WikiDan61

I have no clue where / how to post here but Websupergoo is a very very small company and they are rip off artists.

Three of the articles I cited are on MICROSOFT owned sites. How are these not considered reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorDorkus (talk • contribs)

The articles you cited were from the ASPNet User's Forum. Although Microsoft owns that site, it is still a user forum, and as such, it is not a reliable source. A source such as a newspaper or online news organization is reliable because there are fact-checkers and editors assuring (to a degree at least) that the facts presented are true. On a user forum, a user may say anything they like and it will be allowed to stand. If I posted a note on the ASPNet User Forum that Martians had stolen my rutabagas, it would allowed to stand, but it would not make it a citable "fact" for verification of Wikipedia content. Please review the guidelines at WP:RS for further information. And just because a company is small, that is not a reason to discount their products. Again, if you have had issues with their product, I'm sorry. But from the Google search I performed, their product has gotten at least a few notices in the media, so they must be doing something right. As a final note, you will notice that I have moved this discussion from User:WikiDan61 to User Talk:WikiDan61. It is not appropriate for you to modify other users' user pages. That is a page for a user to inform other Wikipedians about themselves. Discussions with other users should be directed to their user talk pages. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Moreover, if this is supposed to be neutral then how is Websupergoo allowed to have a page with a working product? The product CLEARLY doesn't work at all. This experience is really making me lose faith in Wikipedia. Utterly ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorDorkus (talk • contribs)

You say the product doesn't work. But unless you can provide a RELIABLE citation to that effect, you can't really publish that on Wikipedia. I will take a look at the article and see if it merits a wider discussion about the software's notability (i.e. whether it has received sufficient third-party coverage). It might well be that the product shouldn't be listed on Wikipedia. But that decision will be based on a community consensus, and the community will avoid denigrating commentary in the process. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have tested and provided examples online of the product failing - they are guaranteed examples of failure - am I considered a reliable source? Am I allowed to at least include examples of blatant failures in their application online? I have no problem citing these examples. Again - I do have a bone to pick - you are right - I paid for something and their support group is not upholding their end of the contract - they deserve to be called out on this. MajorDorkus (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, actually, you are not considered a reliable source. And neither am I. Now, if you can get a journal (PC magazine, something along those lines) to review and publish your findings, THAT would be a reliable source. But your own personal experiences are specifically excluded from the "reliable sources" category. On a side note, I have nominated the article for deletion on the grounds that there are really no independent reviews or coverage on the product. (I went back and looked at the Google hits I found, and I note that they are all self-published ads for the product.) Given your negative, non-neutral history of editing this article, I would suggest that you might want to stay away from the Articles for deletion discussion and let disinterested third parties review the facts. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

WikiDan61: please explain how I: a humble user, with valid concerns about a product, and empirical evidence of the problems cannot get that information published on here in the appropriate place. What if I make an ABCpdf User Bugs and Issues Article? Is that Valid? I could fill that up with examples of failures pretty quickly. I have stopped at undoing your changes but I'm about to undo your edit. Now that you're involved in this discussion please advise me what steps I can take. MajorDorkus (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I really don't know how I can stress the importance of the whole reliable sources issue. Your own personal experience is NOT a reliable source for the claims you are making, and any continuation to make unsourced negative claims against this company will be deemed vandalism, because they will open Wikipedia to charges of libel. If you can't find a reliable source for the information you want to add, don't add it! If you can't live with that restriction, perhaps there is another pastime other than Wikipedia editing that will suit your interests better. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

That is fair and I appreciate you nominating the article for deletion. I will keep in the loop with the deletion conversation but will sit on the sidelines as you suggest. Again, I have code examples that prove there are issues that Websupergoo fail to address. No Journal etc. would care to publish this information so even if it is valid, the code can run on a computer and prove the issues, it's not considered reliable. In the real world, this would be like my neighbors urinating on my house week after week after week. I could easily video tape them urinating, but this video would be inadmissible as evidence. Utterly ridiculous - for computer articles CODE should be considered empirical evidence and Wikipedia should NOT be liable for this. But that's just my opinion - I appreciate your guidance. MajorDorkus (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tasya Hodges. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasya Hodges. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

...and I blocked the poor sap for repeated copyvios/spamming. I'll take care of both right now. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, WikiDan61. You have new messages at Djmeyers2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  Done, thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you're involved in the deletion process, please don't limit your comment to "non-notable" or "nn".

This comment has come to mean nothing more than "I want this article deleted" and/or "I think this article shouldn't be on Wikipedia", and may give the impression that you are not bothered to actually check up on it or find a proper reason for deleting the article. Tell us why you think the subject is non-notable, and what you understand by "non-notable".

This goes double if you're nominating an article. "NN" is not a reason for deletion. "Fails WP:BIO", "I think this subject is of interest to only a very limited number of people", or "unverifiable" are. At the very worst, please expand on why you think someone or something is non-notable.

