Jump to content

User talk:Kilopi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Blocked

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Jayron32 04:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kilopi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that this is a username violation and suspected as much when I created it. I don't expect to be allowed to edit under that name again. However, all of my edits were to remove stale vandalism. I would not have been blocked if I made them as an anon and I would like to continue to be able to revert vandalism anonymously. I'm requesting the hardblock be replaced with a softblock. Per UAAI: "Usernames that are clearly unacceptable for use on Wikipedia, but have no obvious disruptive editing may be blocked indefinitely, however you should allow the blocked user to create a new username. To do this, un-tick both the "Prevent account creation" and the "Autoblock any IP addresses used" boxes in the block form. This is usually called a 'soft block'." The sockpuppet allegation is wholly unfounded. I have made maybe 100 or so edits from various IP addresses over about the last year, mostly vandalism fixes similar to the ones made under this account. I have no other accounts, blocked or unblocked, and have not been blocked for any edits I made anonymously.

Decline reason:

May I suggest using {{unblock-un|<new name here>}} to request that this account be renamed? It'll allow you to keep the edits you've made under this account and use it once more. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 07:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Kilopi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Accept reason:

Allowing username change to requested username. Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me anticipate and answer some likely questions in advance:

Why did you register such an unpleasant username?

I had been happily reading and editing without registering at all until the "upgrade" to vector made the site much less usable. If I had to register in order to set user preferences, I figured it didn't matter what name I chose and went with my feelings. The name represents a frustration with some of Wikipedia's politics and culture, not a desire to damage the encyclopedia itself.

Why wait 16 months to request this? / What have you done during that time?

I discovered the autoblock had already expired (I still say I should have never been autoblocked at all, but given my username, I understand and forgive the paranoia) and that I could login to the blocked account to read in monobook and log out to edit. Inconvenient, but only mildly so, and I considered it preferable to the alternatives. I didn't consider this block evasion since the only (valid) reason for the block was a username violation and my IP addresses were not offensive. I probably made about 1000 edits since the block. None of those edits were vandalism and many of them were to repair vandalism. Upon request, I can provide the reviewing admin a partial list of IPs I've edited under.
Today, while attempting to remove the last exlink on Glasses, I triggered an autoblock. I don't know what changed, maybe a bug got fixed, but it is interfering with my ability to use this blocked account as I have been. I'm willing to change to a non-abusive username if it will resolve this. WuckFikipedia (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
You are aware, of course, that because you knew you - as a person - were blocked since May 2010, editing anonymously is considered to be evading a valid block ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Um.dvd.ripper

Please don't request speedy deletion of user talk pages, even if they are promotional. It's better just to remove the promotional content. If the user talk page gets deleted, so does the notice of why it was going to be speedy deleted and all the other notices that have been given to the user. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I knew that talk pages generally weren't deleted, but when I saw it, it had never been used as a talk page. I didn't think it through enough to realize that by using TW to G11 it, it was about to become a legitimate, deletion-proof, talk page. Lesson learned, and I'll do it as you suggest above next time I see one of those. Kilopi (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC) need to do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.22.50 (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Relpy to question about sockpuppetry

Hello, Kilopi. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JamesBWatson (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Category:Western swing musical groups with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited The Consumerist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page March Madness (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Materials article sources

Hi, You request additional sources for Materials (journal) . However, in this case indexing by established journal databases with a high acceptance treshhold (Science Citation Index Expanded only accepts journals that have been published for several years and have accomplished a considerable outreach) serves as reference verifying Materials as an established scientific journal. See as an example a similar journal by the same publishing house: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health with the same references.

Apologies, I made a mistake there. I should have noticed that Materials (journal) already exists and has since 2010. You may edit that page directly without going through AfC. Kilopi (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Seething With Anger

In wikipedia, there have been accepted articles with no citing at all, yet I had 7 resources. Articles have used pdf files they made as references and been accepted, but I used the actual throium rush website, which was made by the creators of the game, and i even included their website! But you declined my article! I had help from a super experienced wikipedian, but you turned it down! You said not good references, but the actual website, actual company page and actual wiki was in my article? If you said because it is not notable enough it would have made more sense! T really want answers as this makes me angry. The Answer To 42... (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources were all to either Thorium Rush's website, wiki, or Facebook page, so they were considered self-published or unreliable. In order to show notability, the game must have been covered by an independent source, such as a review in a magazine. As your submission indicates the game is still in beta, it's possible that high-quality independent sources don't exist yet, but will once the main version is released. Kilopi (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine.The Answer To 42... (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Articles for creation/Bailey Kennedy

On the site that you refer me to, the instructions state this: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." We have several of those listed and many more that can be included.

"All content must be verifiable." There are links throughout the page that verify what is written.

"Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." There are several links to separate wikipedia articles in this article that are unrelated to the organization, but are services that are provided.

"Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published" 100% of our external references have been published.

" If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists" On this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Independent_sources, Wikipedia gives guidelines for the types of references that are considered "independent" for businesses: Newspaper, magazine, government agency.

All of our references are from either Newspaper, magazine, government agency except the ones that link to other Wikipedia pages. The only internal references are to biographies of the notable lawyers (which has been approved in SEVERAL other wikipedia articles) and there is a link to the website.

What types of references do you feel are missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahthorntonpr (talk • contribs) 17:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for a source (or preferably sources) that meet the criteria at WP:42, significant coverage of Bailey Kennedy, from independent and reliable sources. Analysis of the sources:
  • 1. "Full list of practice areas". Bailey Kennedy Law Firm.
    Self-published, therefore not independent and doesn't demonstrate notability.
  • 2 - 4, 6. "Super Lawyers Website". ; "Best Companies in the State of Nevada in 2008". Nevada Business Magazine. ; "Inc 500 List Law Firm List, 2011". ; "U.S. News' report on the best law firms in America"
    Not significant. Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. Examples of the latter include the Fortune 500 or a Michelin Guide to restaurants.
  • 5. "NBJ's Legal Elite Story". Nevada Business Journal.
    Used to justify, "In 2011, Bailey Kennedy was featured in Nevada Business Journal's Legal Elite", a patent falsehood. Source does not feature anything, and doesn't even mention Bailey Kennedy as a firm; it lists two of its attorneys in a list of 98 other attorneys from southern NV. (Incidentally, misrepresenting a source like this makes me skeptical of everything else on the page.)
  • 7, 9. "Biography on John Bailey" ; "Biography on Dennis Kennedy"
    Self published, so not independent. Also notability is not inherited from a partner to the firm.
  • 8. "Report from the Nevada State Athletic Commission"
    Wikipedia mirror, not reliable. Mentions Bailey (briefly), but not Bailey Kennedy, so not significant.
  • 10. "Dennis Kennedy Recognized By Chambers USA For 8th Consecutive Year"
    Press release from Bailey Kennedy, so not independent. Also only about Kennedy, not Bailey Kennedy, so not significant coverage about the firm.
  • 11. "Las Vegas Golf Course Dispute"
    Not significant. Says nothing at all about Bailey Kennedy. Says about Kennedy only that he didn't return a reporter's phone call.

These are not the sort of sources that can be used to support a quality, neutral, encyclopedia article. If you have any quality sources, use them. Reliance on low-quality sources, and a gross misrepresentation of one of them, make me suspect that this law firm is simply not notable enough for a Wikipedia article at this time. Kilopi (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

AFC submission

Hey you pinged me about an AFC submission, which wasn't mine. I resubmitted it as a help desk request from User:Juliahuiemartin. Although the article has mainly been edited by IPs, its likely the same user, so it might be best to drop another talk page message for them. All the best, France3470 (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome for spammers

Hi. Thanks for patrolling new pages. When you come across a new user whose first edit is advertising, there is a better template than {{First article}} - {{Welcomespam}} goes into detail about COI and how advertising isn't allowed. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll look at that template. Actually, I've never done any NPP here; those userpages were all at least a few months old. I found them by searching for certain keywords because they, or more likely other spammers pushing the same thing, were making trouble at a non-WMF site I also frequent and let the Twinkle defaults choose what talkpage notices they got for it. Kilopi (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kilopi. You have new messages at Solarra's talk page.
Message added 00:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 00:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Stellvia episodes

