User talk:Nowa/Archive 2

Please click here to leave me a new message, or click the + tab at the top of the page.

/Archive 1

Facebook patent

Hi Nowa, I haven't read the claim, but yes watching pages has been around since at least 2004, see e.g. [1]. --Edcolins (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. This could easily be invalidating prior art. I'm keeping a running list on the Talk:Facebook#Facebook_patent page.--Nowa (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's claim 1

1. A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment, the method comprising:

• monitoring a plurality of activities in a social network environment;
• storing the plurality of activities in a database;
• generating a plurality of news items regarding one or more of the activities, wherein one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user;
• attaching a link associated with at least one of the activities of another user to at least one of the plurality of news items where the link enables a viewing user to participate in the same activity as the another user;
• limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users; and
• displaying a news feed comprising two or more of the plurality of news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users.

Rites of Passage

Hello. I'm afraid I don't have any suggestions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks anyway.--Nowa (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Rites of passage (with a lower-case "p") is a generic term that should link to the general rite of passage. Add Rites of Passage to Rite of passage (disambiguation) to help people find it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I've actually already done it.--Nowa (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Scott Mattia 12/208,609

Hi Scott Mattia. This is a posting on the Internet of a single page with a static URL about patent application serial number 12/208,609. --Nowa (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Greg Mortenson

Thank you for your work on the Greg Mortenson article over the last few days -- especially finding the citation you just placed there. When I added the citation needed tag earlier today, I was getting ready to leave home for a few hours and knew I wasn't going to have time to do search for a reference until later tonight. Glad someone else is working to keep the article not only NPOV, but well referenced. Appreciate it. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. Glad go help.--Nowa (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, your problem here was because you used typographic (curly) quotes <ref name=”unlikely” /> (Unicode U+201D) and not typewriter (straight) quotes <ref name="unlikely" /> (Unicode U+0022), see the last sentence in the first paragraph of WP:REFNAME (curly quotes are discouraged in general: those in article text are covered at MOS:PUNCT). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I replaced outed with criticized. Wasn't trying to be inflammatory, but do think something about the recent criticism is appropriate in the top (summary) portion of his bio.

Appreciate your making a comment rather than simply reverting it. Another user keeps arbitrarily reverting everything that I write rather than improving it, and that is difficult. Lgmagone (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome.--Nowa (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Kickstarter address

I replied on the Talk page. Sorry for the rollback, it was a misclick. Steven Walling 03:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

no problemo.--Nowa (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! (re: edits to Quirky, Ahhha etc)

By the way, if you know any good references to improve Davison Associates, please go ahead. I had nominated the article for deletion last week, but after a few edits, the topic appears somewhat notable, and the result was an unanimous keep. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ahhha

The article Ahhha has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

insufficient evidence that it meets the notability criteria for websites

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I explained notability on Ahhha's talk page. --Nowa (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Creative Barcode

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Creative Barcode requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Creative Barcode for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Creative Barcode 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/Creative Barcode 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 good 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. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Leahy-Smith America Invents Act

Hi Nowa, thanks for your message on my talk page. I don't think waiting for one month will help. My suggestion would be to try to educate the other contributors on what Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view mean.

More concretely, one may think first about whether the structure of the article can be improved and how. Then, cleaning up each section one by one seems the way forward. I am also willing to spend some time improving this important article. We must be bold and remove every sentence which is not based on a reliable source. This would reduce the amount of content to a core of undisputable material, from which the article could then carefully be expanded. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think I'll dive into the "provisions" section first.--Nowa (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

ArtistShare

Thanks for your message. I have reinserted the paragraph and added some references... What you inserted is verifiable and can be kept in my opinion. I have just removed the docstoc.com link. This seems to be a primary source (see Wikipedia:Primary sources). --Edcolins (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point on the primary source. Thanks.--Nowa (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No problemo. By the way, User:69.86.129.52 is likely to have a conflict of interest. See these posts after editing the related article on Brian Camelio. --Edcolins (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

incorrect information

Nowa, Brian Camelio was never in the rock band Journey. You need to do more research. What you are referencing is a poorly written and researched blog. Jamesrand (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the wording to "According to the BBC, he was a session musician for the rock band Journey." This at least should be fine, i.e. with "According to the BBC". See Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Edcolins (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Google Books - privileged access? Not for me

Nowa, have you got a full access to this book? I haven't got any access to the book through Google Books. Is Brian Camelio featured in a full chapter of the book? Can you confirm? --Edcolins (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's there. A "chapter" might be stretching it. It's more of an essay. It's two pages long. It gives a nice summary of ArtistShare and what it's meant for artists.