The exception to this is when referring to CSDs like {{nn-bio}}, {{nn-band}}, and the like. The nn prefix here refers to the articles lacking any assertion of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjkinfo (talk • contribs)

I presume you are referring to my nomination of your Creating public Communities article for deletion. If you are unhappy about this nomination, please feel free to comment on it at that page, where the full Wikipedia community can be included in the discussion in order to achieve proper consensus. And, for the record, the guideline that you have quoted is one user's opinion, not a Wikpedia guideline. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The page for St. Marys school has been flagged for immediate deletion. This page contains the same type of content as other private schools in the area which you have posted in Wikipedia. This is a non-profit Catholic school

Webmistressofthedark (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I can't speak for the other schools' Wikipedia pages, as I have not seen them. I can speak to the page you created. By using words like "our" in your article, you immediately point out that the page has been written by someone affiliated with the school, a violation of the Wikipedia conflict of interests guidelines. The language of the article is unwaveringly favorable toward the school, acting as an enticement for readers to consider sending their children to the school. Without a fundamental rewrite, the article can only be perceived as an advertisement for the school. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so what you are saying as that I need to make the language neutral in nature and that will be acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmistressofthedark (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

That, and you need to resolve the copyright violation that has been identified. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Be patient here, where do I find out what the copyright violation is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmistressofthedark (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

On the St. Mary's School (Connecticut) page, another editor has flagged your page as a copyright violation. If you intend to address that concern, and my concern about blatant advertising, you should place the template {{hangon}} directly below the last {{db}} template (but before any other text on the page) to alert admins that you would like to contest the deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am trying to meet your criteria while attempting to learn how to use Wikipedia at the same time. The article info should be neutral as I understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmistressofthedark (talk • contribs) 18:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am trying to locate where this link http://stmarysschoolsimsbury.org/prospective/aboutus/ is showing up on the page since it seems to be causing trouble, but I cannot locate it. I have edited the information to be neutral.

18:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmistressofthedark (talk • contribs)

This issue isn't that the link is showing up on the page, but rather that the page contents are a substantial copy of the information at that link. I am currently editing the page to create a more neutral version. Please hold on. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thnak You! I see what you mean now as neutral. Your help was greatly appreciated.

Webmistressofthedark (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Any time. I should remember the motto "Improve, don't delete!" WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Having explained to the original author why his article wouldn't do, I appreciate your helpfulness putting it into proper shape. I have my doubts whether it meets WP:BK, but never mind that - I'm writing to point out that the plot summary is still a straight copyvio of the blurb on the publisher's website. Rather than tag it db-copyvio, I thought I'd point that out so you could reword it, if you like, before Coren Searchbot flags it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Fine. I have the impression that we're fairly relaxed about WP:BK, as long as we don't turn into too much of a publisher's-blurb notice-board, and as long as we get rid of things like this - the article author says plaintively at the AfD "My mother is working on this book series and plans to have all eight books published by fall/09." Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, WikiDan61. You have new messages at Fauncet's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 

Hello, WikiDan61. You have new messages at Fauncet's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 

Hello, WikiDan61. You have new messages at Dank's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, WikiDan61. You have new messages at Bradsmithcpa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 

Hello, WikiDan61. You have new messages at SoSaysChappy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi,

Please help. My account and all my pages have been deleted without warning. This is very unfair and did not give me a chance to move or edit my content.

User talk:CFM-Churches

I am not getting any help from User: Backslash Forwardslash who has only been an administrator for 24 days. I am a complete novice and a real person but spent many hours creating USER pages which I thought were safe from deletion. Please help!

Thanks

Wes

I wish I could help, but I'm not an administrator. As I can see from the discussion on your talk page, there appears to have been some resolution. If not, feel free to contact me again, and I'll see if there's anything I can do to help. Please note that this does not mean I endorse the content you created, only that I believe anyone should be allowed to improve their performance the next time around. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

hi please do not delete my lovely page it means a lot to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpossible666 (talk • contribs)

Kim, you clearly do not understand the purpose of Wikipedia. Although anyone can edit Wikipedia, it is not a place for you to post your random thoughts about your friends and your school. It is an encyclopedia, and as such, the material must be notable and verifiable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi wikidan61.

Thanks for the info - still finding my way around wikipedia, so useful to be pointed in the right direction on protocols and editing. I have amended these articles to point the edits summary to the discussion page

cheers! Envirogeek (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Sandeep baliyan 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 a person or group of people, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. GW… 19:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, Twinkle malfunctioned. I will report a bug. --GW… 19:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually it's already a known bug. --GW… 19:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Delete......There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I edit-conflicted with you on the talk page. As it had sat for nearly 24 hours with db and hangon tags, it seemed the admins were doubtful about a speedy, so I have taken the tag off and told the author that I will do some more checking and then probably take it to AfD. Certainly, on the basis of the links from the article, it is lacking the substantial coverage required. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Update - I have done more checking, without result, and the AfD is here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uhaina (talk • contribs)

I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DataShackle Framework as you had previously commented on the viability of this article. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you upload a pic of the album for me? It won't let me do it until i've been around here longer but i want the article looking complete. Thanks.

