User talk:Dancter/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Cloud computing

Thanks for your help with cloud computing. I have warned User:75.41.52.92 about 3RR. samj (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

... and speedied the offending page. samj (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Dancter for your edits on the Jay Winsten bio page. Am searching for the ref. for the Columbia Journalism Review citation, but the publication is not available online as far back as 1985. In the meantime, I've inserted a different ref.

Prof756 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof756 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There's still some work to be done. I'm trying to preserve some balance to the coverage, so please keep that in mind if you find I removed something that you added. If possible, I'll probably reincorporate the information somewhere, like I did with the link you added for the National Mentoring Month article. I appreciate the attention you're bringing to the designated driver article, which is definitely in need of some work. Thanks, and happy editing! Dancter (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll work some more on the designated driver page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof756 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections to the designated driver article. I changed the statement in the Jay Winsten article back to refer to the Columbia Journalism Review. I trust that the information is correct and that a citation will be provided soon. The other ref just didn't seem noteworthy. Dancter (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The IssueBrief provides independent confirmation; the other paper is by the principal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof756 (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it qualifies as that, but I'll leave it be. Dancter (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why delete the citation of the mentoring campaign's impact, when comparable citations for Designated Driver and Squash It are left intact? Leaves the impression that there's no evidence of effectiveness of the mentoring campaign. Prof756 (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it seemed to be referring to mentoring-related media efforts in general, rather than making a particular statement on the effectiveness of the Harvard Mentoring Project's campaign. Dancter (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

About the Navizon edit

Hi Dancter. Thanks for the edit on the Navizon page. When I wrote it, I didn't know if I applied the rules of Wikipedia correctly. Apparently, I need to make some changes as you suggested. I know that new technology can sound like news but this one is not so new. I'll try to review the article this month. Regards, Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexhagiage (talk • contribs) 00:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

New articles are usually somewhat rough, so this isn't unusual. I wouldn't get hung up on the word "news". It's more of a mildly promotional tone, like in a press release, particularly in the "Community" section. Dancter (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Social network service

Thanks, Dancter for the edits and providing to me the reference page that you had. kirdes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirdes (talk • contribs) 04:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Switchboard as a service

FYI I have nominated this article for deletion. samj (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Manhunt 3

[1] Dancter (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2008 Dancter (UTC)

This is my reference of explanation of edit of Manhunt 2 revolving Manhunt 3

'After the relative flop of Manhunt 2, (don't get me wrong it is a brilliant game just the graphics are way to last gen and were put on the wrong consoles) Rockstar North and Rockstar Games games are considering not annouceing (bare this in mind with the controversy with Manhunt 2) making a new version of the controversial video game with next gen graphics and gameplay, to be released on the Xbox 360, PS3 and PC (after rockstar shot them selfs in the head by making it on the Wii and the god awfully dated *cough* PS2) nothings been done yet but keep your fingers crossed and you MIGHT just have Manhunt 3 on your PS3 or 360!' this is the reference i used to support my claim. Thankyou Mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A post in a forum is hardly ever a reliable source, especially one that is self-published by an individual of little repute on a lower-tier website. And please post your comment in the article's talk page, as I have asked you before. Dancter (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

agree on mahunt 3

Ok fair enough, hopefully some more new news will come soon though. Mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop replying here. How many times do I have to repeat myself? And don't add information to Wikipedia articles without appropriate sourcing. Dancter (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Littlebigplanetscreen814 screen.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Littlebigplanetscreen814 screen.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Rollback request

I inadvertantly behaved in a sock puppet like manner, by reverting a change in an article that I was recently in an edit war on, which resulted in a 24 hour block for violating the 3R rule. I inadvertantly used another account to rv Crishomingtong, Archaic d00d is the name of my other account.

