User talk:Haakon/Archive2

my-boi

please reconsider your vote against my-boi i think it is very important since it made national attention in the media, read the article on james barnett the 18-yo who was expelled from his conservative high school for creating the website. the website will soon be joined with xy.com an even more noteworthy website with millions of registered users somthing that makes it very notable, i think this is premature. why did you vote for delete? Qrc2006 21:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the AfD page, my reason is WP:BIO. I don't think an expulsion makes someone notable. Unfortunately, lots of gays still get expelled from various organisations for inane reasons. Haakon 10:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

of course an expulsion doesnt make someone notable but if its for biggoted reason such as homophobia and makes national headlines i think it does, just like a murder doesnt make somthing notable as hundreds of thousands of people are murdered a year, but say Mathew Shepard or Andy "Gwen" Araujo who were murdered for being gay/trans and it makes headlines that makes them notable. perhaps an article that compiles differant cases of students being expelled for being gay or one people expelled for being gay in the u.s. or somthing Qrc2006 23:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments of others on the nomination page; I second them. Fragmenting the debate across user pages of those you disagree with is counterproductive and bad form, in my opinion. Haakon 17:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical changes!

Sorry about the grammatical changes script thing i made, i only have a basic knowledge of javascript and I think it showed. Nice to see you noticed my spelling contributions though! -- JiMoTh Y^TALK 17:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing my links!

Why do you remove my links from the obfuscation code? It's related to the article (my link points to the x86 assembler obfuscator), what's wrong with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelock (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:EL for the purpose of external links in Wikipedia. It is not a link directory like DMOZ. --Haakon 15:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sha1 decoder

I added the link to sha1 decoder at the SHA-1 article yet again... Only this time I also took the time to populate the database and the tool now searches more than 1,500,000 distinct text-sha1 hash pairs, which I believe turns it into a quite useful tool...

Freenet controversy

Isn't it normal to inform in an encyclopaedia that freenet is more 'underground' and 'unrespectable' that it seems to be, unlike most p2p networks like ed2k and fastrack, and that it's a bit unfit to describe it as the third generation p2p networks?SamiKaero 11:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RainbowCrack

Maybe one link (http://rainbowcrack.com) should be returned to the article about RainbowCrack program? It's the world biggest project using RainbowCrack software, and is the best demonstration of RainbowCrack potential. --Alexey Petrov 00:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps a link to rainbowcrack.com could be appropriate, if it really is a notable project in the field. We should be careful to avoid turning the section into a spamfest where spammers argue "site X is there, so I want my site Y there". --Haakon 18:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my comment regarding linux as kernel not operating system?

I added a comment to the discussion page of linux. you removed my comment without reason, why is this? the comment was titled Linux is a kernel not an operating system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.147.132.80 (talk • contribs)

I did not remove it; I moved it to the bottom. It is customary on talk pages to add new comments to the bottom, not the top. The comment is still there. Similarly, I'm moving this comment to the bottom of this talk page :-) --Haakon 18:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music licensing

Am curious about your remark regarding this article being "unencyclopedic." Since I started the article and wrote about 95% of what has remained there, I'm a little concerned; I really see nothing that would make it "more encyclopedic," and I notice that nobody has made any effort to make the article "more encyclopedic" in spite of these criticisms. Generally, criticism is most helpful when it is accompanied by suggestions for improvement.-- lowgenius -- My Talk Page 02:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not explaining; I will in Talk:Music licensing. --Haakon 08:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

abilitynet

You keep removing the information that I paste up about ITCH and I can't understand why. This is a voluntary organisation which provides FREE computer help for disabled people in the UK. I am trying to help them to make more disabled people more aware of this free facility. I thought Wikipedia was a worldwide information source. I'm confused now as to what constitutes a valid entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abilitynet (talk • contribs)