Any chance to post a copy of these two pages on the talk page for verification, or to email me the relevant text? I would like the check whether it justifies the following sentence on Camelio's page: "Camelio... in 2005 was featured in The Big Moo: Stop Trying to Be Perfect and Start Being Remarkable, an "unprecedented collaboration of 33 of the world's smartest business thinkers." by business writer Seth Godin.[5][6]"... Is "featured" the right word? Thanks --Edcolins (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

yes, "featured" is the right word.--Nowa (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

However, I'm not sure the "unprecedented collaboration..." quote belongs. That appears to be self promotion of the book. It might be better to have a separate entry for The Big Moo and simply link to it. Perhaps certain editors could be encouraged to start that article if it is important to them. Here's a link to some potential references from Google News Archives--Nowa (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal information?

I'm interested to know what personal information has been revealed. If you're talking about the concern raised by Tbeckham, there is nothing there that is not public (by your hand) and posted by you on your talk page. I'm inclined to replace his concern unless you can illustrate how this is posting 'personal information'. Wikipelli ^Talk 21:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. It's true, I've made no secret of my personal identity and my writings are open to the public. If an editor has a concern that I have a conflict of interest in editing Brian Camelio, that editor should follow the procedure in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest. That editor, for example, should raise the issue here on my talk page and point out to me how I've done one or more of

   2.1.1 Citing oneself
   2.1.2 Financial
   2.1.3 Legal antagonists
   2.1.4 Autobiography
   2.1.5 Self-promotion
   2.1.6 Promotional article production on behalf of clients
   2.1.7 Campaigning
   2.1.8 Close relationships

We can then take it from there.--Nowa (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably while you were writing this, I made just such a suggestion on the editor's talk page. Please also see my comments on the article's talk page. You'll see that I've reverted the back-and-forth on the issue as it does not pertain to the writing of the article. In the event that he/she avails themselves of wp:ani, they'll be free to discuss how you might have violated wp:coi and, of course, you will have the opportunity to defend yourself of such an accusation. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Nowa (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar for you...

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		This diplomacy barnstar is in recognition of your constant and dispassionate work in resolving, peacefully, conflicts on Wikipedia, and in particular for your consensus-building efforts on the Brian Camelio talk page. Thank you! Edcolins (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!--Nowa (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Twinkles

Twinkles is now a redirect as you requested. Thanks for the good idea. Acroterion (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome, and thank you.--Nowa (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL @ template bug

Given my prior experience, I'm sure it's some kind of wacky bug. You might a kick out of a similar experience I had; to clarify, the sections I created entitled "Help! I'm being held prisoner inside a colorful text box!" and "(but seriously, folks, I can't figure out how to break out of this text box)" were once imprisoned inside... a colorful text box  ;)

The only advice I can give you is to look for a possibly missing right-curly-bracket... Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny!--Nowa (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: income inequality graph

I asked the author to release the graph as CC-BY-SA-2.0 by email. Should you wish to verify this, please email lane (dot) kenworthy (at) gmail (dot) com. Dualus (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Template bug - Template:Welcome-to-Wikipedia

I would discuss the bug on Template talk:Welcome-to-Wikipedia or User talk:Magister Scienta. Magister Scienta has created the template it seems. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--Nowa (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep on eye on the Advaita Vedanta page for me

I'm going to take the USPTO exam very soon as well. I finished my studying and sent in my money. As a fellow patent guy, do me a favor and keep an eye on Advaita Vedanta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.115.76 (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Caitlin sign.jpg

Sorry, but the license at https://twitter.com/#!/bfurnas/status/130354343827349504 says "NonCommercial" - that's too restrictive for Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Live and learn.--Nowa (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah

I was going to redact that too. Thanks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome--Nowa (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Congrats...