I like to find editors who are POV pushing and argue with them and make articles verifiable, but use different accounts so I don't have enemies following me. Unfortunately I forgot which account I was using when I reverted the other editor, so it looks like I'm trying to use sock puppets.

here are the changes I'd like you to roll backhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yao_Ming&diff=241273381&oldid=241268379 ThanksZzmang (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

nsdfnaskjfhadsfhdklasfj

fasdfhsdafjhfasdfjhdaskjfhsdfjhsdfjhsdfjhafjadfhaskjfhklsdhfdchcjhafhwdjcnasjdhkcjnhdjcrncibhasdjfhsdjcbsdcjdschsdkfvjhsdvjnasdvjhdfjhawekjbciuobnasdfhkjasdhcjkbfriufhsdjvbsiudhfjwesdbfvrgfqweoihfkjsadfhiulweghfuefheuirhfirufhruhuiah,,,dsl;f,sd/a,f..adas./sfa<,as.fd/SA,f.dfsa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.194.34 (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Richboy: as witty as he ever was. Dancter (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Does "Richboy" do this alot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.255.9.47 (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your World Wired

Hey, you keep on editing my revisions and additions to pages. I wrote those things based on my knowledge from my website. For the Blackberry Storm, I took information from my website article and if you'd take a look, you'd see my wording is just like that. Why can't you respect that I have something to add, and I have the right to reference my site since it provides accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squash.Star (talk • contribs) 01:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LINKSTOAVOID item #11: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority". Yourworldwired.com seems to be a fairly new and obscure blog site, and neither it nor any of its authors seem to meet the standard of "recognized authority", at least at this time. As for the Blackberry Storm text, some of it was redundant with other text already in the Wikipedia article. Also, not all Blackberry phones have been world phones. None of the useful information seemed to be original or unique to your website. It was not hard at all to reference the same essential information with articles from sites that are more established as reliable sources. If you disagree with my assessment, then you can certainly start a discussion in the articles' talk pages, and get some more opinions. Dancter (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Survivors Trust Wiki page

Dancter, I noticed that you have placed some tags on a page I started (the Survivors Trust). I wondered if you would be willing to suggest ways I can improve the page as I am quite new to Wikipedia and would appreciate some guidance to improve the page if there is something wrong with it. I have tried to be as objective as possible and to incorporate valid citations to external sources where possible (including UK Government Home Office and media sources) in the article to justify/ validate what I wrote so am not quite sure where I'm going wrong.

Many thanks. AbigailTST (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the {{newsrelease}} tag because I thought the page read less like an encyclopedia article than an "About Us" page, except without first-person pronouns. As for the notability issue, none of the links to secondary sources provide what is considered significant coverage, per the guideline. Regarding the citations, the best one in article is the one to "Victims Care" page. A few months ago, I discussed a similar issue with Stuart Foster of BCC Research regarding his article. It did get cleaned up, in which much of the original content was trimmed significantly. I admit that I probably won't be very useful to you in helping you improve your article, but perhaps you could use John Broughton's edits to the BCC Research article as an example. Dancter (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have made some changes to the article and am doing my best to improve it by removing items and adding in extra external citations. Could you let me know what you think as I'd like to continue to improve the article and would appreciate any help where possible. Thanks. AbigailTST 15:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the belated reply. I'm not really available to help right now. I think it'd be okay to remove the tags in the meantime. There's not much point in having them if noone else is editing. Dancter (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Freespace controllers

Thanks for your work on the uWand and Wand and freespace controller pages, Dancter. I didn't find out about your desire to remove them until now, but I understand your reasoning and sorry I couldn't engage in a dialogue earlier about keeping them in a timely fashion before they were removed. Do versions of these pages still exist somewhere? I don't remember what they actually contained. Question: Is there a role in referencing and providing a wikipedia home for community-maintained information about specific patents? Wondering if that's encyclopedic enough. Disclosure: I'm the inventor of the Wand device, though I have nothing to do with uWand, which I was just editing/updating for general information in this space. Freespace controller is a term I encountered and liked, especially since it specifies a class of controller which is otherwise unnamed. If there's any existing name for these devices I'd use that, and in the absence of such a name it seemed important to unify these things somehow. Cefn (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You can probably check the Internet Archive for old copies:

• freespace controller at the Wayback Machine (archive index)
• uWand at the Wayback Machine (archive index)
• Wand (freespace controller) at the Wayback Machine (archive index)

You could also try looking up key phrases on a search engine. As for community-maintained information on specific patents, unless the character of coverage of the subject is such that an encyclopedic article could be developed (a standard which is described somewhat at Wikipedia:Notability), a place like WikiPatents would probably be a better fit. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be much help to you at the moment, as I tend to be busy this time of year. Dancter (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Pennsylvania & Ohio Public Health Training Center

Hi, I noted that you added tags to a page (POPHTC) I created. I read through the text/your comments and agree. I've since rewritten it. Please tell me what you think. I'm fairly new to contributing to Wikipedia and still getting the hang of things. Cphp (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's much improved. I regret being unavailable to provide any further assistance at this time, but you can probably remove the {{advert}} tag, as well as the {{hangon}} tag (as far as I can tell, the article was never marked for deletion, and such action was never discussed). Dancter (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Global Prescience Wiki page

Hi Dancter, changes have been made to the globla prescience page and hopefully it is improved? I would appreciate your feedback and am also wondering if it is possible to remove earlier references to deletion etc. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by A126049l (talk • contribs) 18:59, 20 November 2008

Yes, the page has improved somewhat on the things pointed out in the article's talk page, fixing the few specific examples I pointed out, but the underlying issues remain. The main problem is that it's just not written to be an encyclopedia article. This is reflected throughout, in content, style, and structure. It features an epigraph, uses an overly informal style ("those who think seriously about the future", "seemingly infinite", "baffling", and "obviously"), makes self-references ("we suggest", "our attempt", "we seek to advance"), and expresses judgments ("what is clear", what "attention needs to be drawn to", what "is important", what is "critical"). In addition, it doesn't appear that any of the sources cited cover the subject directly. I would suggest reviewing the material linked to in the banners, as well as the general notability guideline. To be candid, I don't think it is possible at this time to cover the subject in a manner that satisfies Wikipedia guidelines, and still think the page is better suited at another Wikimedia project, such as Wikiversity or Wikibooks. As for the possibility of deletion, given that I am pretty busy right now, and the transwiki request is still stalled, I don't think you have anything to worry about for a while. Dancter (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

G-Con

A tag has been placed on G-Con, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Eeekster (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Gracias

For saving us the click :) phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 08:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Deathtrap3000 removed the hatnote. It doesn't matter that much to me, but I just thought you should know. Dancter (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Good catch. I've warned the user (uw-coi) and prodded the Mobile Cloud Banking article. -- samj _in^out 19:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, Dancter

I think you are being dictatorial and indiscriminate in your editing and deletions. There are many links on here that are commercial sites, trying to sell something, and even some other personal web sites, and they are not deleted. I put a personal web site with educational material only and it is continually deleted by you. This is not fair, and I really think one person such as yourself should not be able to have so much power on this site.

Dovereg (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC).

The relevant content for Thomas Chatterton consists of one poem, fully redundant with the other, more comprehensive links. The site features only a passing mention of Leigh Hunt. You listed your site under vegetarianism and Pisa, and you're saying I'm being indiscriminate in my editing? I did cite relevant guidelines as a reason for deletion. If you wish, you can open up a discussion in the article talk pages to solicit input from other editors. Maybe they will support retaining the links. Dancter (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem?

I don't really get why you keep deleting our link on Regina's page, we are Regina José Galindo's gallery, we represent her and deal with public and private institution on her behalf, who are you? Prometeogallery —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC).

Check again. I never actually deleted the link. Dancter (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, as a general rule, links that are only indirectly related to the article subject are discouraged. There doesn't seem to be a way to link directly to the relevant content on your site, but the artists page was close enough. Dancter (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros.

I thought about just giving you a warning template for this. Wii Sports is officially the best selling game of all time now using data from Nintendo itself. To be frank here, the burden of proof is on your end to show that Wii Sports is not better selling. It's pretty much moot anyways since Wii Sports sold 10 million copies in the last 3 months and since the Wii shows no signs of slowing down I think it's safe to assume that Wii Sports will be at least 45 million when Nintendo's next financial report comes out (in late April). TJ Spyke 19:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you would even think of templating a regular for what was obviously a good-faith edit from someone who understands the relevant guidelines and policies, notably WP:SYN. First of all, why is the burden on me? You didn't add a citation to the article. I have not seen any direct claims by Nintendo or any other reputable source that Wii Sports has become the best-selling game of all time yet, official or unofficial. If there are, let me know, and I will concede the issue without further incident. From what I see, the number you provided for Super Mario Bros. is years old, and can't possibly include Virtual Console sales, which certainly would make up the currently small margin you're basing the change on. If Wii Sports has taken the top spot, I'm sure Nintendo would make some statement to that effect, and it would be a big milestone. That hasn't happened yet, to my knowledge. Dancter (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletions

Dear Dancter,

We have noticed that you have removed a lot of the links to Learn and Serve America's National Service-Learning Clearinghouse (NSLC) that have recently been added. NSLC is a federally funded non-profit organization, funded by the federal agency The Corporation for National and Community Service. These links were directly related to the pages that they were added to, were not attempting to sell, promote, or mislead, and provided Wikipedia users links to explore further information related to these topic. It would be greatly appreciated if you would stop deleting these resources and to allow Wikipedia users the opportunity to choose to follow these links on their own or not.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdewey (talk • contribs) 18:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And I have noticed that you have been skewing the link lists so that your site is listed first, even if the focus of your site is tangential to the given subject. The links focus on the subjects in the narrower context of service learning. Please review the guidelines I indicated in some of my edit summaries. In addition, please do not link to non-existent Wikipedia articles in "See also" sections. You are always free to discuss your links in the talk pages for the articles you wish to add them to. Thank you. Dancter (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As a new contributor to Wikipedia I was not aware that added links at the top was any more inappropriate than added them at the bottom. If that warrants your decision to delete these resources, I suppose there is nothing that can be done about that. However, the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse, which is funded by Congress to support youth service (and contains a library and thousands of pages on youth service and service-learning as well as staff providing free training and technical service to those engaged in youth service programs) is not 'tangentially' related to youth service, so it does seem inappropriate to delete this link. I believe this is the case with many of the other pages. Jdewey (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete every instance of link additions. I did retain the link at character education. Usually when so many links are added in a short span of time, if the activity is suspicious, it is just easier to squelch it first, and then go back. I had explained the indirect connection of your link to the subject of the citizenship article, but it was re-added without addressing my comment. I am currently in the process of reviewing each of the articles, and may re-add your links to several of them. I'm probably going to re-add your link to after-school activity, along with a couple other links. I understand that you believe in the value of your links, but everyone does. Dancter (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dancter,

I saw you removed the link Personal Information Management, this is a nice web based personal information management system and I think it is the next generation of PIM compared to old windows based PIMs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.117.146.148 (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the section is not for promoting or advertising the next big product. Dancter (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ᛗᛁᚾ ᛗᚩᛏᚢᛝᛏᚱᚪᛗᛖᛏ

ᚦᚢ ᚻᚹᛇᚱᚠᚩᛞᛖ ᛗᛁᚾ ᛋᛈᚱᚫᚳ ᚠᚱᚪᛗ ᛗᛁᚾᚢᛗ ᛗᚩᛏᚢᛝᛏᚱᚪᛗᛖᛏᛖ, ᚦᛠᚻ ᛒᛁᚦ ᚻᛁᛏ ᛗᛁᚾᛖ. ᚻᚹᚣ? — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I accidentally rolled back one of your edits, then reverted it back to remedy the issue. That is all. I should note that it is not good practice to use anything other than modern English on the talk pages here. If you continue to do so, it may be considered disruptive editing. Dancter (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Social network service

Thx. For these edits. You beat me to it by a millisecond;-) And thanks in general for keeping an eye on this article. I tend to give up, it's such a honeypot for spam. Bellagio99 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Megan McArdle

the page is a resume of someone who's sole distinction is that they are a blogger for the atlantic. Working for the atlantic and the economist do not solely satisfy notability requirements. As a journalist being cited by other journalists is not sufficient either. The only viable argument for notability is that she has come up with jane's law "The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane." Aside from the fact that this proposition is in no way enlightening, the irrelevance of the "term jane's" law is demonstrated by the result of googling it: the only site mentioning it is the author's own. Consequently, if notability standards are expanded to include this subject I do not see how anybody else that is employed by a reputable publication and has an online presence can be considered not notable. Rybkin (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I never argued that she was notable, and in fact retained the notability tag. Regardless of whether she actually meets notability standards, some claim of importance, however valid, was made. Thus, I did not feel it qualified for speedy deletion under criterion A7. As I noted in my edit summary for my recent edit to the article's talk page, it is possible that the article may qualify for speedy deletion through {{db-repost}} (criterion G4). Given that I am unfamiliar with the content of the article that was ruled upon in the previous deletion discussion, I could not determine that. Perhaps the reviewing administrator could. There are a number of avenues for deletion other than {{db-person}} which you are welcome try, such as proposed deletion or articles for deletion. Dancter (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on the other options. 76.94.217.119 (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)