Also, if i make articles for Fy-Ah Fy-Ah and Man To Man, could you post their respective pictures? Thanks.

Oh and thanks for tidying up the layout and things. I didn't have the first clue how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unyunmasta (talk • contribs) 18:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't have the pictures to upload. Prior to reading your article, I had never heard of the album or the songs. I just saw an article that needed formatting and I went to. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, WikiDan61. You have new messages at Unyunmasta's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Well i have uploaded a pic here, if you could transfer it to the page it would be much appreciated. http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y107/onionmaster/album-grooving-kingston-12-jad-mast.jpg Thanks.

I haven't actually uploaded any images in the past, and I'm not sure how to do it. I try to avoid uploading images because of the copyright concerns. 96.57.79.179 (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. When you patrol new pages, all articles that you have looked at should be marked patrolled, whether you marked them for deletion or deemed them acceptable, unless you are not sure. This saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thank you.  _{Guy M | Talk}  13:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I'm new using wikipedia and i will appreciate if you can help me to add correcly the information about the D.O.P Foundation and the D.O.P. Collection. I try to publish the information but I receive a Speedy delete tag. So, Can you help me with the correct way to publish the information?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidop (talk • contribs)

Please see my response on your talk page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you WikiDan. I understand your concerns. I believe the reason why i have sourced material from the same reference is in connection to the fact that the text is in relation to the specified reference allready mentioned. I am taking steps to sort this out and the other issues which you have mentioned. Thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trippleact (talk • contribs) 20:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Um, I don't really understand what it is you're trying to say there, but unreliable sources are unreliable sources, and they shouldn't be used in Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

PS -- the "Key Priorities" section you have added is entirely original research as none of the references you cite ever mention the "Minister for Men". Yes, those are all concerns that such a position might address, but as no reputable source has listed those as the priorities of this position, your creation of the list constitutes original research, and can't be allowed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I was encouraged to become part of the campaign again systematic bias (see my talk page). On 18 July editor Quibik reversed links by me to 'Royal Canberra Hospital' in the 'Royal Canberra Hospital Implosion' entry on the basis of 'overediting.' (see history of edits) But the links were in separate paras and so (I felt) not contrary to the policy and I wrote this up on the article discussion page. There has been a campaign by the ACT government to downplay the public angst felt about its demolition of this much loved hospital and I accused editor Quibik of possible bias in explaining my undo. Now this editor as added notifications to both the article about me (which has now been through many editors hands and which I haven't touched since requested not to) and that of my father Marcus De Laune Faunce (where I acknowledged neutrality issues immediately). This motivation of Quibik in doing this seems related to my accusing him/her of potential bias and I suspect him/her may have some COI related to the Royal Canberra Hospital and my father's opposition to its closure. In relation to myself my reading of the Wiki policy was that opposing 'harrassment' and 'outing' was supposed to take precedence. I wish the edits of Quibik on those two articles taken down as flowing from COI or harrassment. Should I do that myself? Should I report him/her to the COI page?Fauncet (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

As a first clarification, Quibik (talk · contribs) reverted your edits on the basis of overlinking not overediting. The Wikipedia policy on this is somewhat vague, but in general, not every occurrence of a term needs to be Wikilinked. The general rule is that one Wikilink on any group of text that would be visible in a typical reading screen is enough. My own personal rule of thumb is that the first occurrence of a term should be wikilinked, and then no others within the article unless the article is of excessive length. As a second point, the reversion cannot be considered harassment; it was a simple attempt to clean up an article. As a third point, I agree with Quibik that your leap to the harassment assumption was quite quick, and also that your own additions to the article are highly WP:POV. Just because a quote is published in a recorded history, that does not make the quote neutral. Your additions of this material to the article have skewed its neutrality and I would agree with any efforts made on others' parts to revert them. I see no indication on the article itself, and little indication on its talk page, that any "notification" about you exists; Quibik has merely pointed out on the talk page that your additions constitute a conflict of interest and violate neutrality. It is proper to make such comments on an article's talk page; this is why such pages exist. I do agree with Quibik that your creation and editing of the article about your father was inappropriate; as much so as the creation of your own article. Your further aggravation of the issue by accusing him of a conflict of interest means that the harassment charge falls more squarely on your shoulders than his. Given the history of your edits and the comments that have been made to you on your talk page, I fear that you do not understand or are simply unwilling to conform to Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines, and that you continue to try to promote your own agenda on this site. This behavior is not acceptable, and will end badly for you. I would hate to see that happen as you are clearly a gifted and broad-minded individual; the project could well profit from your contributions, but only if you can conform yourself to its policies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

But the point you're missing is why Quibik suddenly turned up at these entries and did this. He came and made these edits only after a dispute with me on another site. My point is that this is contravening the wiki policy on COI by using the fact I am known to 'harrass' me, as a retaliation. He didn't come to these entries with a neutral POV. I decided to be up front and not hide behind an anonymous name. I've had enough. Bye. Fauncet (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply