User talk:MKoltnow/Archive 1

Archive 1

Metra article

Hey, thanks! Keep up the good work yourself! Gws57 14:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

WPSPAM invite

Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. Hu12 04:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nintendude/Interstate 94A, etc.

Interstate 94A could be a speedy delete because I am 99.9% sure I PROD'd this article about 2 weeks ago. Thanks for tagging more Nintendude socks. There are at least another dozen I've noticed that he doesn't use, so I've never gotten around to tagging them. I'm hoping that at some point I can convince an admin to block his IP from user creation and editing because the sockpuppeting is getting rather ridiculous, even though they are easy to spot.--Isotope23 14:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for informing me about the Heim reverter

Don't revert it again yourself or you'll be in danger of 3RR as well. I'll take it from here. — coelacan talk — 21:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's reported. You can use WP:AN3 in the future. The reports are a pain to fill out manually though! That's why it took so long. And there is a backlog there, so it might take a while before the block. Again, thanks for the heads-up. — coelacan talk — 21:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Regarding this comment, blocks are preventive, not punitive. In other words, we don't block for what they have done, but for the "danger" they may bring to Wikipedia. In this user's case, the user hasn't been around for months, and while today returned and did three edits in a short period of time, he has stopped since. Unless he continues vandalizing and represents a real threat for the stability of our articles, we are not likely to block him. I hope you understand. -- ReyBrujo 01:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done on spam cleaning

I see you reverted the 'Waterford' article within a minute of spam hitting it. Well done. :) Just wanted to thank you for doing a thankless job. :) Merlante 10:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Removewarn notice

Hey there. I've never seen that particular error message before - on User talk:L46kok under my final warning. Is it a standard wikipedia warning or did you make it yourself? :)

Chrisch 02:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make it up but I like it. :) MKoltnow 02:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And now it appears to be gone, so I write out a warning by hand. MKoltnow 01:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

your user warning template additions

you should use level 3 headers for the warnings, like === January 2007 ===. I'm sure you can change your script to do that. _→AzaToth 19:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just reread the project page. Will do. I type my headers by hand, so I'll have no problem typing = three times instead of two. :) MKoltnow 19:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Cartman

Heh .... you just made me chuckle. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And now, since it got superseded by a redirect rather than a speedy delete, it will remain in the edit history for, er, posterity. :) MKoltnow 18:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Hi thanks for the advice but when you report to AIV using the vandal proof link it just does it for you after you type a reason in the box, is this a major problem or can I continue or would you prefer me to use the {{IPVandal}}

Hmm. I can't speak for the admins, but IMHO seems as if it would be helpful to have the stuff listed in IPVandal. I will follow-up and reply here. MKoltnow 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion came from the talk page of AIV:

Right now, the main thing it affects is the AIV bot that incorrectly reports remaining items in the list, divided by IPs and users, because it uses the IPVandal and vandal templates to identify the users in the list. In addition, IPVandal has useful links (such as WHOIS). Therefore, I think it would be much better if you could incorporate both templates in the reporting. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a reasonable idea would be to visit AIV after you autoreport and minor edit the entry from vandal to IPvandal. Keep up your great work against vandalism. MKoltnow 18:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

New Orleans: Save The Projects

Just wanted to let you know: I changed the SD tag on New Orleans: Save The Projects to read {{db|[[WP:WWIN|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]]}}, as this seemed more appropriate to me. Thanks! MacGuy^{(contact me)} 20:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I like yours better. I'm much quicker on the trigger with canned ones like attack, bio, nn. It's already gone, of course. Good job patrolling. MKoltnow 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for speedy deletion page discourages those kind of reasons, but I agree, sometimes stuff deserves to go and there's no real good criterion for it. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I am embarrassed to say I am not sure I ever read to the bottom of WP:CSD before. The problem with not speedily deleting such rubbish is that even prod takes five days, and it can be derailed instantly. I can only begin to imagine how crowded the halls of AfD would be if everyone who claims notability or that their article is not original research got to have a full debate on it. I guess I should put on my userpage that I'm a deletionist. I get so tired of the endless spam and self-promotion articles--the first thing I do when I scan recent changes is look for the capital N to find articles ready for the bin. MKoltnow 04:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from California Gold Rush

Thanks for helping to protect this article from vandals! NorCalHistory 05:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thanks from me as well. That was some speedy reaction to vandalism! User:Cepheids 13:36 (GMT +8), 14 February 2007

All in a day's (avoiding doing any) work. :) MKoltnow 12:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How long have you been on Wikipedia?

