This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear James,
My name is Rudy Dallal and I'm a VP at PinpointsX LTD. My employee informed me that she tried several times to submit an entry to Wikipedia about our application and patents, but with no success. The reason mentioned was: " (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) ."
I would appreciate it if you could please explain in further detail the problem with the entry, so that we can submit something to Wikipedia that would be acceptable. As a comparable, another company in our industry, Grindr, succeeded to post an entry on Wikipedia. I've looked at their entry, and it seems very similar in format to what we had submitted the first time. We are proud of our company, and its underlying technology. We represent a first in the industry, and would like to have it memorialized on Wikipedia. I would be happy to provide you with more details on the significance of our platform's technology if you think that would be relevant.
Thank you for your help.
Below is the original article submitted
Kind regards,
Rudy Dallal
PinpointsX
PinpointsX® is a patent-pending cellular application and a geo-social networking platform, enabling users to locate and interact with other users and businesses on a map of their default or current location. The application is available in the iTunes Store and Android Marketplace.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Overview
• 2 PPX-To-Go
• 3 Reviews
• 4 References
[edit] Overview
PinpointsX® is a software company, focusing on providing members and relevant establishments with advanced technologies and services for matchmaking and dating. The application and platform contain a personal and interactive map, allowing users to filter, prioritize, schedule and interact with sensual resources around them. It provides communication between mobile to mobile, mobile to web, web to mobile, and web to web.
PinpointsX® integrates with business establishments such as bars, clubs, hotels, etc. to become resources on the user's personal map. Professionals also seek this technology to provide their services to adults.
PinpointsX® offers their patent technology platform as a white-labeled product to be customized by other companies.
History:
PinpointsX® was founded by CEO, Ronen Gabbay in February 2010. By April 2010, PinpointsX® launched its website and application. It is currently available only in the U.S.
PPX to-go™
PPX to-go™ is a mobile application for iPhone and Android OS systems and a method for mobile-matchmaking. It uses various dynamic positioning technologies, such as GPS, Wi-Fi, CellID and intuitive positioning. The application enables real-time management, filtering, prioritization, mapping and interaction of and between location-based resources, such as member resources and affiliate resources. Resources in the vicinity of a user are displayed on the mobile application map. Various icons represent the resources displayed on the map and can be selected by the user. Various embodiments provide the ability for a user to survey the activity of a future destination/location to be traveled to and create one or more itineraries for future travel in advance.
It is clear from your comments above that your purpose is promotion of your company, which is against Wikipedia policy, and that both you and your employee who tried to post the article about your company have a conflict of interest in editing here, which means you are strongly discouraged from doing so. You may if you like look at the guidelines on notability. I do not know whether your product satisfies those guidelines, but nothing I have seen so far encourages me to think so. If it does not then no amount of rewriting of the article will make a non-notable subject notable. Finally, other articles on what you think are similar subjects are irrelevant, both because there may be genuine differences in notability which you haven't noticed, and also for reasons which you will find explained at WP:OTHERSTUFF if you care to look there. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Lowcountry High Rollers
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there, Would you mind please explaining why my article was deleted. Are we not famous enough basically? Thank you very much for your time.
The organisation did not appear to satisfy the notability guidelines. A link to the main guideline and another to the specific guideline for organisations are provided in the notification on your talk page. Have you read those? If you haven't I suggest you do so. If you have read them, and have specific questions as to how they relate to the particular article then let me know, and I'll try to answer them. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, sorry to be a pain, but how do I delete my article? Desktop Scientific?
I have decided to get relevant citations and assistance with writing the article, would rather prefer to do it the right way... cos I was not aware of the the MULTIPLE endless... requirements that WikiPedia wants.
Encylopaedia Britannica have quoted our Electronic Statistics Textbook as The only Internet Resource about Statistics Recommended by Encyclopaedia Britannica. way better than wikipedia anyway... please delete it if you will... —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleAraujo (talk • contribs) 07:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I would have deleted it for you, since you asked, but I see it has already been deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Need your help
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
I saw your name in the Editor_Assistance page. I would appreciate your help about how to use Rfc, NoticeBoard and Arbitration. I am currently working on the Transcendental Meditation (TM) article, which may not be a subject of interest to you, but this is good because then you have a neutral perspective. Since I opened my account, editors that are sceptic of TM are constantly using the above tools. Me and others editors which are positive toward TM have not much experience with them. The sceptics seems much more experienced. They thus as the advantage of presenting the issues in their own way. They also have the advantage that the TM organisation is bringing out new concepts and people are normally sceptics.