Just to be honest, the information that I found appeared to be on multiple websites not just the one listed, however, I will admit that there are mistakes, and I want to fix them, but I cannot if it is blanked. Even if I have to rewrite the text portion, I would like to have my article draft back. Randomnesss (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Your draft is still available in the history here. Incidentally, the copyrighted text isn't even very good, possibly a machine translation. I'm sure you can write better summaries on your own. Use your references to confirm facts, but compose your own sentences. Kilopi (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/BPS_Resolver

I just had a look at your comments regarding the BPS Resolver article creation page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/BPS_Resolver Understandably, the wording does sound vague, but that is in fact the language of the industry. People look for software solutions for the mentioned areas. This is evidenced further by other Wikipedia articles of similar businesses in the same industry: Compliance 360, OpenPages, MetricStream. Also, I have updated the reference to the merger to include an article by the main Governance Risk and Compliance writer for Garter, who writes a yearly report considered to be the standard in the industry. It is worth noting that the three companies linked above, as well as BPS Resolver are one of less than a dozen of among the hundreds of businesses in the industry to be included in this yearly report. RBrideau (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The merger of BPS and Resolver is properly sourced. It's an important aspect of the corporate history, but not what makes a company notable. Incidentally, Caldwell's blog is also cited for a claim about Magic Quadrant, but doesn't mention that in the article, possibly because the blog is dated Jan 2010 and BPS Resolver didn't have a Magic Quadrant rating analysis until Oct 2010. The essay WP:B2B sets a high bar for the notability of business-to-business companies ("500 years from now, will this business or product be thought worthy of mention in an account of the development of the field? That's the sort of thing that sources should say to make a behind the scenes business notable.") and advice on how and how not to write one. That's an essay, not a policy, so other Wikipedians may disagree with it, but in my opinion it offer very good guidance. Finally, I wish I could tell you that modeling your article after similar topics ensures yours won't be declined or deleted, but unfortunately many Wikipedia articles only exist because no one yet noticed how bad they were (see WP:OTHERCRAP). Since you've now brought them to my attention, I'll look at those and try to decide if they can be saved with a draconian rewrite or if they should be nominated for delteion. Kilopi (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the extensive response! The actual magic quadrant PDF can be found here: http://fm.sap.com/data/UPLOAD/files/Gartner_Magic_Quadrant_for_EGRC_(July_2011)%5B1%5D.pdf I am hesitant to link directly to it as this document is typically priced at around $2000: http://www.gartner.com/id=1743815 It seems, however, that a number of copies have been put up on sites of companies that are listed, which can be seen by Googling "magic quadrant for enterprise governance risk and compliance platforms." RBrideau (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey Kilopi, just checking in. Have you had a moment to take a look at the other pages I listed? RBrideau (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I proposed two of them for deletion. An admin could delete them as early as the 11th if no one objects. I left OpenPages alone for now since it contains slightly more information than the list it's linked from and may be more notable as a division of IBM than it was before. I don't consider it a good article, but I'm not going to try to get it deleted. Kilopi (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! I also came across another, MEGA International, in this sector that may require proper sourcing as well. RBrideau (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
And while we're at it, here's one more: Easy2comply RBrideau (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

MetricStream

You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. The requester said they could improve it. I'll give them some time to show what they can do with it, though IMO, it'll take more than the source alluded to there to keep it from being a bad role model for authors like the gentleman whose AfC I declined above. Kilopi (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "War on Women". Thank you. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Rape and RFA

Howdy,


Regarding rape, you're entirely correct.


Regarding the BH RFA, you've been whoooshed, it was a joke. More details are at the RFA. Egg Centric 23:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

PERM

You request for rollback rights has been approved. Please read WP:RBK once more before you start and use the tool very carefully. Please also consider continuing your work on NPP where we have serious backlogs. Thnaks, and happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Though if you had carefully checked my deleteds, you'd have noticed that most of them were the result of Old Page Patrol. They should have been caught by NPP, but slipped through ... because of a backlog. Thanks for the vote of confidence though, I'll consider taking up NPP. Kilopi (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I had checked - and based on that work and your knowledge of policy, I was more than ready to approve your request. I made the mention hoping you would use your experience to help out also on the current 'new' new pages backlog :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

 Hello, Kilopi/Archive 1! The instructors at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy have seen your hard work reverting vandalism, and we would like to thank you. But do you want to go to the next level? Would you like to know how reverts, warnings, reports, blocks, and bans all come together to keep this Encyclopedia free from disruption? Then consider enrolling today! Electric Catfish 16:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki !

Hello, Kilopi, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and DBigXray 06:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Monavie article and talk page". Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 19:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Article spinning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aboriginal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Red X Won't fix

Tackling Non-Notable LMS Providers

Hi Kilopi,

Given our discussion before, I figured you would be a good person to ask about this. I am looking to take on cleaning up the massive list of LMS providers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_learning_management_systems) as the vast majority of them wouldn't meet notability criteria. I was just wondering what process you would recommend for me to do this? Should I go through and submit one at a time, or is there a better way? RBrideau (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you would have to deal with each one individually. It's technically possible to nominate a group of articles for deletion, but it wouldn't be advisable in this case. Read WP:BEFORE and make a good faith attempt to see if an article can be saved by editing and the introduction of more or better sources. If having done that, you still lack decent sources, it may not be notable and can be nominated for deletion. The relevant deletion processes are WP:PROD and WP:AFD. Prod, or proposed deletion, is lightweight process. It allows the page to be deleted after 7 days if nobody objects, but is canceled if anyone objects by removing the tag. AfD starts a discussion and can be used after a prod is contested or if you think a prod would have been contested.
While not required, I highly endorse Twinkle if you choose to nominate anything for deletion. I'd bet most admins couldn't correctly open an AfD manually without looking at the instructions, and some would screw it up even if they were reading the instructions. With Twinkle, instead of adding complicated templates to at least 3 pages and hoping you don't make a mistake, you can just click the xfd tab on the top of the page, enter your deletion rationale, and hit submit. It does other useful things too. You can install it from the gadgets tab on your user preferences. Kilopi (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pritam Chakraborty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page JLT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Curly Wurly

You are right, the extra facts I added to Curly Wurly had no sources. Did you notice that almost all of the article has no sources? Feel free to delete most of the article, or to put back the content I added. Obviously you are not going to do anything that smacks of double standards, are you? FrantShiftSoap (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hot Cat discussion at VPP

Thank you for your interest in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal:_enable_HotCat_for_all_editors_by_default. Please note that I have now proposed 5 different, more nuanced versions of the original suggestion, to better gauge to what level (if any) we are willing to make Hot Cat more accessible. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kilopi, the link provided is access to public, if you enter the Medical Fraud in the search column on the right hand top, you will find 40 articles related to medical fraud from ACFE. i dont see why the link should be removed. Thank you. Stephenlimck (talk) 9.59 4 October 2012 (SST)

ACFE may well be a reputable organization and some of their reports may be considered reliable enough to be used as a reference for specific facts. However the requirements for non-reference external link are different and I think my removal is justified under Links normally to be avoided #13: Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. This means that adding the same link to five different pages is almost always wrong. Kilopi (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Just Falafel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sharjah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done

/* Current Practice in Australia */

The online service provided by parentteacheronline.com.au is a significant part of the landscape of this type of service in Australia. Just because it's a link to a commercial entity doesn't necessarily mean it's advertising. It is helpful to Australian schools and parents to have that link available, and removing it is unhelpful to them. If you look at articles about software you'll see relevant links to Microsoft, Oracle etc. Should these all be removed as well? You refer to External Links, where the link first appeared. In my recent edit I placed the link inline as a general reference which I believe is quite appropriate for the content of the article. It is not an External Link. Here's what Wikipedia guidelines say about External Links ... Important Notes: 1. This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section.

I would be most grateful if you would reinstate my edit. This is not simply gratuitous self-promotion, but a genuine attempt to provide a helpful link to the education community in this country.

If you do not accept the reasoning above, would you perhaps help me out by suggesting alternatives. I have in mind the following: 1. Create a page describing the service parentteacheronline.com.au in the context of its parent company Trentvale Holdings. This is consistent with pages relating to many other commercial entities e.g. Microsoft, Oracle Corp. 2. Add an inline citation from the parent-teacher interviews page to the first page.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki2340 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It looked to me as if the link was added for the benefit of the company with little regard for whether it was beneficial to Wikipedia's readers. If I was wrong about that, I will help you present the information so that it doesn't look like spam.
  • The online service provided by parentteacheronline.com.au is a significant part of the landscape of this type of service in Australia. Is is significant enough that independent, reliable sources (ie, not a press release, the company website, or statements by their staff) have reported on it?
  • Exlinks vs. References: Technically, the relevant policy is WP:REFSPAM, not WP:EL. It was not a valid reference because the homepage http://www.parentteacheronline.com.au does not confirm the sentence you added. And even if it did, you can't expect Wikipedia's readers to just take their word for it -- an source independent of the company would be expected. Is there one?
  • Creating an article about parentteacheronline.com.au or Trentvale Holdings. Please read WP:NCORP. Most small companies do not meet the notability requirements and are deleted quickly, especially if they have any level of promotion that hints they may have been written by an employee in that company's marketing department. If you want to try this, you'll need to find some independent, reliable sources that cover the company, and/or its products in substantial detail. If you have good sources, tell me what they are and I will help you with it so that it will be less likely to get deleted. But there must be quality sources; an article based primarily on the company's own documents and press releases, directory listings, interviews with the CEO in the business section of the local paper, etc is guaranteed to be deleted. Kilopi (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jill Tiefenthaler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Provost
Pierre Pigray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to King Charles IX

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Question

Are you aware that the proponents of the Gibraltarpedia moratorium also wish to ban articles about Spain and Morocco? Do you support that? You might wish to consider this in relation to your vote to support a moratorium. Prioryman (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Good - that's a reasonable interpretation. My vote should be understood as defining "Gibraltar-related" in the same way that Gibraltarpedia defines it, including portions of the Spanish and Moroccan coast. Kilopi (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
As long as you understand what is being proposed. Prioryman (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar

Congratulations, Kilopi! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Campus Special

Hi Kilopi. I've included more sources on the Campus Special article and removed anything that wasn't supported per your suggestion. Check out my revisions here. You can remove the tags if you feel the issues are fixed. MHK7Sr (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to make some more editorial changes later tonight, then I will get those tags off. I need some time to look through the sources first. The main things I noticed:
  • The opening sentence is still vague about what the company does (see WP:SOLUTION). I think some of the sources give more insight into this.
  • The Inc 5000 rankings are overemphasized and scattered through several sections. I'll probably remove the awards section and merge it all into history. It is a reliable source for the history of the company's growth.
  • Some of the internship info is just based on career counselors republishing what the company sent them. I'll try to reduce it to what can be derived from independent sources. Kilopi (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked by User:BouncyGlow

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it seems like you use strong language to fix a page vandalism – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).User talk:BouncyGlow
It's good to see you getting some experience with non-admin blocks before you file your RfA. I gave you a new section heading since I can't see what this block has to do with CampusSpecial. Also remember to close your <div> tags when you block people. Kilopi (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Apology for Vandalism Remark

Hello Kilopi. I sincerely apologize for using the vandalism tag on [FriendCaller] page. I have given this account to a contributor of FriendCaller who mistakenly thought that she can write the remarks on any contributor. I am personally looking in to this matter, and yes we are managing FriendCaller presence on Wikipedia since a while, and only updating version release numbers. There are numerous articles that cite the resources, and we have authentic press releases to quote from. I will really appreciate if you can guide me tactics to remove the advertising badge and I will honestly comply with guidelines, and will not use words of promotion. I agree, much of the content appeared as promotional, because it was copied pasted from various resources, without being neutral about it. Can you please guide me a bit? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mshabaz (talk • contribs) 08:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. To answer your questions: Not easily. Like I said, many editors try to write about their own companies and most of them fail badly, get reverted/deleted/blocked, and then make an appeal that they weren't trying to promote, merely "providing useful information". For this reason, editing with a conflict of interest, while not prohibited, is regarded with suspicion. If you want to continue: First, read WP:COI and the related policies in Drm310's message on your talk page. I also recommend Uncle G's essay. You also must reverse your thinking. As a marketing professional, you are trained to think about what your company wants to communicate to potential customers, venture capitalists. To write for an encyclopedia, you must think about what the world wants to know about the company. Don't rely on press releases either - that is part of the problem and is why another editor put the "primary sources" tag on it. A good source for a product description would be an industry expert with editorial independence.
Also, if multiple people from your company will be editing here, note that shared accounts are prohibited. If you choose to create multiple accounts, I suggest disclosing your relationship to each other on your userpages as multiple accounts editing with a common purpose may otherwise be accused of meatpuppetry. Kilopi (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

You call what was there before a neutral point of view? It was incredibly bias, and I helped to make it more neutral. The edit I made on “War on Women” was completely truthful and neutral, and was backed up by a source, so I am undoing your edit that erased mine.69.37.2.59 (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not perfect, but has been extensively discussed on the talk page with some tough compromises made. Replacing "reproductive rights" with "baby-slaughtering rights" just isn't going to fly. Kilopi (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about: "Planned Parenthood wages a war on women by denying them their right to knowledge and lying to them by saying that abortion is safe and that no one has been hurt at their clinic, even after women had recently bled to death at their clinic from botched abortions.[1]" 69.37.2.59 (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerns

Hi, I replied in detail to your concerns in the section where you asked your original questions at the RfA. Working on Wikipedia has benefited me tremendously in many ways and I've tried to contribute as much to it as it has to me. If you ever want to speak about things, feel free to reach out. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Coalition of Hope Article Review

Greetings, I am confused about your review of Coalition of Hope, it reads:

"Comment: After ignoring the nonsense about mission statements and future plans that should be removed unless significant enough to have attracted independent coverage, about all that was left was the section on relief operations. And guess what ... that was a lie. According to the source, an unreliable press release, all of that Katrina stuff was done by 2life18, 7 years before they merged with CoH. Kilopi (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)"

2Life18 is now Coalition of Hope; it was incorporated after a vote of its board in March of this year. David Perez, Founder of 2Life18, and subject of cited interviews on ABC News, CNN and MSNBC, (not unreliable press releases) is president of CoH. Tim Keegan did organize Operation Big Heart Brigade relief to Haiti, as documented and cited on US Department of Army sites. How is this a lie?

Arguing that accomplishments of the principals and previous organizations are not part in parcel of the current organization is akin to saying COL Chuck Yeager and the entire US Air Force did not fight in WWII because it was the Army Air Corps at that time. It simply does not ring true.

It appears the article is not concise. Please send me your questions that I may clarify the concept, and in the process, improve the article where it is weak.

Thanks! G H Smith (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The press releases I referred to were #3 and 4. I agree that 5, 6, and 7 qualify as independent (though as another reviewer noted, they only cover the actions of Perez and don't say he was acting as a representative of 2life18, CoH, or any other organization.)
I still strongly object to Coalition of Hope claiming credit for the 2005 actions of 2life18 when they were two completely separate organizations. I don't know what CoH was doing for Kartina refugees at that time, but it wasn't this. The air force analogy is a good one, and Wikipedia tries to be clear about which actions were done under the banner of which agency. For example, the Doolittle Raid "was planned and led by Lieutenant Colonel James "Jimmy" Doolittle, U.S. Army Air Forces," not by General Doolittle, USAF, as he later became. It's good to cover history of predecessor orgs, but be clear about whether any operation was done by 2life18, pre-merger CoH, or post-merger CoH. Kilopi (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kilopi, hope you're having a good New Year. I plan to re-engage on the COH article this spring, and hope to keep you as an editor. CoH has been working Hurricane Sandy relief up in Rockaway Beach as a sub-charitiy to Catholic Relief. I expect to have independant press and media to cover that operation, but would like to work with you this year to get the whole (or what's allowed) of the COH article published. Are you game? Thanks ... Glenn G H Smith (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've adopted a policy to not decline the same title twice (to avoid the appearance that I'm trying to intimidate editors or deprive them of a third opinion). I will add Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coalition of Hope to my watchlist so I will be notified of any edits to it. If I think the sourcing is solid and believe it wouldn't be deleted, I will move it to mainspace myself. Otherwise, I will comment about what I found worrying, but leave the "review waiting" for another editor to act on. Kilopi (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Kilopi, that is good news. The article will see some new material in FEB as we gather the media coverage of our Hurricane Sandy relief operations. You've not seen the last of COH! Cheers, Glenn G H Smith (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Change of variables, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smooth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Carmen Media for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carmen Media is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Media until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Photon Infotech Page