Hello, you tried to help me last week. I will put your talkpage and (hopefully) see your reply here after I put your talkpage on my Watchlist. Ronbo76 20:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been editing for just over three months. The majority of my efforts are limited to fighting spam and vandalism. I spend a little time copyediting. Sadly, I spend even less working on edits to subjects I love like trains and transport. I took your talk page out of my watchlist, since you appeared to be very busy vandal fighting and I thought I was becoming a nuisance. MKoltnow 08:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Work MKoltnow

So I'm a pretty loyal Wikipedian, someone who values and believes in th porject. I wrote some stupid, drunken shit about Baltimore, and witin a few minutes, the stupid shit was deleted. Godo job, for real. Way to keep Wikipedia real. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rtd2101 (talk • contribs).

Thank you

Thank you for your reminders, I should know better than to forget to sign! I will make sure to do so with my further warnings and messages and such. Have a good day! Mattb112885 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skapsis

Hi. You commented that you thought this article was salvageable -- so can you help salvage it? I'm having a hard time finding anything that meets WP:OR and WP:V but maybe you can come up with something I couldn't find. I have added additional comments on the AfD page about looking for reliable sources.

If you can spare the time, I'd appreciate any help you can give us with this. Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 13:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I simply read the AfD, and I read the article. It appeared to me to be barely salvageable, although I do not like the spam-like content. I have no knowledge of the subject, so I'm not the right person to fix it. I voted weak keep, since the article does not appear to be complete garbage, as most of the things I nominate for speedy deletion are. MKoltnow 19:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Metros232 Vandalism

Thanks for getting that for me. I was watching the page and you got the jump on me undoing it. Thanks again. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 04:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I fear that I've not contributed much content, but RC Patrol is an awfully easy thing to do while at (and avoiding) work. MKoltnow 04:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Vandalism

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your continued work on reverting vandalism on Wikipedia, and reporting of vandal users I am proud to award you with the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar Xtreme racer 04:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please Help

Please help me with the Cell Phones For Soldiers page to keep up a good cause. I understand your concerns. Please help, I am new at this and have had all 25 of the pages I have created have been deleted.

This may sound callous, but that is not my place. The ball is in your court. Perhaps if you take a break from article creation and read the (admittedly dry) policies, such as verifiability, notability, no original research, and most importantly What wikipedia is not, you may find it easier to contribute in a fashion which won't cause other editors to nominate your articles for deletion. MKoltnow 20:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Mostafa Ronaghi

turns out he has published a good number of genuine peer-reviewed papers in the very most important journals in his field, and may actually be notable. I'm rewriting the article, and checking his other contributions. Found it while checking on some watch-listed pages, and I am quite surprised, for it just looked liker the typical spam. But it's in my subject, and I recognize the articles. Odd things happen. DGG 03:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

prism kites

Why do you want to delete it!? Hundreds of other brands have pages, and I have absolutely no affiliation with the company whatsoever. I just started writing the article, and I hate when people just jump on them and want everything I post to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aarondoucett (talk • contribs).

