User talk:MLauba/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Internship International

Hey,

you deleted my page internship - international.com. Is this possible that this page disappears totally and I may start again with Internship-international.com? What do you want me to change? The page Internship International is made for a good cause and is very informative and helpful for internship seekers and interns. In this way it meets the requirements of wikipedia. What can I do/ What do you want me to do for me to be able to launch the page?

Greetings

Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intern71 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually haven't deleted any pages, I don't have the power to do that. What I did is nominate it for further review and speedy deletion. To keep it short, wikipedia requires any new article to meet a certain amount of inclusion criteriae, the most important being that its content can be verified through several independent and reliable third-party sources. In other words, that the topic of the article has been commented upon by other people (and blogs or an organisation's own website for instance don't qualify). These sources have to be included in the article. The whole process is summed up in the General Notability Guideline. Also be aware that Notability in the wikipedian sense doesn't mean that something has to be important, but rather that any topic has been noted and commented upon by others. Last but not least, an article must be written using a neutral style and not read like an advertisement (there are private websites for the latter). I suggest you take some time reading the different tutorials and reviewing the policies and guidelines I have linked in this reply, this will give you the means to write an article which will stand the challenge of a review. Hope that helps. MLauba (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Palkiewicz

FYI - I removed the Possible Copyvio tag you placed on Palkiewicz after removing the offending text. After removing it I found another CSD copyvio on his website, so I replace the CSD updated to reflect the new site. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No problems, I had initially tagged CSD myself but realized that only half of the article was a visible violation so went for the "safer" way instead. Looks like my initial instinct was correct after all :). MLauba (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

8-) ttonyb1 (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

More info. Great speedy tagging work this morning! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Doubt 2 days would have changed anything but will bear this in mind for the future, thanks. MLauba (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Linderdaum Engine" copyright

Greetings,

i have sent a copyright permission confirmation to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org concerning citation of http://www.linderdaum.com/home/index.php?title=Features

What i have to do to unlock the article "Linderdaum Engine" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corporateshark (talk • contribs) 20:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

At this stage, just wait until an Admin reviews the matter and lifts the copyvio tag. In the meantime, you can go back to the page and follow the link and instructions given to create a subpage and edit that one. Your original contribution can still be copied from the edit box on the article's main page. That being said, I highly suggest changing the content to a prose description rather than a full feature list as it is right now, the full list is available at the Linderdaum page for people who want to read about it. Explain the core functions of the software instead, it will render the article encyclopedic. MLauba (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the article has ever been "locked". But what you have to do to make the article stick is: make the engine notable. Wait until people start using it and independent reviews of the engine are created. Soon after that, someone with no COI will write here about the engine. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe what Coporateshark was refering to was the fact that the copyvio tag replaces the article content and requests you not to touch the article page in its present form, not a physical lock. MLauba (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

rage quit

Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 April 7#Rage quit → Multiplayer video game. Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Gladstone Education

Hi

You have requested speedy deletion of my page but I am the writer and author of the copy from the original source.

Please desist.

Thanks

JBlomfield

(Jblomfield (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

This requires admin intervention. However, since you claim ownership of the material, this is no longer a speedy deletion case, I will therefore change the classification. Please do follow the instructions provided on the page after the change in order to get your content approved. MLauba (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the comment

You sent me some warnings about comments ive ben putting on pages, and im sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterman44 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In light of your most recent actions, I do not accept your apologies, as they appear to have been anything but sincere. Next time don't bite the hand which tried to help you. MLauba (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Palms of Victory

You have put two prods on this article, and I do not understand why. What is your specific complaint? I think everything in this article is useful to someone interested in this song, and see no way to break it into more than one article. Furthermore, if it were broken into more than one article (for example, background as an article and lyrics as an article) they would both be tagged as stub. ````Richard E. Davies, 17 April 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard E. Davies (talk • contribs) 01:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess you mean two cleanup tags, I didn't propose it for deletion. I feel that in its present form, the article is confusing, not really well organized and too long, in particular reproduction of the entire lyrics and all their variants strikes me as too minute and unencyclopedaic. If you compare it with eg O Fortuna, you'll see an example of a layout which works around the impression of extreme length for a song. I'd also move the history and authorship sections to the top of the article. MLauba (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Made some changes. Take a look and see what you think. It's good to have independent review of what one writes. I firmly believe that it is useful to those interested in this song to include all of the lyric variations, because they are not easily available anywhere else, and I know of nowhere else that collects them. Richard E. Davies (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Richard E. Davies