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Photon Infotech (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

You put a declination based on all material being made through press releases but if you look at this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputation_Changer it is purely consistent of press release articles and was recently approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjcarrmiddletownde (talk • contribs) 17:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Looks like you said it was good to go but now it is not. Can you please help me to get this up so I can move onto other wikipedia projects :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjcarrmiddletownde (talk • contribs) 07:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Kilopi perhaps you can help me more to get the photon infotech webpage created. This is my first official submission and have included reputable citations and am having difficulty getting it approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjcarrmiddletownde (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


I had another look and think I used an unhelpful decline reason. I actually now think Photon is notable, but the version I reviewed didn't make a great case for it.

Great so what do we do now to make it live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjcarrmiddletownde (talk • contribs) 04:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

More detail about some of the refs / content:
  • Yourstory.in has been questioned as a reliable source. I think it's OK for content attributed to the interviewee, but not in general. Also watch the buzzwords; what is a "consumer touch point" and how did you arrive at 50 million of them?
  • Crunchbase is a useless source. It's an open wiki and the authors are here. Besides, for the company's locations, you can cite Photon directly. There are restrictions on how self-published sources can be used, but it should be fine for anything that could be an infobox parameter. Photon ought to know what cities their headquarters are in, so there's no point getting that info from an unreliable source.
  • The Cnet source is from 2006, before Photon was started. Usually trying to include a company's pre-history or the founders' resumes is a sign that the company isn't notable and doesn't have any history of its own - perhaps in an effort to assure potential venture capitalists that it has strong management. In any case, Photon doesn't need to resort to this gimmick as it does have its own history; they were making noises about going public in 2009 [1]. This is the sort of thing that can indicate notability, not that it was founded by some guys who once sold a different business.
  • Informationweek, unlike the Crunchbase wiki, is a reliable source. Unfortunately it contradicts the information given earlier. (Between the two sections, Photon lost 700 employees and gained an office in Mauritius, yet both are described in present tense.) Usually, we'd want the most current, accurate data, and the company itself is often the best source for that.
  • It would also be nice to include some financials (revenues, profits, etc) and details about what they do. PHRESCO is listed as their major product, but what does it do?
I'll watchlist the article, try to implement some of the above suggestions, and move it to mainspace when I see it has improved enough to have a good chance of avoiding deletion. Kilopi (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say it was "good to go." I said it had some serious problems with both sourcing and content, but that it might be sufficiently notable for those issues to be resolved by digging up a few better sources. I attempted to do so by editing the article in accordance with my criticisms above, but I think it still needs some fleshing out and at least one more good source. Kilopi (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Disapproval of the GridON article

Hey, You did not approve GridON's article a few days ago, claiming that it seems like an advertisement. It was previously rejected for that reason and since then I've used the live chat feature on wikipedia and change the article according to the tips I got from wikipedia editors there. I wanted to know why the article was rejected this time after I amended it, backed it with independent sources and wrote it more informatively. Please refer me to the specific parts you did not like and how you'd prefer them to be written so I can update them accordingly. The employees in this company are working hard to improve the electric grid technology and its efficiency and they want to inform the world about these changes.

Thanks,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.207.253.101 (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Compare these opening sentences:
  • GridON specializes in providing commercial solutions to utilities facing increasing complexity and capacity demand on their electrical grids.
(Provides solutions is a buzzword best avoided whenever possible. I also presume you have a list of utilities that aren't "facing increasing complexity" and instruct your sales force to avoid them? Otherwise the rest of that sentence adds no information.)
The long quote at the end is also a problem since it says nothing new. We already know he thinks highly of the company because he wouldn't have invested in them if he didn't think they could deliver, but there is no need to quote him predicting the fruits of their "radical new approach".
The sources look solid and I think could be a Wikipedia article if it stuck to the unembellished facts. Kilopi (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Kilopi; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A Recent AfC