It appears to be an advert for a company which fails to establish notability, so I marked it for deletion. MKoltnow 04:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Prism kites is right. The company is notable in that it exists. --Honorarysouthernstudents 04:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Prism kites wrote nothing here; Aarondoucett commented on my marking an article for speedy deletion as spam. It subsequently passed speedy deletion, which is why the link is red. Further, although your definition of notable may work in a metaphysical sense, it is not the Wikipedia definition of notable. I don't get to make policy, but I try to follow our community's rules. In fact you can see below where I was chided (gently) about my misapplication of speedy deletion category A7 (with regard to the article you created). My solution to that was to follow procedure by proposing the article for deletion. When that failed, I went to seek community consensus regarding its deletion. IMO, commenting without the support of policy on my talk page about an already-decided deletion matter is not too far from a personal attack. MKoltnow 14:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A7

A7--speedy for no assertion of notability only applies to the types of article listed. Admins get nasty comments made to them when they ignore that, and I dont want it to happen to me, so I changed the tag on the Mckee library to prod. An equally good solution is afd; either way will get it deleted soon enough, just as it deserves.DGG 05:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It seemed that an unremarkable university library was awfully close to the things listed in A7. It seems odd that an unremarkable building has to go through AfD, but an unremarkable person can be speedied. Since the db tag was already removed (presumably by the author as an anon), the prod tag will likely be removed which means that a completely NN article will need to go through AfD. Seems like we're clogging the works up, but I will follow process. Thanks for the advice. MKoltnow 13:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

unfortunately, all university buildings are usually defended in good faith at AfD if there are active people working on the university, as are all shopping centers and high schools, even though you and I would agree that many are clearly & obviously non notable. For things where there is only limited consensus, it isn't fair to speedy. If I speedied according to my own views of notability, I'd be desysopped; it happens to admins a few times a year. DGG (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page rv

Heh... thanks for that. :P [1] (|-- UlTiMuS 20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I take RC-patrolling pretty seriously, and even in the age of MartinBot reverting it quickly, I think that going through vandal's edit histories with a mop to clean up the sick is very effective. MKoltnow 20:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thanks for the heads up on User talk:121.72.78.148. I removed my warnings and left Trusilver's. Douglasmtaylor 04:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a big RC-patroller and vandal-warner/reporter, but that IP needed at least half a chance! MKoltnow 04:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fall protection

ok. this is a informational page... how am i not following your guidlines...?????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeff dantonio (talk • contribs).

Well your comment is prima facie evidence that you have not read that Wikipedia is not an instruction guide. It's also not a place to promote a business. Please read the comments on your talk page and read the policies linked therein. Otherwise, I think you will find most of your contributions deleted. MKoltnow 20:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

i understand that it was deleted yesturday and i spoke with the administrator whom erased it and this was their final comment to me... You can recreate at any time - good luck. Jimfbleak 14:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC) so i was given permission to put it back up. thank you tho for you comments. now can i ask u what can i do so this page can stay active.??????? Jeff dantonio 20:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I cannot speak for the admin who deleted this article, I think that what was meant was, "When this article is ready for Wikipedia, go ahead and recreate it. There is no prejudice attached to this article, as there might be with pages such as attacks, spam, non-notable people, etc." I do not think what was meant was "Please go ahead and resubmit an article identical to the one I just deleted." MKoltnow 20:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, im sorry i linked it but the link was not the the main page of a store but to the original article which i used as a reference so techniqually thats a refference link but im not putting it back up unless you say its ok to do so... oh and for the fall protection document... would it help if i took out all of the standards and approvals sections...???? Jeff dantonio 18:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to create an article on Fall Protection, then create one that you feel helps explain the significance of the topic. The Hard Hat article is pretty good, imho; perhaps you could try to follow that as a model. What you cannot do is write an article whose purpose is to promote a website. MKoltnow 18:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

hi again. i have a question this time about the gas detectors page and the link u deleted... that link was there to keep the article from having copyright infringement. why did u delete it if u dont mind me asking??? thanks Jeff dantonio 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, links which add value to articles are kept; ones which promote a business are swiftly deleted. The articles were copyright infringements because they included text copied directly from other websites. Without permission through the Wikipedia permissions office, we cannot use text and images directly from other websites. Simply citing another website as a source when the text is copied from there means that there are now two problems: linkspam and a copyvio. MKoltnow 18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