It certainly works better that way. I took the liberty to put the lyrics into a table, and post a preview on the article's talk page for perspective. MLauba (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Today I moved some things around in the article, making the introduction very short, and moving all authorship issues into the section on authorship. I also moved your table into the article. Thank you. ````Richard E. Davies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard E. Davies (talk • contribs) 17:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Changed from table to multiple columns, was no longer happy with the table look. What do you think? MLauba (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the table format is easier to read than the column format. ````Richard E. Davies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard E. Davies (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Liquid Oxygen (supplement)

Hi, you placed a couple of tags on this article. I've found some new references. Could you have another look and see if the tags can be removed. Thanks Smartse (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Works for me, done. Nice job sourcing that all. MLauba (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Morgan Ogg

Hi. It's been three hours so far and no admin has looked at the Ogg case. I think the new version on the temp page should pass muster. If you could look into it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Give it some time. Wikipedia has been without an article on that topic for what, 6 years? A couple of hours or even days doesn't matter (although when you want to edit, you want to see things now now now :). Copyright matters are taken extremely seriously and even if I were to give my opinion on it, admin intervention is absolutely required on this. That being said, I will have a look later on and if I see any issues, I'll give you a holler to allow you further work before an admin works down the queue. Cheers. MLauba (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I had a quick look and I believe this should pass muster regarding the copyright violation. What you want to do from here is to ensure the article doesn't get challenged for lack of reliable sources: ideally you'll want a bit more than what you have at present and start inserting them, as references, at various points in the article. You will also strive to find at least another one, the encyclopedia one appears to be a reprint of AAP, ideally the original would be much better. The PDF basically only attests to the date of his death, and is otherwise worthless. It would be a shame to get the copyvio removed only to end up at AfD for lack of Notability. Hope that helps. MLauba (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Beatrice of Brandenburg

Hello, I was wondering why Beatrice of Brandenburg needs a cleanup? It seemed alright, I know it wasn't great.--Daaviiid (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Too many redlinks for my taste, and the children listing seems too detailed, see eg Countess Augusta of Reuss-Ebersdorf for something which reads better. MLauba (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Cinesias (poet)

Hi MLauba. You edited an article I created yesterday - you put in a references needed tag. The article is a stub and it contains 2 references. How many references does a stub need? Lucretius (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Two-three ideally. The thing is, the first one, "O.C.D." is unclear to any reader not familiar with the subject matter. If you can clarify that one, that would help. Cheers, --MLauba (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agnisys

Hi MLauba, I have added a few 3rd party references. Please review when you have time. Thanks,(Anupambakshi (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

Sorry for the late reply, I was a bit busy in real life to give this sufficient consideration.

I've had a look at the references now present, I frankly don't think any of them currently meet the reliable sources policy. Everything in there so far is either an extremely trivial mention or a re-posting of press releases (ie self-published material). What would be great would be the addition of any mentions from independent third parties discussing the company and how it is significant. That part is missing. MLauba (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Educare India

Thanks for helping with this one. I'm inclined to let it lie since I invited WT:INDIA to look and there haven't been any objections, and the references might be good enough, but tell me if you disagree. Btw, you mentioned once that you blog, do you have a link? (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just gnoming around, really :) I think it's difficult to judge notabilty on this kind of subjects without risking systemic bias, hope the wikiproject India picks it up. The article is a bad stub and the sources don't really pass muster currently but I'd leave it a week or two before sending it to AfD to see whether it needs a wake-up call.

For blogging, "used to blog" is probably more accurate, haven't written a single word in two months. It's a gaming blog for world of warcraft, sitting at altitis.treehugger.info. Not sure I'll ever write another word though. MLauba (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

K, agreed about bias, I'll give it another peek in a couple of weeks. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Beyond Protocol

Hey I didn't notice 2 of those external links were on the reference section. Is it best practice to keep reviews or other things like this in the Reference section as opposed to the external links section?

Should we move the Bright Hub link to references also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirParadox (talk • contribs) 18:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the two links already referenced are reliable sources supporting the article text, so they are referenced as footnotes. The Bright Hub one is not reliable and should not be present in the references, but can be present under WP:ELMAYBE point 4.

The entire set of guidelines on external links takes some reading but the gist of it is, avoid duplicates with references, keep them to a minimum, include the official website, consider adding important non-reliable sources which add to the content. BrightHub fits that latter bill IMO. --MLauba (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Proposed history merge for Failed States (book)

Thanks for letting me know. Sorry – I had no idea about the history problem. Still learning. –Best, PasswordUsername (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this place definitely has a learning curve, as I am constantly reminded myself :) Cheers, MLauba (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

SCV

Hi. :) I've responded to your note at WT:COPYCLEAN. Thanks. Don't know if you're considering joining in on a regular base or just helping out periodically, but either way we appreciate it. We can use the help! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed, thanks for the very extensive feedback & the welcome. As for my long term prospects, I have frankly no idea, I simply stumbled upon WP:SCV while doing some gnome work, read through the instructions and thought I'd give it a shot. Hope you don't have to clean up too much behind me, though, that would defeat the purpose. MLauba (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no. You're clearly on top of your game. :) You know about GFDL issues, and you have good communication. Hope to see more of you in the copyright cleanup parts! :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A shiny

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For your terrific work with cleaning up copyright violations on many, many pages, I award you this barnstar. Keep up the great work! – Quadell (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Shiny indeed, thanks a bunch. MLauba (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Hey MLauba I have never used the page mentioned. I stick with the peer reviewed literature. You need to provide the exact diff if you want me to look into things further. Otherwise I would appreciate that you cross out this fairly serious allegation you have made on my talk page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the only edit that I have made to this article. [1]

(ec)All which is left upon second review would be this diff, the first sentence more specifically. I'm fully prepared to strike the full comment and issue appropriate apologies upon further clarification. Thanks. MLauba (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the ref: it is based on this "Safety of therapeutic methylphenidate in adults: a systematic review of the evidence.

Godfrey J.

Westhaven and Portland CMHT, Westhaven, Weymouth, Dorset, UK. jonathan.godfrey@dorset-pct.nhs.uk

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often persists into adulthood. Stimulant drugs, including methylphenidate, have showed efficacy in trials for ADHD in adults. Adult psychiatrists are likely to encounter increasing numbers of adult patients who may benefit from methylphenidate. A systematic review of the literature was made to examine the evidence on the safety of methylphenidate, when used therapeutically in adults. Twenty-six placebo-controlled trials were found, in which 811 adults received methylphenidate for ADHD and other conditions. In the short term, methylphenidate was well tolerated and no serious side effects were observed. There is little information on the long-term safety of methylphenidate in adults, although the number of serious adverse effects reported to regulatory authorities has, so far, been low. Methylphenidate is associated with a modest rise in blood pressure and heart rate. Surveys of stimulant use in US universities show that misuse of prescribed medication, for recreation or to enhance study, is fairly common although the level of harm that arises from this practice is unclear.

PMID: 18515459 [PubMed - in process]"