I have explained in my edit summaries. I'm sure ITCH is a great initiative, but Wikipedia is not a place for promoting services. There are notability guidelines for inclusion, which should be followed even if your cause for promoting is noble. --Haakon 08:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply Haakon. I've checked the notibility guidelines but I'm still a bit confused. I've seen other organisations promoting their services, some of them commercial, so I'm at a loss to understand why ITCH can't. I'm new to wikipedia, so please treat me gently :¬) Abilitynet 09:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any promotion of a non-notable service is unwanted. Just because someone has managed to slip some in, in spite of Wikipedia guidelines, does not mean everyone should be able to. We will deal with the others when we see them :-) --Haakon 12:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spamfighting

heys, thanks for getting rid of the imbisibol spam. i noticed it on del.icio.us and went to delete their other crap, but you were there already! grrr, stealing my fun! ;) Dreamyshade 21:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Media Technologies Corporation

AMTC is a legitimate competitor to all of the business music vendors out there. Every one of the articles contains a list of competitors; you have been deleting AMTC's official site from this list without cause. External links are less preferable to Wikipedia links but they ARE valid to use on WP. Please stop removing legitimate content. Your edits creates bias in articles by omitting a major player in the industry while allowing other competitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaedenStormes (talk • contribs)

External links do not belong in "See also" sections, which are for internal links to other articles which the reader may also be interested in reading. Neither does you link belong under External links; Wikipedia is not a link directory. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. --Haakon 18:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a link directory, but neither is it acceptable that valid facts are omitted from an article because there isn't a full article on the topic. There are external links on almost every page in Wikipedia; it will take you quite some time to delete them all.

I don't know who nominated you my personal cop, but you're really beginning to annoy. You're making changes which change the facts of the articles I'm posting, having no understanding whatsoever what you're doing, because you think it's spam to add a fact. You think it's spamming to add a company whose name starts with A to the top of an alphabetical list. Seriously, chill out.

The list was not in alphabetical order [1], but you assumed an internal structure that was not obvious. I made it clearer now. I'm sorry if I've annoyed you; you don't seem terribly bad although you come here representing a company :-) --Haakon 19:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And once again... If you're going to annoint yourself the cop of the music sections of Wikipedia, why not read more carefully? Muzak isn't a music genre either, but it's listed in that category... Seriously, are you just watchlisting everything I do so you can screw with it?

"The word "Muzak" has, in popular usage, broken free from its corporate parent and become a catchall (often pejorative) for easy listening, MOR, or elevator music—indeed, become an epithet for banal, derivative, or repetitive music." Muzak is very often used to describe a musical genre, so I think this categorisation is fair. However, nobody means a musical genre when they say "Applied Media Technologies Corporation"; that would be absurd. --Haakon 19:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was cleared last night by several other wikipedians. Can you please explain who better than the company itself is an authority to describe a product, and who else I should be citing? Everything I claim in the article is a verifiable fact and can be seen so by looking at the pages I've referenced.

Isuzu lists a ton of facts with no references, let alone verifiable ones on the company's site, and doesn't have a big glaring bullshit billboard. Ditto for Trusonic, Nationwide Insurance, and probably half the rest of Wikipedia. Likewise, you're also discounting the SIRIUS website, which is clearly the authority on who their partners are and are not.

AMTC is not a multibillion-dollar company. Their products haven't been reviewed by Gizmodo and they aren't written about in the Wall Street Journal. That shouldn't deny them the ability to be listed in Wikipedia, and it shouldn't force them to have to have this badge of distrust on their article, because you can't read about what they do on 5000 other websites.

I don't understand what your vendetta against this article is, but I'm really getting tired of wasting my time trying to convince you to focus on the other 2.2 million WP pages and stop chasing me around with a can of whitewash trying to eliminate everything I post about a legitimate corporation.

You're willing to take a blog as a reference, but not two respected, international corporations. I think your thoughts on the matter are a bit skewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaedenStormes (talk • contribs)

The corporations themselves are primary sources, and citing them constitues original research. Wikipedia references should be secondary sources. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more on this. No, blogs are usually not reliable sources. Just because nobody has dealt with such a citing yet, does not mean it's acceptable. --Haakon 14:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we agree that AMTC is not a valid source, SIRIUS is a second party in this. What I want to know, and nobody seems to be willing to say, is simply, who could I possibly list as a source? Who do you want to tell you this information is true, besides going right to the horse's mouth with it? If nobody has reviewed the service or substantially covered it in the news (there are press releases all over, but you'd likely delete those too because they blaspheme the internet by mentioning the name of the corporation - they must be totally unreliable despite being picked up by such publications as the New York Times) then what, should the article be decried as useless or unreliable for all time because no primary source that doesn't meet your narrow-minded judgement exists? Why is it that of all the Wikipedians out there, you get to make this determination and nobody else gets to change it? The article was fine by Bill.matthews and e1ven who changed it last night, but still you come in as the self-proclaimed paladin of Wikipedia policy, despite everyone else thinking it's OK, and now I guess you get the right to call AMTC's facts a pile of bullshit for all eternity because you're the great and powerful Haakon. What now, is the company to spend a ton of money getting listed in every publication on earth in order to satisfy your narrow opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaedenStormes (talk • contribs)

Press coverage by reputable publications would be good references for this article. But fine, if you, who after all have several days of Wikipedia experience, think AMTC should be exempt from Wikipedia's official verifiability policy, I won't lay down substantial resources in arguing against you. --Haakon 15:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to take a look at Reel Sound Productions - I dont know what the proper WP thing to do about it is, but its content is almost entirely cut and paste from the Music on hold article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaedenStormes (talk • contribs)

Am I now disallowed from even removing content I create? I take it you're now the sole proprietor of Wikipedia, and all content on it is yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaedenStormes (talk • contribs)

Past discussion is only removed in very special cases. Most people archive it instead, and that does not make them sole proprietors of Wikipedia. --Haakon 16:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamago

I'm new to Wikipedia editing so perhaps I don't know the ropes. I believe you are the one that kicked Tamago off the P2P list. Please go to www.tamago.us and see what tamago is about. I wrote a piece on tamago and that also has dissappeared. Yes, the Tamago P2P network is from a company called oddly enough Tamago (a California Corporation) so I guess that's advertising but then so are 90% of the rest of the P2Ps on the list. So what's so different about Tamago. It is the first (and I believe only) P2P system that is a true e-commerce system. Please check it out.

If you are not the one that deleted Tamago, my apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feierbach (talk • contribs)

I did remove your listing of Tamago in Peer-to-peer, as you can tell by clicking the history tab. The list of peer-to-peer software in that article is already very long, and it should not be made even longer by non-notable entries. Please do not take that as an insult; it does not mean that Tamago is not great and useful software. Likewise, Quarl deleted your article on Tamago by the same non-notability reason, as you can see by the deletion log. I thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, but please also be aware that Wikipedia should not be used for mere awareness raising. --Haakon 11:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Mills

I am Zach Mills' mother. I am new to these boards but it looked like you may have been the person who started my son's (Zach Mills') profile. ? If that is the case, I don't know how you got all of the personal information but I deleted it, and I am respectfully requesting that you do NOT post it again. I understand that we are in show business, not the witness protection program but if you think about it, most people don't want to broadcast their personal information. A person could easily learn our address based on the information that I deleted. I am not comfortable with that. I hope you understand. My apologies if I am mistaken. I know someone could have edited your post.

I did start the article on Zach Mills, after which it looked like this. Some fans have apparently added information which is not only personal, but completely irrelevant in an encyclopedia article on Zach. I support your removing of it, and I will watch the article more closely in the future. Thank you for your understanding. --Haakon 20:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If notice is taken of the stage name entry (and examples like Nicolas Cage illustrate this), it will be seen that notable persons such as actors do indeed sacrifice a certain level of anonymity as a result of their public visibility; inclusion of individuals' real names are not an inappropriate level of content. Furthermore, the interest in such public figures logically extends outward to family--something to keep in mind. As the subject's agent, no doubt Ms. Mills is well aware of the many avenues available to her to afford protection from the public attention the rising success her son's career will bring. As seen in examples like Britney Spears and others, fans of a public figure, particularly in the entertainment industry, seek out information, and the logical pathway ahead for an actor of Zach's quality has far more personal revelations in store as the press takes a greater interests, and fans piece together a more complete biography. As for the facts regarding his older brothers, his mother/agent herself posted this information on the IMDb Biography site, where only a bit of digging (http://www.countingdown.com/movies/3555753/news?item_id=3734948 and others) was necessary to substantiate key elements. --76.188.86.41--

(*note Saying someone has brothers, is NOT nearly the same as posting their unusual last name.)

Image:ZackMills.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ZackMills.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Rossrs 03:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chiquita Brands International Article

Hello Haakon, I've started a discussion regarding NPOV on the Chiquita Brands International article. —Cliffb 03:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video blog article

Hey,

There's a lot of editing and contributions going on in the video blog article. Just thought I'd invite you to take a look at what's going on. Feel free to comment or contribute in anyway. Pdelongchamp 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2010 could be coming to Stockholm!

I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.

People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 07:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Diet and food fads

I have nominated Category:Diet and food fads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Sticky Parkin 16:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music licensing

You removed a link, but left other similar ones in. The ones above do the same thing, so why did they stay in?72.227.190.218 (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not have the time for a complete cleanup of the article at that time, but it needed it badly, so I cleaned it up now. Thanks for the heads up. Haakon (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DMOZ external link in Chatterbots page

Dear Haakon,

This is about the chatterbot page. I'm Erwin Van Lun, the founder of Chatbots.org, an independent platform for chatterbot developers worldwide.

Last weeks we have had a fight on adding the DMOZ entry. I have removed it several times and it seems that you're adding it again.

The DMOZ page is totally out of date. Richard Wallace, inventor of AIML, maintained this page. The latest changes were made in 2006. He lost his password but DMOZ does not reply on his password requests. This page still contains nowadays 80% links to pages that do not exist anymore or are totally out-of-date. Check them out yourself!

The result is that this link in your Wiki entry is totally ridiculous. You could better remove the link totally. I still like to suggest to add Chatbots, as this is really an independent body with lots of relevant content for your visitors. Much more than 95% of the links on the DMOZ page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erwinvanlun (talk • contribs) 23:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are:

* You have a self-interest in chatbots.org being the link used. If it's going to be added, it should be done by disinterested third-parties. You (and I suppose you also are User:86.91.205.93) are using Wikipedia solely to promote your website. This is abuse.

* We use dmoz because it's impartial. Your site is not unique, and will attract other self-promoters, and the links will pile on.

It's unfortunate that the dmoz node is not updated, but that should be fixable and temporary. If you still insist that chatbots.org should be added, please discuss this on the article's talk page, where a consensus for or against can be established. Thanks! Haakon (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP Address

BOY! y u rvrt my edit to ip address??! IT WAS PERFECTLY GOOD EDIT! 98.207.41.105 (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it in the edit summary. No harm was intended. Haakon (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mail forwarding

Hey. Seems like the issue isn't over; care to leave your opinion there? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks for the heads up. Haakon (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just asked an administrator to delete the list and protect the page. Please help me. Thank you. --Algorithme (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haakon, before carrying out your agenda I believe you could do with looking up the definition of consensus. When there is no 100% consensus you should veer on the side of caution. The burden of proof should lie with the person who wishes to delete, not the other way round. 78.86.124.181 (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "burden of proof" should lie on the person wanting to revise Wikipedia's policies. Haakon (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