...for being mentioned in The New Yorker. See [2], last paragraph, "In mid-November, ...". And now we know who nominated the article for deletion.. Argh! Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I got a chuckle when I read that. "Hey, that's me!"--Nowa (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that you already knew... [3] --Edcolins (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep

I believe Occupy Marines should remain. It has turned out to be a much more serious and informative site than the OWS site. There is a clear unrest in our country right now and I would not count on this movement fading away any time soon as has been previously posted. We are going into a great time of change for our country and this movement could very well be a much larger part of history than we could ever imagine. I think it would be extremely unwise to delete history in the making. Although we had no electronic networking back in the 1960's, how foolish it would have been for reporters and photographers to have ignored the anti-war movement in it's infancy, even though everyone thought that "bunch of hippies" would fade away too! There is also an abundant amount of informative links on this site where the average person can be educated and enlightened. They have been very active in keeping live video streams running so there is at least some kind of accurate reporting being done from the occupy sites and updating people to events and where help is needed. So to say they are doing nothing is incorrect. Dee56 (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Could you repost your comments to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Occupy_Marines? That's where the decision will be made.--Nowa (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Your rewrite includes both outstanding intellect and good common sense. Nice job! Gandydancer (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Super! Thank you. and thank you for your support.--Nowa (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Occupy Homes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Occupy Homes 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/Occupy Homes 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 good 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. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Hand Gestures

Did not get back to this yet, but appreciate your message. KSRolph (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

New attempt to remove OccupyMARINES

Please forgive this unsolicited contact, but I note that a couple of weeks ago, you participated in a discussion at Wikipedia regarding the proposed deletion of their entry on OccupyMARINES. Of 26 respondents, 24 voted to Keep; only 2 voted Delete. The result was to Keep the article.

However, it has now been nominated again for deletion, and I thought you might be interested. Here's the URL for the new discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Occupy_Marines_%282nd_nomination%29

JohnValeron (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.--Nowa (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You're accused of being a troll and member of Anonymous

You may also be interested to know that user 77.100.209.249 has insinuated that you are a troll and member of Anonymous. See this thread in the indented ¶ beginning "Yesssss, I'm an evil deletionist (/sarcasm) ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_at_Occupy_Marines

JohnValeron (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, thanks for the heads up.--Nowa (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

We are not imaginary

My name is Jason Tallafuss and I am a USAF veteran. I just wanted to ask you to review the beginings of veterans for peace and other such orginizations before deciding that OccupyMARINES doesn't exist.

Please respect the men and women that put their lives on the line for your FREEDOM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.234.211 (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A.N.S.W.E.R.

Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from Wikipedia. This is much appreciated, but unfortunately your repair was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's page history to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for details. Thank you. — Manticore 01:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Occupy Windsor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Occupy Windsor 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/Occupy Windsor (2nd nomination) 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 good 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. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

For info

You're experienced enough to know that restoring tags is not a matter for 3RR. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have experience with this? I really don't see that exception in WP:3RR.--Nowa (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Emma Goldman and Anarcha-Feminism

I've initiated a discussion on the issue of mentioning anarcha-feminism under the "influenced" section of the infobox in the Emma Goldman article. As you have been involved in the issue, I'd like to mention that the discussion is ongoing; and invite your participation. — Life in General (Talk) 02:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your outstanding work creating quality articles such as the one on Occupy hand signals, you deserve this wiki Kitten!

FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Super! Thank you.--Nowa (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance fee (U.S.)

Would you have a minute to take a look at this message here (section "US")? There might be a mistake in the article. Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Learn something new every day.--Nowa (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks! --Edcolins (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Central Asia Institute

Hi Nowa! I see you reverted my edit to Central Asia Institute because you were confused by my attempt to improve the categorization. Since the article is in Category:Non-profit organizations based in Montana, it doesn't also need to be in Category:Non-profit organizations. Instead of redoing my edit, I replaced Category:Non-profit organizations with the subcategory Category:501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the update.--Nowa (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

99% declaration has been nominated for deletion

Feel free to weigh in on the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99 Percent Declaration (2nd nomination).--Amadscientist (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I added my vote for a keep and did a bit more cleanup.--Nowa (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD and PROD notifications

Hi Nowa,

Back in December, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, which was part of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at mpinchukwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Elastic interface bus

I'm trying to understand the content of the article on Elastic interface bus and the associated mention in the main computer bus article. It does not appear that this is anything more than a particular form of bus system implemented by IBM, along with their own neologism. For instance, almost every modern bus system sends clock signals with the data, and almost every ancient bus as well. So the LEAD does not seem to indicate anything unique. Although the self-repair mechanism may be unique - I can't say - it certainly doesn't seem to suggest an entirely different class of objects, simply an interesting implementation detail on something that otherwise seems similar to HyperTransport. Can you offer any argument that suggests this deserves an entire section in the main bus article? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No not really.--Nowa (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright on the content of patents and in the context of patent prosecution