Which I than paraphrased to the line above. I have never used the web page wrong diagnosis and this sort of issue can just occur by chance. Based on one line of text that is similar to a previous line of text published on the internet I think you accusations of plagerism are unworrented.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged. While I seriously doubt this sort of issue can just occur by chance, it does appear that you were the plagiarized party here. Please accept my deepest apologies for the unwarranted suspicion. --MLauba (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You doubt that this could of occurred by chance? This is a serious lack of AGF. How many ways can you put together the bolded text above? I appreciate you striking out the comments on my talk page but above you are still accusing me of plagiarism here. This is a serious accusation and not one to be thrown arround lightly. The wrong diagnosis people have NO references supporting what they write. The fact that what I added was referenced to the peer reviewed literature when I added it to a passage that contains basically exactly what I addded should be sufficient for my defense. Abd does make a good point maye Wrong Diagnosis is plagarising from wikipedia.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)What I meant by this is that I doubt the other site would have reached the exact same wording as you (and CVZ for the rest of the issue) did by pure chance. To be more clear, I now suspect the article's copy on the remote site to be an unattributed verbatim copy of your (and CVZ's) contributions. There is no implied accusation of plagiarism from my side, nor even a suspicion of one. --MLauba (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. I appreciate you resolving this issue. As an academic you must understand I take this issue very seriously. Cheers--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Underlined second half of the sentence. If the wording was unclear, I'll just go ahead and blame my lack of command of the English language this time. MLauba (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Now I guess we need to get WD to own up to the fact that they are taking our work without making mention that it is originally from wikipedia? Many thanks for following up.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, although I'll start worrying about that part on Friday. I need a day to take this all in. MLauba (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For demolishing the backlog at WP:SCV and in so doing preserving the integrity of the encyclopedia. – Toon(talk) 15:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, you've made my day! Having not addressed any concerns at SCV for over a week, I was expecting there to be hundreds of articles to be checked! Seeing the issues have been addressed was very refreshing! On a side note: when you tag an article for CSD, it's best to note that on the list, rather than remove the article straight away. This just makes it easier to keep track of articles if users remove the speedy deletion tags. Plus ClueBot comes and cleans out the redlinks after the article's been deleted.

Volunteers in copyright-related areas on Wikipedia are hard to come by, and I'm glad that you've taken the time to help out! We need all the help we can get. Best, – Toon^(talk) 15:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm definitely learning a lot today, including treading on eggs and triple-checking, as illustrated by the section immediately above. It's a steep learning curve, to say the least. Cheers.--MLauba (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I still make reasonably frequent errors when I'm rattling around, I recently had a rant at an unfortunate individual before it was revealed that there was more to the situation than met the eye. The only thing to do is to apologise humbly when you're mistaken (as you have done above) and apply the lessons in future work. It can be a complex and time-consuming business, but it is one of the most important issues on WP. :) – Toon^(talk) 16:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: CSDCheckbot test run

Thanks. There are still some bugs I'm sorting out, but it's nice to know that the data is useful.--Dycedarg ж 23:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Demophon

Hello. I am aware of the problems created by the cut-and-paste creation of articles. It is just that in this case the situation was extraordinary. Demophon was originally a disambiguation page, when User:13alexander created an article about Demophon of Eleusis within the disambiguation page instead of creating its own article. Since this user is inactive for the past two months, all I could think of was to copy-paste the text for him and move it to the new article. A much better solution, of course, would be to move Demophon to Demophon of Eleusis and create a disambiguation page (Demophon (disambiguation)) but this would affect the history of the disambiguation page which had already had a talk-page of its own (if I am stating the situation clearly). Now all three articles (including this one) are the way they were supposed to be except for the matter of their histories. Any ideas? --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all, I wrote the notification as routine on the off-chance that you wouldn't know about straight moves. In the meantime, the disambig's history has been merged to the new page, so I'm assuming all is now in order. --MLauba (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking care of it. I would normally have asked for the help of an admin myself, but I was unsure about the "protocol". Of course, now I know how should I ask for help next time :) Cheers. --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com

My apologies; I was not aware of this. This is a particularly unusual situation. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, it is I who apologize for rudely barging in but I thought you might want to know about the background :) MLauba (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help in the unblocking. Is there any way that admins and other interested parties could be notified re the situation so it doesn't keep happening? Thanks again. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies to you as well, I didn't actually mean to be prying but had you on my watchlist for some old article matter or something, and I remembered when it happened last time in April.

Apart from getting an approval for a change at AN/I, which would probably be the best, what I'd do is put a notice at the top of your user and talk page using the {{Hidden}} template, something like this:

Admins, read this before blocking my username

My username is like this because link a) link b) link c), thank you for reconsidering your block (or something).

CSD

Hi MLauba. re: Lucette Finas, after talking to another editor about the CSD tag, I was on my way back to remove. I see you got to the article first, thanks. — Ched :  ?  20:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I replied on SoWhys talk as well. And it's a pleasure to meet you! ;) — Ched :  ?  20:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)