UltraMagnus (talk) has given you a pie! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{subst:Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for protecting my user page from vandals --UltraMagnus (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Requirements management

I understand the premise of not editing comments in general. In this case, the article itself points readers to a list in the discussion page making that list an extension of the article. Shouldn't that list be kept updated and accurate? IBM now owns Doors, Artifact Software is now workspace.com, so this list is no longer accurate. I will not touch the list again, but if you agree with my logic please make these edits to the list. Dvansant (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, you should add your own list in reply, and maintain that. I can see that you act in good faith, however, and I'm not involved with the article, so I'll leave it to those who are. Haakon (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obsessive Commerical CDN deletions by Haakon.....

While I respect your efforts removing ‘Spam Links’ I also find it frustrating that even if the links are omitted the entry is still deleted, which leads me to believe that your intent is malice as that confirms it is not the links you are targeting rather the content. I fail to understand why certain entries are permitted and others are denied and yes we’ve tried to add in content and references that seem to get deleted as fast as they are entered. There are more than 5 CDNs on earth and controlling the list of CDNs to a select few is anti-competitive. As WIKI is the No 1 result in Google searches for the term CDN it seems unjust to manage the list of commercial CDNs in the manner you are doing. Sure you are not making money on the side doing SEO? I also could not help to notice the 11 articles you manage lack significance. Being a fellow Norwegian I fail to see the relevance of ‘Hardanger Sunnhordlandske Dampskipsselskap’ in the sense of WIKI – it’s a bus line, just as is the commercial CDN I wish to include in the appropriate section of the CDN page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.226.30 (talk • contribs)

Topics covered by Wikipedia have to be notable. It's an encyclopedia, and not a marketing channel. I am attempting to enforce this; please don't assume ill faith. You are welcome to question the notability of any of the articles I have created in the proper channels. By the way, as a fellow Norwegian (with a Canadian IP address), I am sure you are aware that HSD is much more than a bus line. Haakon (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy!Software LLC is NOT spam

This is just a neutral introduction page for a company, quite a lot of users are currently using the commercial and non-commercial free software from this company. I created this page with reference to wikipedia's existing ones, such as below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workspace.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasoft —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence-yang (talk • contribs) 18:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply at Talk:Easy!Software LLC. Haakon (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HAAKON

sorry to bother,

I would like to know what you would recommend to do in this case: I have an article depicting Mysterious Universe Podcast and its online fraud case which has been properly researched but there is an administrator that consistently protects the podcaster. Currently the article is schedule for deletion and the user Destroholmes has made almost all decisions by himself. What do I have to do to bring more administrators to evaluate this article? Do you have any idea in terms of what I should do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.195 (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When an article has been deleted, you can request a deletion review. If you think an administrator is behaving inappropriately, I suppose you can report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Note that I'm not familiar with this case at all, and there are most likely good reasons for deleting the article. Haakon (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JollysFastVNC

Hi, I've seen that you removed any appaerance of JollysFastVNC from the english wikipedia lately. Can you tell me why? I'm using it for a few years now and I've to say that it is a pretty major and stable VNC client. Even more than the Chicken client, which you did not remove. So by what measurement did you judge? Thanks for letting me know --JensKohl (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from see also sections because the article was deleted, again because it was deemed non-notable. See the consensus about this. I also removed it from Comparison of remote desktop software for notability reasons -- you will notice that all other products in the list have articles. Haakon (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

okidoki

Hi. I added a search engine on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines and you removed it saying "(rv redlink, see comment in source: "Please do not add weblinks or examples which do not have Wikipedia articles")". I was creating that page while you removed it. If you think it was advertising or something like that, you may leave it like that. I just want to state that I don't have personally nothing to do with that search engine, the company or the people who created it. I am just proud that they are Romanians (like me) and wanted to have it there in the list. Have a good day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calusarul (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for disrupting your work, but I would say that the right order would be to create the article, and then add links to it on various pages afterwards. I did not mean to imply that you were advertising. Good luck, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Haakon (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. I'm not very good at editing. As simple as it is, it's pretty dificult for me to work on wikipedia. I am well intended, but not always succeed. Thanks for your concern and help (honestly, I'm not being sarcastic) Calusarul (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you probably won't like me for nominating your article for deletion, but it's my honest judgment. Haakon (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No news here, I had already hated you for editing my stuff :P No problem, I'll edit the article tomorrow, put more stuff in it and maybe I'll save it. I'm tired now, but I'll be back tomorrow afternoon Calusarul (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DiscoverRoute93.com external links

Dear Sir,

You keep removing my links. If the site is not appropriate, then I demand you remove all DesertUSA.com links, for they are similar to discoverroute93.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.62.55 (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to do that yourself. I don't have time right now, and I see there are many of them. Please note that other stuff existing doesn't mean you can promote any particular website on Wikipedia. Thanks. Haakon (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

I have my eye on the Pet Loss article, and I saw you removed the spam link. Thank you. I have more work to do on it, but little things like that make Wikipedia a nice place to edit. :)--Boweneer (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. I started watching the article because I noticed its attraction to spammers. I don't have any expertise or even particular interest in the subject, so while reverting spam may have some value, the real value comes from the work people like you do. :-) Haakon (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RationalPlan page

Hi there,

 Noticed your proposal for deleting RationalPlan page ("Non-notable software product" - you say ). Could you please more precise here ? I mean ...

1 - there are at least 2 independent "top ten - desktop project management" where RationalPlan is mentioned

http://project-management-software-review.toptenreviews.com/index.html http://www.isoftwarereviews.com/project-management-software-reviews/

2 RationalPlan is rather a new product (is started about 1.5 years ago); taking it out of wiki might prevent it from getting spread. As part of RationalPlan team I can say that large companies are considering RationalPlan viewer (one of the few free MS Project viewers available), one of the top-ten banks of the world are considering RationalPlan as a replacement for MS Project for the entire company, etc (can't provide names on confidentiality reasons yet)

3 independent Project Managers are considering RationalPlan as being a top PM product (see for example http://www.brighthub.com/office/project-management/articles/37218.aspx)

4 There were also articles about RationalPlan in PM Network Magazine, MacFormat Magazine, PC World Magazine, PC Plus Magazine, etc, its just that some of them were visible to subscribers only while some might be over one year old ...

Is also listed in Apple site: http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/business_finance/rationalplanmultiproject.html (so they considered it notable enough to list it on their site ...)

In the end, even accepting your idea that is "Non-notable software product" (which I really don't understand), it looks like some people (some of them , project managers) find it as a valuable/notable .. This page on wiki is not an advertisement but just a short description of one the PM tools available on the market today. So where is the problem actually ? Because it looks like only a handful of products might get the advantage of being listed on wiki Where is the difference between RationalPlan page on wiki and let's say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OmniPlan, just to name one of a list of hundred of similar products

 Thanks  194.102.135.133 (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the replies you got on your identical posting on User talk:SkyBon. If you think RationalPlan is notable, please demonstrate so in the article by citing proper references, or argue the case in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RationalPlan, which is where the deletion discussion should take place. If you want to argue that Wikipedia should cover less notable companies, please work through Wikipedia's processes to change the policy. Haakon (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice SkyBon asked me to mention notable site and he provided an example ("If you mentioned sites like ZDNet or Engadget that would make difference"); Product is already listed on ZDNet and I responded him by indicating the link - So product might be listed on several notable sites, it's only that I didn't know which are notable for you ...

The Viewer is also listed on twocows but again, would that notable ? I only answered each delete-commenter because that seems a fair thing to do before proceeding to change the article (since I'm not sure I understand your criteria); I only thought that is the place to answer, if not please let me know.

  Thanks194.102.135.133 (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]