You created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Celtic Woman: Silent Night into the article Celtic Woman: Silent Night. Thanks for deleting the sales listings (christianbook.com, ebay.com, capitolchristiandistribution.com) and that Wikipedia article as references. The subject, of course, because it is a Celtic Woman album would appear to be notable, but the references and style were quite problematic. I was in the middle of Reviewing it when I ran into an edit conflict/your AfC-draft move. Glad people are working on the AfC Backlog. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I stepped on your toes, but glad you too are working back the backlog. I wasn't about to let it out in the form I found it, but approved of what the editor was trying to do and thought it would be easier to fix it than explain. Kilopi (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
No apology necessary, that's ok...when you first moved it, I was like "wtf?" but then I saw that you were improving it and tidying things up. It was just kind of funny...I had just placed some links on the creator's talk page and went back to do something and it wouldn't work... but heh, I am GLAD to run into someone else in the AFC-Backlog trenches. Hey - if you're doing a lot of reviews, you might want to consider joining the Drive at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/March 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Edited Bill Troop page

Busterbarker2008 (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)I have responded to your apt criticisms. For the alkaline fixer claim I cited Hutchings's book, as I should have done in the first place. For the RAID claim, I just took out the claim that it was the first article on this product. In fact, it was not only the first, it was the _only_ article on this product. The PC-world was not yet ready for RAID. However, as there is no way I can think of to establish this from a reliable third party source, I accept that the claim cannot be made at this time. Many thanks. - -

His notability seems to rest primarily on what is said in sources 2 and 3. I can't easily check them, but they seem reliable and I'll trust you regarding their content. I'm going to approve the draft with a few more minor changes.
This guy's still alive right? If so WP:BLP requires vigilance about unsourced allegations. WSJ can partially support the paragraph on typefaces, but his piano classmates should probably be removed. Kilopi (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I had thought putting in the teachers was a good idea because most of them have Wikipedia entries, but I now understand that unless I can locate an independent source for this information, such as a published review, it is not appropriate. Yeah, the guy's still alive. Many thanks for the help, I've learned a lot from this. Busterbarker2008 (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Help with Article Submission

Hi Kilopi,

I'd love some help on why this article is too much like an advertisement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Exact_Data_ConsumerBase

I've modeled its structure to be exactly like other data industry businesses, such as this page which got accepted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infogroup

What specific lines can I remove/change?

Thanks!

Basing your article on Infogroup is slightly risky. I'll point out a few specific problems I noticed, some also shared by Infogroup, some not.
  • "Exact Data ConsumerBase provides ..." Provides? I'm one word in and already cringing. Good articles almost always start by telling me what the subject is, not what it provides (Click special:Random a few times to see what I mean). The ones that start with 'provides' often tend to then follow it up with a trainwreck of buzzwords and doublespeak like multi-channel direct marketing services with a focus in postal, email, and telephone solutions. This is the language you use when talking to prospective clients, but highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I believe the correct translation is "Exact Data Consumerbase is a marketing company that sells junk mail, email marketing, and telemarketing services."
  • Key questions for any business: What do they sell, and how much of it? Infogroup tells me they have either 3200 or 3700 employees and $380M in revenue (which should be sourced and dated so readers know which numbers (if any) are to be trusted, but at least they tried) and a section on operations explaining the source of those revenues. None of this information is present in your draft.
  • When using a source like Inc 5000, I find it much preferable to use it as a cite for something like "... revenues grew from $xxx in 2004 to $yyy in 2007" than to add the bare fact that they made the list to the "trophy case" next to the Silver Urinal for cleanest restrooms in Polk County or other equally ignorable accomplishments.
  • For articles about modern companies, it's probably easier to find journalistic sources than scholarly ones. Unfortunately, most of the current sources are neither. Four of them are not independent, either press releases or the company's website. Three are lists or directories, probably reliable but not much depth of coverage. One covers a merger, but doesn't explain where ConsumerBase fits into the picture.
If the only problem was promotional language, I'd just fix it myself; but only if the sources were strong enough so I could be confident my translation was faithful to them and that it wouldn't likely be put up for deletion later. Kilopi (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Happy Easter!!!

Happy Easter!

So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert T. Wagner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Augustana College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSoPys6KybI
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kilopi/Archive_1&oldid=1086436572"