appropriate for Wikipedia. You may find that the owner would be happy to share his work with our project!
The reason I marked the latest addition as vandalism was that I had already removed the link with a "soft" explanation of "rv - blogs not reliable sources" - thus indicating the proper reason for removal. I'm glad you chose to send me a message after the 2nd removal so that we could have this discussion. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Regards, --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lava lle and Sports marketing Group

Added the following in discussion. Also, I apologize for placing in archive, since I didn't know where to place.

Gentlemen, I'd advise examining other pages of companies in this industry that have virtually no cites and are far more biased than anything written on these pages. I will have my students add more to these other companies and individuals with proper cites. You simply can't ignore a multibillion industry in America that keeps you watching and attending NASCAR or WWE wrestling or whatever floats your individual likes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN_Sports_Poll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Luker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMG_(business) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProServ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marketing_Arm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millsport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doyle_Dane_Bernbach Mark McCormack was a billionaire and counseled everyone from the Pope to Tiger Woods and virtually every CEO in America. Without money, expertise, and research, there would be no NASCAR. To delete any of these companies or persons would be a tragic mistake. We are not the wiki police deciding what is relevant and what you may not find relevant is very relevant to others. Sports management and marketing classes are majors at many colleges and universities as well as MBA programs in the discipline. If you want to add, edit etc that is fine and what wiki is about, but don't let personal views dictate and cloud your judgments. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&as_q=&as_epq=sports+management+program&as_oq=college+university&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off Many of the above wiki pages need to be beefed up and cited. We shall do in coming weeks. However, scan any company or person on wiki and I am sure you can criticize any. Few pages have as many cites and references as these pages do and the pages we've edited and added to. Sports marketing and management are a major part of American business and education see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&as_q=&as_epq=sports+marketing&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&as_q=&as_epq=sports+management&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off Ignoring the companies and individuals that contributed to this massive worldwide industry would be wrong. Additional comments. I have read the wiki policies and comments. Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic I see tons of criticism, but no specific passages, elements or phrasings listed. Sim redid tons on the article. I'd suggest someone go and ID negative info about the company or Lavlle and see what can be added. Am I wrong here? Not trying to argue, but to discuss valid points. Also, anyone is free to report on any additional info. The info is all sourced, cited, and uses extensive quotes from reliable sources that are cited. I have yet to see such a well cited story here. I know I am in a man's world, but come on guys, some specifics as to what is not reliable, not fact, etc. is appropriate I think rather than any personal views or bias, yours or mine, that are all natural in their selection. Some of you all may like blondes over brunettes, small over big, individual sports over team ones... you get my point. Let's address specifics, rather than personalities and personas. KrissyPope (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing article Katja Rahlwes

Hello Absolutdan
I edited and added some references and sources to the article Katja Rahlwes Could you tell me what you think of this new edit ? Do you think we can get rid of the article issues banners ?
Thanks a lot
Lake Lakehunter09 (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakehunter09 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lakehunter,
Thank you for finding some sources for the article. These are a good start. However, they all seem to be what Wikipedia considers to be "trivial" mentions; in other words, none of them seem to discuss Katja in any significant detail. Most seem to be taglines to photos indicating that Katja is the photographer. In order for an article to be properly sourced, there needs to be more in-depth writing about Katja in reliable sources. I have changed the "unreferenced" to "refimprove", indicating now that it needs additional sources. The "notability" tag should remain as well, again due to the lack of more concrete sources. The remainder, "wikify" and "cleanup" indicate that there is some formatting-related work that needs to be done on the article.
Good work so far! Keep looking for more sources, and let me know if you find any that you'd like me to review. Cheers, --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Absolutdan,
I added this link Interview with Katja Rahlwes to the article, as you asked me to find informations with more significant details. Let me know what you think of it .Thanks !
Lakehunter09 (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lakehunter,
I think that link is a good find. Can you add in the interview as a reference like the other ones listed? I have removed the "notability" tag. If you can find other references that discuss Katja in more detail I think the article will be in much better shape and we can look at removing the "refimprove" tag. Keep up the good work! --AbsolutDan (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:162.127.108.221

Can you please take care of this IP? I am not going to tolerate further vandalism to the Caribbean hermit crab article. There were six revisions I had to revert from this IP after you warned him. Thank you! ZooFari 22:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm flattered by your assumption that I'm an admin and able to block, alas I am not. However, I posted a report at WP:AIV, and an admin quickly blocked the account for 1 week. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Cheers, --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: University of San Carlos Notable Alumni

Hi Absolute Dan!

Good day!

I would like to request that the list of the the University's Notable Alumni be spared momentarily from reversion due to i.e. vandalism, unverified information etc.

I am still in the process of providing supporting information to those people listed as a notable alumnus/alumna.

The people listed as a notable alumni, have made significant contributions in the Cebu Province and the Philippines as a whole. Sadly some of them have not made it to a Wikipedia Article.

Please remove me also from the black listed IP address' since the IP I am using is a shared IP address.

Thanks!

Erik Ect31673 (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erik,
I appreciate your attempts to improve the University of San Carlos‎ article. However the list of notable alumni actually should be trimmed down, not expanded; here at Wikipedia, we try to avoid having long lists like this one inside of an article. If you are able to find citations for any of the other entries I've removed, feel free to re-add them, but keep in mind that if the list grows too much, we may need to look into splitting it off into its own list article.
Don't worry about "losing" those entries that I removed; if you ever need to look at the list from before I removed it, simply click on the History tab. The history of an article can show you exactly how an article looked at any point in the past. You can use this history to easily copy+paste entries that I removed, once you've found citations for them. See Help:Page history for more info on using the history tab.
Now, regarding the blacklist, is your IP 125.60.248.138? If so, it has not been blacklisted nor blocked yet, so there should be no reason that you cannot edit the University of San Carlos article. However, I did notice that one of the links on the University of San Carlos article was instead triggering the spam filter notice. This is different from blocking an account or IP - the way this works is that if the filter detects that a page contains a link that is on the blacklist, the link has to be removed before future edits to the page can be made. The message begins with "The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You will need to remove any instance of the blacklisted link in your text addition before you can save the page."
Is this the message that you saw? If so, I have removed the offending links (wiki.alumni.net/wiki/Asia/Philippines/Cebu/Cebu_City/University_of_San_Carlos/ and www.uscifsc.co.cc), so you should be able to edit again. Now that you've created a user account though, I highly recommend editing only with the account (i.e. editing while logged in). This will help distinguish your edits from those of others using the IP, so any vandalism by them can be separated from any non-vandalism edits you make.
I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Absolute Dan. If ever the list expands further, I'll create a separate sub-article. Ok, thanks so much for your help! I'll keep in touch!

ErikEct31673 (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to say "Ouch!" here. In light of User talk:AbsolutDan/Archive009#Borgeet it's a pity that you didn't spot at the time that the text was a straight word-for-word sentence-for-sentence copy of the source cited. We could have been saved a month's worth of further copyright violations. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Block feedback requested. Uncle G (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear (read) of your (and others') lost time cleaning up after this fellow. My focus was only on the Borgeet article, I did not look at his contributions to other articles. Furthermore, it was around the time of the last discussion I had with him (03:44, 5 April 2009), that I looked at any of the external links. At the time, the article was in much different shape; not any obvious copyvios that I can see. Looks like he started copy-pasting in earnest afterwards, and since there hadn't been any glaring problems when I last compared, I didn't track his edits as closely as someone with more time than I might have. Again, sorry about your woes, and believe me, I would've done/said something had I noticed! What are your plans for Borgeet now?--AbsolutDan (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Parade Community Building

I'm sorry, but I was not responsible for this article. You can check out what I did for the article - they don't require citations. Thank you. DORC (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AbsolutDan, we are trying to complete articles on every library in Template:Singapore NLB libraries. I don't know what you are trying to do, but repeatedly redirecting it to Marine Parade Community Building is extremely unhelpful. Are you going to redirect library@esplanade to Esplanade - Theatres on the Bay, for instance? Or Paris Ris National Library to White Sands Shopping Centre? Furthermore, calling an editor a vandal when you clearly do not understand the rationale of his or her action is extremely unhelpful. DORC (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should consider why I redirected in the first place. "They don't require sources"? On the contrary, each article at Wikipedia absolutely requires references. Don't believe me? Read WP:V. This is not a content dispute, this is you adding unsourced material to WP. Your example library@esplanade has sources, so no that would not necessarily need to be redirected. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The correct way to do this is to put a tag {{Unreferenced}} at the article's head, so that other editors can help. You don't have to delete or redirect every article without sourced references. Also, it takes time sometimes to find the right sources, so rather than deleting them at whim, please let the articles stay for a couple of weeks.
These are the two edits I made to the article Marine Parade Community Building. [8] and [9]. I do not know why you need citations. Please explain why citations are needed. Thanks. DORC (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the unreferenced tag is one way to handle such situations. Bringing the article up for deletion is another. The third, which makes sense when the material is already covered in another article like this one is, is to redirect to that broader article.
Just because an article is connected to another does not free it from the burden of needing sources. Everything should be sourced, and if there's duplicate material, it should be sourced twice.
However, bear in mind that in a situation like this, if Marine Parade Community Library article does not provide additional (sourced) material that isn't already covered in Marine Parade Community Building, there is no justification for it being its own article. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Marine Parade Community Library or Marine Parade Community Building? DORC (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks. DORC (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that the "child" article (library) needs to provide unique, sourced information - unique in that it's not already covered in the "parent" article (building).
Yes, my comments above are to-the-point, but are you suggesting that I am not being civil? I'd have to disagree there, but do feel free to report me if you feel I am violating WP:CIVIL or any other WP policy. Speaking of violating policies though, and I apologize if I am incorrect, but is this [10] edit and this account yours? Seems awful suspicious (and Cunard seems to agree) that this account would be dormant for almost 2 years, and then suddenly out of the blue mirrors your actions on the article. Again, my apologies if this is truly just coincidence, but if that was you, make sure you take a look at WP:SOCK. --AbsolutDan (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secretary-General of the European Court of Auditors

I removed the template comment because the only authoritative source in this case is the Court itself; secondary references by definition cannot contradict a decision of the Court, otherwise they will be false. Also, most the Secretary-General do not have any references. But if you have any suggestions, please let me know. --Carrasco (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:V. Articles must have 3rd-party sources. If such sources are not available, the article should not exist. These sources do not need to be authoritative (as far as the court is concerned), they only need to be reliable (as far as Wikipedia is concerned). Do not remove the maintenance template from the article unless the required sources are added.
If there are other sources that lack 3rd-party sources, these should be tagged or corrected as well. --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AbsolutDan

we work on getting brazilian photographers on wikipedia. (if you check it up you will find that there very few on wikipedia compared to their importance worldwide). this is our college project. how can we improve on the work we have done so far? why does this seem to be an autobiography to you? we just used all the information he provided us with. please help us. warm greeting from Brazil, Mana and Roberta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudio edinger (talk • contribs) 21:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AbsolutDan,


We did a lot of changes at Claudio Edinger page, Could you see them and if is possible take out the warning messages, please. Thank You, Mariana and Roberta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudio edinger (talk • contribs) 19:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

http://www.dotcult.com/Why_Wikipedia_sucks

http://www.dotcult.com/Why_Wikipedia_sucks

Do you have an answer for the man?

Are you protecting a site that you have an interest in?

Conflict of interest here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.49.18 (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're a little behind the times, friend. And no, I don't make it a habit of discussing my edits outside of Wikipedia, especially with someone who was here to promote his own site, and who doesn't have his facts straight. Cheers. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summer of Sonnic may not be deleted

I have added references to this article and it meets all of Wikipedias standards. I ask you kindly NOT to delete this as I have spent a lot of time researching the Sumer of Sonic and would be most upset if it was deleted. If there is anything else that needs doing to it please fix it or tell me what needs fixing and I will see to it. please reply quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamsDreams (talk • contribs) 17:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the article for speedy deletion because, at the time, it was in the same condition it was prior to the last deletion (lacking in sources). The source you added changes matters, however: the article still needs additional sources for verifiability purposes, but it no longer meets the criteria for speedy deletion. I've removed the tag and will change/add to the maintenance templates accordingly. Cheers, --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits to Stardust (magazine)

Hi AbsolutDan

Thanks for your comments on my Talk page. However, I am not sure specifically which details you are suggesting I have added that do not have verifiable sources.

I saw the portions you removed. As far as I remember, I have only rearranged and reformatted those portions (i.e. made more readable), not added them. I think they were added by the user Deerlike. That can be verified from the history of the page.

As for references, I usually do add them when I add content myself, but certainly there may be exceptions. I will check again if I have added anything anywhere that isn't verifiable externally.

Regards

Vijay Padiyar (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vijay,
Thank you for your message. I have taken a closer look, and you are right; I did not catch that the edit in question was merely a reorganization of existing data. I apologize for the incorrect warning message on your talk page. I will strike it out shortly. Cheers --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AbsolutDan, no worries! Enjoy your vacation...Vijay Padiyar (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Nullsoft.

Why'd you revert it? I'm not new to Wiki by any means. Do I need to provide a reference? The only way to know for sure is to download Winamp to check the tagline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.218.225 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 4 July 2009

Simple enough: it did not list a reliable source. Simply providing a link to where the software can be downloaded is not considered an appropriate reference. If someone else (again, a RS) hasn't written about it, then we should not have it here. Verifiability takes precedence over truth. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dan1679/Archive009&oldid=1083950092"