Hi Nowa, if you have an idea for a more concise or more elegant title than Copyright on the content of patents and in the context of patent prosecution, please do not hesitate to rename it... Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ed, this is actually an interesting subject of growing importance. It's come up with some of my kikstarter clients where their new design are primarily aesthetic. Apparently the copyright law has changed and the copyright notice in the article is no longer needed. The use of design patents may also be moot. We need a good copyright lawyer to clarify the article, however. I, alas, am but a humble patent agent.--Nowa (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I've just added "{{expert}}" on the top of the article to reflect this. --Edcolins (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Super. I added a specific request to Talk:Copyright--Nowa (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for creating the Occupy Rochester NY article, and working to improve Wikipedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thank you.--Nowa (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi Nowa, what do you mean by "I’m happy to let it drop" in [4]? Do you no longer believe the sections should be in the three articles, as you wrote here? Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"It" means my question as to why James thinks it is so important to add in the assertion that Kickstarter cited the ArtistShare patent application. I'll add in a clarification on the Camelio talk page.--Nowa (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I thought, but this question from Jamesrand was somehow confusing. Otherwise, any objections to moving now the three proposed sections from Talk:Brian Camelio to the three respective articles? I have edited the three sections to make them more neutral as requested by Jamesrand, and now I don't really see anything objectionable. We could also initiate a Wikipedia:Request for comment on whether three sections should be inserted in the three articles and whether they meet our core Wikipedia policies. Any thoughts? --Edcolins (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer if we keep the conversation on the Camelio talk page. I'll respond there.--Nowa (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. --Edcolins (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Transfer (patent), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Collateral (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) 14:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

HYIP

I've reverted your changes again and put some comments on the talk page. The source I think is a reasonable one and needs reflecting, however I think your words are significantly different from what the source actually says. It doesn't say "the trackers exist for this purpose", it says I can't see any other purpose but have no evidence to back it. It also says nothing about these investors actively recruiting others. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Fe (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) 14:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Myles Munroe

The article Myles Munroe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No independent sources, does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited YouCaring, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page P.O.S. (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) 11:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Crowdfunder (US)

Hello Nowa,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Crowdfunder (US) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Travelbird (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Nowa; 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) 23:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss changes to JOBS Act and Crowd funding pages

Hi Nowa-- I'm pinging you to alert you to Talk comments I just made suggesting changes to the JOBS Act and Crowd funding pages, which you have been active on.

These are topics that I'm quite familiar with. Last week, someone told me that they saw my name mentioned in a Wikipedia entry for the JOBS Act, so I checked it out. I'm not mentioned on the JOBS Act page, as it turns out, but I am in a factually incorrect statement on the Crowd funding page that it links to, and both of these pages have errors and omissions that are easily disproven and corrected with reference to reliable, published sources online.

I would be happy to discuss, or elso to just go ahead and edit these entries if you or other, more experienced Wikipedia editors deem it appropriate.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pspinrad (talk • contribs) 23:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss

See Talk:Kickstarter#See also section Steven Walling • talk 23:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Super. Thanks.--Nowa (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 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/International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (2nd nomination) 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 notice from the top of the article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nowa, you might enjoy reading the LA Times reference I have just added to the article, especially the part referring to a fellow named Schessow... --Edcolins (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful! This is turning into a great article.--Nowa (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spreecast, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shindig (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) 11:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Piggybackr.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Piggybackr-logo.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Piggybackr-logo.png

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:US patent 6987220 holcombe.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:US patent 6987220 holcombe.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Startup investing

Hi there, just wondering what sparked the interest to delete the article "startup investing" as I didn't see any comment posted. Your feedback will be much appreciate it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.47.72.170 (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Startup investing. Feel free to agree or disagree. You can also edit the article to address the criticism.--Nowa (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

ArtistShare vs. Kickstarter

I have just updated the section ArtistShare#Patent_dispute with an additional sentence. Do you think we should mention something about the possibility to appeal? Or is the case dead? --Edcolins (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think what you have is fine. The case (i.e. validity of ArtistShare patent) is quite alive. I checked the case records and they are moving to a trial. Discovery will be in first quarter 2014.--Nowa (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. --Edcolins (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice on Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia

Hello, I would like to inform you that a requested move proposal has been started on the Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia talk page. I have sent you this message since you are a user who has participated in one or more of these discussions. Thank you for reading this message. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Liberty Square Blueprint for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Liberty Square Blueprint 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/Liberty Square Blueprint 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 notice from the top of the article. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest policy

Hello, Nowa. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dick Metcalf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Second Amendment (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) 09:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Question about a source and WP:BLPPRIMARY

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a question I raised here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

What was the question? I don't see it on the link.--Nowa (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:US patent 5136502.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:US patent 5136502.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

crowdfunding insurance

Hi Nowa,

Sure. I tried to write it objectively but I am new at editing Wikipedia so any help would be appreciated. It really is a objective view of SEC rules on crowd funding insurance and the issues that crowd funding companies have with D&O. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.41 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No doubt it was objective. The standard with Wikipedia, however, is that material that is added should only be a restatement of what is presented in a "reliable secondary source" (e.g. Newspaper article). It should not be the author's own interpretation. It should also not reference a self published source. If you want, you can draft something and post it here and we can work on it.--Nowa (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible updates to WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY and WP :NEWSORG

Nowa, please be my guest with using some of the material from my discussion below about primary and secondary sources on the WP:RS talk page if you want. I would like to argue that especially in the case of current events: If a reporter saw it with his own eyes, then it can be used and this is a good source for facts (but to be reliable, it has to come from a reliable media, and probably has to name the reporter). Ideally two independent witnesses are needed. If a reporter is just repeating a press release/statement, then this is pure hearsay, and the press release must be used as the source if at all possible (this will often actually be a secondary source, as the spokesman probably wasn't directly involved in the event). If the reporter is quoting from a live press conference, and there is no video or transcript of what was said, then great care must be exercised, because this is notoriously unreliable. In the case of current (news) events, interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources will be somewhat uncommon (reporters may not have time), so care should be taken about the reliability of any interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the news. In the case of current news events, it is almost inevitable that most of the article will be reports of the facts with little interpretation, analysis, or evaluation.

This is a reply to your comment on the MH370 talk page. Please also see my other discussion about sources on the MH370 Talk Page.

I have also copied this to Brian Dell. Kulath (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get too into the weeds with "reporter saw it with his own eyes" etc. Let's keep it at "independently verified" or "independently investigated". The problem that needs to be addressed is a claim getting syndicated and people counting all the syndications and saying that's how many times the claim has been verified. That's obviously wrong. In this case we have a New York Times reporter calling an expert about the methodology of the Huaxin ship and that expert saying it's quite dubious that the method used would work if the pinger is miles down. That should raise doubt. But people will argue "not a direct conflict" and again just count up the number of sources repeating the claim. We need a common sense approach and policy should reflect this.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

United States Statutory Invention Registration

Nowa, this MPEP page suggests that Statutory Invention Registrations are no longer available under U.S. law. Am I understanding this correctly? Thanks --Edcolins (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That is correct.--Nowa (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have updated the article. --Edcolins (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at WP:ANI. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't delete other editors' comments

This deletion is completely unacceptable! Favonian (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The block

My sincere apologies for blocking you Nowa, it was completely my fault. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the notice. I realize we are playing hardball over the whole Horvitz thing.--Nowa (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. I'm one of the Commons admins trying to find the rest of the Beach Buem series. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, good find. Any idea how many are left?--Nowa (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The photos

Stop restoring David Horvitz's vacation photos to all of the Wikipedia articles that he put them on. We don't need a photo of him hiding behind a sign that doesn't even illustrate the subject of the article, standing in front of a hot dog stand, standing in the middle of a park, or holding up a nondescript handful of rocks that he simply claims was taken at a particular location. They're poor quality. He's disrupting. You're disrupting. All you've done is spread his art around when we at this website decided we don't want it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that you do not like his work. All I am doing is returning pages to the status they've had for several years.--Nowa (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been the status quo. Most of the pages have suitable photos on them already that don't have some guy standing behind a sign or hiding in a tree.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but the fact is that it was the status quo.--Nowa (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Status quo is virtually meaningless in an "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". That is why we don't lock down articles after they are written. Consensus IS meaningful, however, and once you find yourself on the losing side, you are better off accepting it. If you edit war against consensus anywhere on the encyclopedia, you should expect to get blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course.--Nowa (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)