I believe that the text on www.fws.gov is in the public domain. As such you should remove the speedy deletion tags you have put up. Pascal.Tesson 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I still believe that they should go, as they are just copy and paste from another website with no attempt to make them encyclopedia articles, but they do not qualify as copyright violations. MKoltnow 18:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Hey buddy. Thanks for the reporting on the username violation. AIV is a great way to report and keep vandalism down, but we also have UAA, where usernames are better to be posted. Not a scolding or anything, but let's keep the username violation reports there. Thanks, and happy editing! :) Jmlk17 08:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. For a while the AIV page said in its headers that it was for blatant violations of the username policy, whereas more complicated reports were to be sent to UAA, but I will use UAA for both sorts now. MKoltnow 14:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fainchuckers

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For not only reporting an inappropriate username, but also knowing what a spoonerism is, I, Lucid award you this Barnstar of Good Humour. lucid 20:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That Sock

Thanks for humoring me with that sock. I know it's frustrating, particularly when you were previously a target of theirs. I appreciate that you let me take the time to be sure. - Philippe | Talk 05:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I was willing to be patient. Now I'm curious what the next username will be. MKoltnow 05:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, keep an eye on your talk page - he seems to want to announce himself to you. (By the way, had I known about that comment on your talk, I'd have indef blocked for that... you don't have to put up with that!) I gave him a hardblock though, so any IPs that he tries to sign on from will be blocked too. - Philippe | Talk 05:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, he's appealing. This outta be fun. Now claiming his account was hacked. - Philippe | Talk 05:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

DRAM (Formerly the Database of Recorded American Music)

I'm writing to plead my case for keeping the new wikipedia article entitled "DRAM (Formerly the Database of Recorded American Music)," which has I believe has been labeled "blatant advertising."

First, it should be noted that DRAM is a not-for-profit organization available as a scholarly resource for musicians and music students, and not a commercial company. I should add that it's notable in that the vast majority of its recording were created with an eye towards preserving and promulgating music that would otherwise be lost to history, and most of the recordings are available from no other source. Moreover, as individual subscriptions to DRAM are not available, DRAM has little to gain in terms of money or exposure by being featured on Wikipedia.

Second, it should be noted that there are links to DRAM from multiple other Wikipedia articles, as the essays on DRAM can often provide useful, interesting, and otherwise unavailable academic articles on particular musical works and/or composers.

Third, and I hope I don't shoot myself in the foot here, there has been an article on Wikipedia entitled "Database of Recorded American Music" for some months now, which was recently updated to reflect DRAM's growth. I created the identical article currently in question merely as a means of cross referencing information for Wikipedia users. As DRAM has recently begun to include foreign musical works, the "American Music" appellation is no longer accurate. However, with DRAM as a broadly known scholarly resource, changing the acronym was not a viable option.

Finally, allow me to state my flexibility with regard to the specific content of the article. If there are passages that you find particularly objectionable, I would be happy to work at rewriting them to better conform to Wikipedia's standards. My primary goal is to include DRAM in Wikipedia, not to promote it in any objectionable way.

Thank you for your consideration of these points. I look forward to hearing back from you.

Sincerely,

Tsinclair Tsinclair 18:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is never any good reason to have two identical articles. Remember, anyone can (and will) edit Wikipedia, which means that they will not be identical for long. Surely you do not want two versions of the article out there. If you want the article to have the new title, use the "move" tab at the top of the screen to move it to its new title. A WP:Redirect will be left for people who go to the old article. Alternatively, create a redirect from the new title to the old article.

As far as pleading your case, the way to do that is to put the {{hangon}} tag on the article and explain your rationale on the article's Talk page. I am not an administrator. What I do is find articles which look like they do not belong in Wikipedia and work to get them improved or deleted.

All of this being said, however, Wikipedia is not a place for promotion of any kind. If you are associated with DRAM, then you edit that article with conflict of interest, and it may make other editors comb through your edit history with suspicion.

I will leave the decision to you to decide how to proceed with move/rename/redirect. MKoltnow 18:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I appreciate it greatly. Tsinclair 19:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your comment to User talk:Flairfamily

Down, boy!!! Here's a chew toy. Seriously, though, I think a boilerplate notice would have sufficed. - CobaltBlueTony 19:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I've been doing a lot of work in the User Creation Log recently. I've seen many users blocked on sight for usernames which are the same as companies. So when I see a user who has made it clear from his choice of username and first test edit that he is planning to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPbox, I say something. Boilerplate notices seem to refer to actual article edits, rather than contributions to the Introduction sandbox, so I did not think it appropriate. I think I was WP:CIVIL, but if you can suggest a boilerplate notice which works, I'll use it. I patrol new articles and new users, and am willing to WP:AGF only until editors demonstrate that they are just here to promote themselves. MKoltnow 19:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with this |guy]]. I don't understand why this guy is getting so worked up but he has definately edited here before.See this. The message says it all. Any further help would be greatly appreciated as I'm about to go crazy with this guy. AngelOfSadness talk 23:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No novice editor would know the phrase 'bite the newbies'. I'm impressed that User:Max Schwarz picked him off as a sockpuppet. I'm sure he'll be gone soon. MKoltnow 23:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I guessed he was a sockpuppet only I didn't know of what puppetmaster. I'll gladly provide evidence for that sockpuppet report as I've got loads of it on my talk page. AngelOfSadness talk 23:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and reporting himself. I think the most recent message I left on his talk page really sums everything up. And now a suspected-sockpuppet notice has been placed on his page. I'm pretty sure it's the same guy(looking at his edits as Bulb and Vegetable). Anyway thanks again AngelOfSadness talk 00:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wakkkakakaka363

I got him for 24. If he comes back, I'll get him indef. - Philippe | Talk 03:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you saw it or not, but he vandalized by userpage. Thanks for being so vigilant. — Scartol • Talk 04:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page! You're pretty darn quick. I had just noticed it by the time it was gone!

Anyway, thanks again! =David^(talk)_(contribs) 03:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. As you can see from my talk page, I just do RC patrol to pass the time at work. It's quite enjoyable and keeps me from yelling at my customers. :-D MKoltnow 03:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny, it does the same thing for me. My customers like that I do RC patrol. - Philippe | Talk 03:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey regarding the Sinbad's Grand Cafe article

I am starting it because it is a very well known nightclub. Just give me sometime to organize it. I have a lot more to add. I just wanted to get something up in the meantime. Please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by VeronicaPR (talk • contribs) 04:42, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Then put {{hangon}} on the article and explain yourself on the Talk page. I am not an admin, so I cannot help you keep it from being deleted. MKoltnow 04:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:YVRHKGMNLSIN

Thanks for him ;). Just out of curiosity, how did you figure that out? -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a travel geek. To be honest, I came across it entirely by accident while looking in the edit history of the blocking admin. His decision on Habiganj .which I nominated for WP:CSD (A1), surprised me, so I was wondering if there was anything relevant there. The airport codes just jumped off (took off?) the page at me, I guess. MKoltnow 20:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Zackellison

I removed the prod from this page, I wanted to explain why. The user has only been blocked today according to the block log, and I figured before his stuff gets nuked, maybe some time should pass (since an indef block is not the same as a ban, and could possibly be lifted). It also appears you have some history with this person, and while I'm sure your intentions are good, it gives a poor appearance. I would say drop the prod on in a little while when it's clear he's going to stay blocked, but as it is, I say allow some cool down. --UsaSatsui 08:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC])

Response Insurance

For the second time...you deleted the page I created and warned me that I would be blocked from Wikipedia! First of all, I am not an expert at creating pages...this is the first time I have ever tried this. Now the first time the Response Insurance page was deleted it was because I forgot to reference/cite the factual information and I totally understood that, but then I created the page again changed some of the text to make it more neutral ( as I read one of the paragraphs I knew what you meant about advertisement) and I also cited everything back to the website...which is why it was deleted the first time around. I have also told you that I was given permission by Response Insurance to create this page, so there are no copyright issues! Please advise...Shawkey3 09:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC])

Firstly, the page that you have created uses text directly from the company's website, with almost no rewriting in your own words. That makes it a copyright violation, which is why I have twice marked it for speedy deletion. I am not an administrator--I am just another editor. I came across this page, and I thought that it met the criteria for speedy deletion. I marked it as such, and an administrator agreed and deleted it. You recreated a page with nearly the same information, and the same thing happened again. MKoltnow (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to promote a business. If a company is notable, then eventually it will have an article. Articles on Wikipedia which merely promote a business, particularly when it sounds like a press release or advertising are frequently going to be deleted unless they can be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone. MKoltnow (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The information I gathered from the website is referenced, which would mean it is ok to use. I have written another version that in my mind is very neutral...is there a way I can e-mail it to you to look at before I post it? There is no copyright violation since I have the permission of the company itself. I was going to post it again, but I did not want to get blocked...but I think it is ok this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawkey3 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You could create a user subpage as a sandbox to practise with articles. When you think it's ready, you could copy the text to the new article. Regarding permissions and copyright, please read copyrights and permissions. You have to register the official permission from the company with Wikimedia. But again, consider why you are writing this article in the first place. Are you trying to promote a business? That's not welcome here. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory. MKoltnow (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So I have re-created the Response Insurance page, I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it and let me know what you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawkey3 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Shower curtain effect

Dear MKoltnow, I am trying my best to put objective, non-commercial information about my invention, the ShowerBow. It is now a nationally tested and recognized consumer product sold by major national retailer. It really, truly does solve the dreaded "shower curtain effect" and it really, truly is much simpler than installing a curved rod. My product deserves a mention in the Solutions section, but you keep deleting it. If the curved rod gets a mention, why can't I? Can we come to an agreement on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickthexpat (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Because we must edit with a neutral point of view, you have a conflict of interest when you write about your own project. Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself, your business, your product or anything. It is an encyclopedia. It is clear that you are not here merely to improve the article Shower-curtain effect because you seem unable to describe your product without adding an external link at the same time. Even on this page, you added the link again, which I refactored. You are free to improve articles here by editing them, but using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising your business is not acceptable. MKoltnow (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and question

I appreciate your cleanup at WP:DRC, especially catching my spelling typo thier. I was wondering if the phrase no matter whether the comment is legitimate sounds more correct in British English than it does in American English? Are you a Brit? I am an American, and that phrase sounds rather awkward to me. If it is normal in British English, I have no problem with it, but otherwise, can we find a better way to phrase it? Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't (for me) an issue of English variants. The phrase "whether ... or not" is redundant and does not sound professional to me. 'whether' implies 'or not'. I was trying to avoid using the really stuffy-sounding 'irrespective'. "We'll go to the beach, irrespective of whether it rains." In that example, it is clear that 'or not' does not add anything. Feel free to copyedit further--I'll take no offence. I'm sure one of us (or someone else) can come up with a good way to write that sentence. I'll take this to the talk page now. MKoltnow 23:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know of times in American useage that the or not bit is omitted, especially in written form. I have come to regard that as a typically British thing, having worked with many. So I assume this is in-fact a regional variation of English issue. I do agree that irrespective is yuccchy, and not a preferable replacement. I'll think on it a bit, and perhaps comment on the talk page. Thanks. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Maddy123465

I hafta say that I got a little bit of a kick out of your warning on this user's talk page... Maximilian Kolbe died during WWII, thus WP:BLP would not apply ;-) But thanks for fixing this users edits...Balloonman (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well uw-unsor1 does say that it's particularly important when dealing with WP:BLP but that it's important to have WP:RS in all articles. I like to use uw-v1 or uw-test1 for pure vandalism, but I prefer to use uw-unsor1 for addition of "facts" without any citation. It seems a little more friendly, but I guess it does come off kinda funny-sounding when it implies that a long-dead person might sue us for libel. :-) MKoltnow 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD: Journal Experts

I think you are being naive about why the article "confesses" to spamming. I suspect it was written not for purposes of advertising but by someone with a beef about being spammed.Bazoomti (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And I think it was a poor attempt at being neutral by someone with a conflict of interest writing about his own company by practising false humility. MKoltnow 18:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What does all this about radio commercials have to do with the article on American Journal Experts? There is now an example of the company's spam on the talk page for the article.BlueDevil1 (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. It was a comment related to another article (see below), which I removed from this heading. MKoltnow 21:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the admin who closed the AfD on American Journal Experts (or whatever its name precisely was) saw fit to notice the superiority of the deletion arguments, I thought I would thank you for your hard work on this topic. Regardless of the outcome, you took time and expended effort to make your point and it's appreciated. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was most concerned that some other experienced editors were misapplying the concept of reliable sources. References to the subject of the article that appeared in scholarly journals did not make this company notable. I have to try not to be a WP:DICK when making my case, but it was nice to see the closing admin acknowledge that the decision was made by the better argument in this case. MKoltnow 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My Changes ARE CORRECT.

This was not a self advertisement, this was informative, factual informatoin. As the reference is to a commercial site, all the information is factual, and based on the way radio commercials work at this day in age. See examples below...

I STATED: While this method may be cost-saving. Advertisers should know, it may not yield the results as seen by using a professional commercial creation company. Many of which have a larger base of resources and professional voices to create an effective commercial.

This is true. Any advertising agency in the world could tell you this, as most any advertiser. I am not promoting anything here, simply stating fact.

I STATED: The key's to the success of a radio commercial can be argued from various writer to writer, or producer to producer. However it is generally understood that the following are key "principles" to content of a radio commercial. Such principles have been discussed in books such as "Made to Stick", and adopted and followed by many radio commercial creation specialists.

This is fact as well... It even sites the book "Made to Stick", which has been adopted by most advertisig companies....

I STATED: Simplicity — finding the core of your idea
Unexpectedness — grabbing people's attention by surprising them
Concreteness — making sure an idea can be grasped and remembered later
Credibility — giving an idea believability, and building trust
Emotion — helping people see the importance of an idea
Stories — empowering people to use an idea through narrative

These are the ideals from that book, and refrenced on a companies website. All fact, not self promotion. People who want to know about how radio advertising works, should have a clear idea of how it works and what is underneath it.

I STATED: Radio commercials can be delivered to a network of radio stations directly from the recording studio from a variety of sources. The most common form of delivery is via mp3 through email or a secure server. In the past they have been delivered via a DAT cassette, reel to reel, cd or transmitted via satellite or ISDN.

This too is fact, the previous entry of audio being deliverd via DAT, Reel to Reel, CD or ISDN is out of date by about 10 years. I simply updated what is actualy done these day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marketingquestion (talk • contribs) 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

At best, your addition reads like poor marketing copy with sentence fragments and improper use of punctuation. At worst, the "success" portion is a copyright violation of the website whose external link you are spamming. This article is not a how-to guide for how to make a good radio spot, it is an article about radio spots. MKoltnow 18:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions

What is a Barnstar?

An award Wikipedians may give to each other. See WP:BARN for more info. MKoltnow 07:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my sloppy edit!

I guess I must have done a {control}{x} rather than a {ctrl}{c} when copying your user name. Thanks for being understanding! Alice^✉ 00:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

'Salright. :-) MKoltnow 06:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/Thehelpfulone

Hi,

I have replied to your comment :)

-- The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Review)} 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Troll_(Internet)

Hi! I spoke to User:Durova and she agrees that addidng a reference to the main space about Wikipedia Troll essay is a good idea Talk:Troll_(Internet)#Wikipedia Troll. Please state yur reason as to why you would object to this, on the article talk page. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that's what her comment means. Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that you'll do what you want, so I have little interest in debating this with you further. I've left a comment at Talk:Troll (Internet) so others can follow this scintillating exchange. MKoltnow 03:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1