However, my objective is only that all meta-analyses about the effect of meditation, which are published in peer-reviewed journals, receive about the same weight, the most recent receiving an higher weight. The sceptics position is that only some meta-analyses that used some clinical standard (but not developed for studies on meditation) should be represented. They give a very low weight to other meta-analyses because of some connection with the TM organisation, either through a declared funding or because some authors are affiliated with TM. On the other hand, it turns out that the meta-analyses that they consider have been prepared for governmental agencies with a peer-review process that they declare themselves as non standard. I say that discrediting a source because of a TM affiliation is a one-sided argument because a similar argument cannot be applied to authors, referees and editors that are opposed to TM, even though they potentially exist. (I believe they actually exist, especially in the context of a non standard peer-review, but that is not a part of the argument.)
Perhaps, you would not want to take position, but at the least you could give us some advices about doing our own Rfc, appeal to a recent Arbitration decision, etc. What is the best way to proceed from the current situation? Here are examples of action taken by the sceptics:
Any comment or advice will be appreciated. Is TimidGuy banned from participating in an eventual mediation process? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It is far from clear to me exactly what kind of help you are asking for. You clearly have experience of RFC, Arbitration, etc, and can scarcely want instructions on the mechanical aspects such as where to find them. Are you asking for advice on how to present your case to its best effect? That would certainly be asking me to become involved and "take a position", which you indicate is not what you want. Perhaps you can be more specific. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, not much experience is needed to find the tools, I can do that, but how to best use them is another story. So, Yes, I hoped that with your experience of the Wikipedia environment you could help us about which angle can be taken to address this situation (the Rfc, the Noticeboard, the Arbitration), but without getting directly involved in the discussions. If your personal view is pushing you in any degree toward one side, it will be better that it is favourable. In principle, one can use its knowledge of an audience (the Wikipedia environment) to support a case while not believing in it, but there is a chance that it will not be done well. Having no strong opinion on the subject, only a fair and logical attitude, will be excellent. It is just very hard to find people that remains neutral after they look at a case. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to add this info: [1]. This diff is about one aspect only, but the general spirit is that you would be helping me only, not one side in the dispute. I think it would make much more sense in this way. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
First of all, sorry it's taken me so long to reply to your last posting. Unfortunately I didn't have time to give it my full attention at the time you posted it, and then it got lost behind other posts here, and forgotten. I have looked at the case carefully, and it seems to me that you and others are engaged in a concerted effort not only to plug a particular point of view, but to suppress expression of other points of view. You are not willing to accept the results of various attempts to resolve the dispute, but seem determined to seek out ways of setting aside those results, and find other avenues for getting your way. This adversarial approach is not helpful to Wikipedia, and I am not willing to assist it. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I am not sure what you are referring to when you wrote "in a concerted effort ... to suppress expression of other points of view." You could have more directly written "you and your gang are POV pushers" and the message would have been the same. You only used more elaborated words to say the same thing. That was not helpful. I am very disappointed. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree entirely. I think taking the trouble to say what I mean clearly, precisely and civilly is far better than throwing careless insults around, which for some reason you would have preferred. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
If it is better, it is because it is more powerful, we both understand this, but yet the same message is sent. In both cases, the message is not helpful. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Timberlock - Deleted - Please Reconsider
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello,
I started work on a Timberlock (Adirondacks Mountains campgrounds in NY) last night at 3:00 AM and worked for two hours - when I saw the speedy delete I followed the rules and posted the holdon sign - I did not delete the delete notice - and I believe we exchanged messages where I asked you to give me a little time to post my research, pictures, etc to demonstrate what would be a purely factual entry about a geographic part of America that is not well known but deserving of a page - I had 7 footnotes to other websites (only one from the Timberlock website) - including entries from the New York Times, Google Maps - plus had linked to other Wikipedia pages whose topics were in my opening paragraphs, and was starting work on the local mountains - I only could stay awake until 5:30 AM and when I woke up, it was deleted. I'd like more than 3 hours to demonstrate the propriety of my page. The article would have been/will be non-promotional - I don't work for Timberlock or have any financial interest in it - but Timberlock is a part of a beautiful, nationally famous mountain range, well known to locals in New York (and visited by people from around the country AND other countries each year) and has 100+ years of Americana history, starting as a logging camp in the 1890s, housing World War II equipment in the 1950s and 1960s, and more- all before becoming a summer campground. If Disney World, Hershey Park, ski resorts, and state parks merit Wikipedia entries (even though they are businesses and may attract customers who read about them on Wikipedia), I don't see why Timberlock is different - so I am writing to respectfully request that you reconsider the deletion and allow me 3 days or so to get all my information up (and learn how to post a few photos) - I am confident you will see it is a factual, well cited, non-advertising page that fits in perfectly with Wikipedia's mission to allow everyone to add new information for other readers' benefit and new learning. Kindly let me know if I may restart a Timberlock page and have a reasonable time to complete the "first draft" before judgment is made. Thank you very much.
-Phil
philchronakis@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.150.93 (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry - I wasn't signed in when I wrote the above - my username is calvin93. Thanks again.
I have restored the page to User:Calvin93/Timberlock. You can work on it there, and then, if and when it is suitable as an article, it can be moved back. Sorry that you had the unpleasant experience of having it deleted while you were not around. I had left it for what seemed like a significant time, but being in a different time zone gave a different impression. Incidentally, "promotion" applies to any article the main purpose of which appears to be to tell people how great something is, whether or not it is intended as commercial advertising, and whether or not you work for the company. Try to write from a balanced, neutral, point of view, even if your personal view is that Timberlake is wonderful. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
James, thank you, I will retool it and post here when I think it is ready, and will follow your guidelines above - just to make it neutral and factual.
Regards,
Phil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin93 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Not sure if you have my talk page watchlisted, but in case you haven't, I've got one more query regarding the matter discussed earlier. No rush though! Paralympiakos(talk) 17:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
kalaikal
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
How come you deleted kalaikal, it was referenced?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceodefjam (talk • contribs) 14:27, 13 August 2010
Have you read the deletion log entry? If you have then you will know why the article was deleted, namely because (1) it was promotional and (2) it was a copyright infringement. Such language as "it is one of the greatest artistic showcases in our community" is about as promotional as it gets, and I find it difficult to imagine that you were not aware of the fact. I wonder whether your remark "it was referenced" means that you are making the surprisingly common mistake of confusing copyright infringement with plagiarism. Saying where you got your material is a defence against a charge of plagiarism, but not against a charge of copyright violation. If I write something then it is my property, and in general you may not use it without my permission. Announcing that you are using my material does not somehow make it alright to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you please assess my updated article?
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You deleted my article Trucker (band), so I started a special page User:KleePow/Trucker_(band). Could you please take a look and let me know if it passes the notability guidelines and is something worthy of being moved into "article space"? I would like to add additional biographical information, but I wanted to make sure I was properly indicating the importance or significance of the subject first. Hanx! KleePow (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion
You deleted my userpage. Please reverse this action. This is not a hoax, I as a matter of fact have self awarded this award, in accordance with the guidelines of the award. Kipzock (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
First of all I said I deleted it as "blatant misinformation", which it clearly was: it claimed a level of editing which the user did not have. Secondly, as for "self awarded this award, in accordance with the guidelines of the award": nonsense. The guideline is that it is awarded when you have reached a certain amount of editing. Certainly it says that you assess this yourself, but that means you check whether you have done the appropriate number of edits you have done yourself, not that you give it to yourself when you feel like lying about your editing history. As far as I am concerned putting deliberate misinformation into any Wikipedia page is vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
"These awards are unofficial – displaying the wrong one carries no penalty, and displaying the right one does not indicate authority or competence." WP:SERVICE
Dear JamesBWatson, I kindly asked you to restore my user page. I think, I have done nothing wrong. Instead of replying to me you deleted the backup version of my userpage in my userspace. Your objection to the template (I placed on my page) has been duly noted here. However there is no reason to keep deleting pages on my userspace, only cause your objection might not be seen as relevant by the community. If you continue to misuse your admin privileges, I will report you at the incidents board. Kipzock (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I think, this is a blatant misuse of CSD what you are doing. Re: "deliberate misinformation into any Wikipedia page is vandalism" What wikipedia pages have been vandalized, except from your action of deleting my userpage. Kipzock (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note what I said earlier! According to WP:SVC, "displaying the wrong one carries no penalty."dffgdtalk·edits 19:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
In my view, JamesBWatson is wholly correct in his actions to date. And Dffgd please note that Kipzock has to date suffered no penalty for displaying the template in question. He has merely been prevented from doing so. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
"This only applies to cases where the deception is so obvious as to constitute pure vandalism."{{db-hoax}}
Okay, this is jumping around, so also note what I've said here and here. @ Anthony.bradbury: In reply to your above comment and your comment here: Do I think the pages should be deleted? Yes. Do I think they should be deleted per G3? No. Do I think the user should be warned? Yes. Do I think they should be given template warnings, including a final warning? No. Yes, I'm not an admin, but that shouldn't make much difference. Yes, this is just my opinion, but it comes from what I've seen on WP:SVC, WP:G3, and {{db-hoax}}. Enough said for the moment. (Now, after all that, I think I need a little break from typing...) dffgdtalk·edits 22:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
In response to the G3 criteria quoted above, is claiming ONE MILLION edits, when the user in question has 19 edits, or claiming 15 years of service, when Wikipedia itself is less than 10 years old, anything less than a blatantly obvious hoax? WuhWuzDat 23:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There is potential here for much fun for anyone who likes Wikilawyering. One could argue ad nauseam about whether deleting a page is a "penalty", about exactly what constitutes "vandalism", and so on and so on. I also note that dffgd has argued on this question in several places, and that others have argued on the other side in each of those places. However, as far as I am concerned, the idea that it is acceptable to use Wikipedia pages to post deliberate misinformation is absurd. If you are the kind of person who likes quotes from guidelines and policies to support everything then they can be given, but they are not needed. The attitude that editing Wikipedia is just a childish game in which we are free to play games and tell lies as long as we do it in ways that do not break some specific written-down "rules" is unhelpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
As I have already been fairly confrontational here on several occasions, I would appreciate your view on his latest userpage layout. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. In itself harmless although pointless. However, this kind of thing seems to be the editor's only "contribution" to the encyclopaedia. Not encouraging. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I noticed that you blocked 68.39.61.160 (talk); you may want to keep an eye on BlueMario1016 (talk·contribs·block user) as well, I've noticed a few cases where that account and the IP re-do the same questionable edits (e.g. [2] and [3], or [4] and [5]). Anomie⚔ 00:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Stubes99 is back...
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
thanks a lot...just one request... is it possible to extend the block of his original acoount http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stubes99 from 2 weeks ( as it was until today, when his sock Stears555 was blocked) to indef time block? (79.117.139.95 (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC))
For now I have extended the block to one month, because, as well as block evasion, there was some vandalism. I don't think that an indefinite block would be justified yet. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I have blocked the latest IP and edit-protected the article Hungary. I will consider further action. Please let me know of any more trouble. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
As I see, the text added by him here is not correctly referenced. At the respective page it is only a table and the added text "the genetic relation of Hungarians to Finno-Ugric peoples is excluded" does not exist there. I think the edit should be reverted (79.117.151.215 (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC))
... and here with the IP 78.92.106.219 (the IP 78.92.xxx.xxx was used also in the past ) and with the IP 81.183.184.244(79.117.194.103 (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC))
Please, it is a blatant sock, just now, for the last time (79.117.194.103 (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC))
Dear James
In this section, your advisor was a romanian chauvinist.
James, please don't restore Rogvaiv1's (Banned user Iaaasi) vandalism.
provide proofs for your affirmations (79.117.194.103 (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC))
Respectful request
Can you please extend User:Stubes99 1 month block? He evades with nonchalance his block and keeps vandalazins articles...
On Long campaign artcle he adds information had have as a source an internet site: [6] (IP: 84.2.217.6, 14 august)
Through the IP 81.183.185.244 he tries to continue his old dispute about genetics on Hungary talk page
(13 august)
With the IP 78.92.107.119 he attacked other favourite article (Ányos Jedlik - now protected for excessive sockpuppetry) and again Hungary talk page (12 August)(79.117.192.250 (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC))
Gentry McCreary
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello James,
I noticed that you deleted my page about Mr. McCreary and you marked it as a source of advertisent. Can you please explain to me why you deleted it when there were adequate sources provided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thabishop1 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you be more specific as to what article you are referring to? At the time you posted the above message I had neither deleted Gentry McCreary nor even edited it. Orangemike had, however, deleted it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Aah, I've found it now: McCreary, Gentry Sr. (It makes it much easier if you give the actual title of the article.) I deleted it because it was unambiguously promotional. That is to say that the whole tone of the article was telling us how great McCreary is. The presence or absence of sources is a completely different issue: no matter how good the sources an article which is designed purely to promote its subject is unacceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
August 2010
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on User talk:Rebekah1895, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
BI4Dynamics
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Why BI4Dynamics page was promoted to be deleted? It's a description of a business intelligence solution for Microsoft Dynamics - the same way as most of the articles on Wiki are writen. Basic facts, description, without marketing features, comparisons.
What was written:
What Microsoft Dynamics NAV versions are needed in order to install BI4Dynamics
The whole article was written in an entirely promotional manner, including endless use of marketese. (The frequency of use of "solution" alone was remarkable.) If you sincerely did not see it that way then I can only assume that you are so closely connected to the subject that you are unable to stand back and see it from an objective perspective. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest strongly discourages editing of articles by people connected to their subjects. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you serious? "Microsoft Dynamics" wiki page uses the word "solution" at least 5x more often. Which other word would you use? Specifically for the non-promotional manners, the real name of the solution wasn't used so often.
Can you be specific and point out the part that made you feel like that? And then give me the "right" description that should (or better, by your standards must) be used.
If you come across of marketing pages so often, still doesn't mean that every page is marketing orientated... go read the page first, before you delete it.
(msdynamics) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msdynamics (talk • contribs) 12:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, on reconsideration I accept that the promotional language was not as extreme as I made it seem in my comment above. Nevertheless, it was written in the way that one writes if one is selling a product, not in the way one writes if one is writing a detached article in an encyclopaedia. The use of the word "solution" was just given as an example, and too much importance should not be attached to this one example. However, nobody says "I bought a solution yesterday" or "I have come here to buy a solution". The practice of referring to products as "solutions", rather than saying what they are or what they do, is restricted to marketing talk. In real life people say "I bought a computer program yesterday" or "I have come here to buy a table". Finally, what exists in other articles is largely irrelevant: see WP:OTHERSTUFF to see why. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks, enjoy the rest of the sunny Monday ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msdynamics (talk • contribs) 12:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see: Proposed Deletion: Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 15-17
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Regard your message to my talk page: That's nothing. You don't have to worry that someone else beat you to him, it's always OK. My go-to admin was out when the vandal struck, so I had to alert several admins who are active at that moment to ensure to myself that someone responds against the vandal at the soonest (mainly because of the backlog at WP:AIV). At least you decided to go further by protecting the pages the vandal inserts his misinformation often in the past few. It seems to be a blessing in disguise as well because I noted that there was a minor long-term edit war going on in the Digimon articles by several other IPs. Thanks anyway. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
EXTENSION, INC deletion
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
You have recently deleted my EXTENSION, INC. page that I have been in the process of creating. This page is far from being complete. I have been in the process of editing all the information that we have posted...planning on rewording everything we have posted to our article so far. I'm just curious as to how you decided to delete it because I never submitted it for approval. I knew it wouldn't be accepted because it's far from being done. If you could undo the deletion I would greatly appreciate it, since it is still a work in progress and I have currently lost everything I have done.
Thank you,
Kelsey Hostetler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khostetler (talk • contribs) 13:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I would be willing to restore this page for you to work on if it weren't for the copyright issue. Material which breaches coyright cannot be posted anywhere, whether in articles, in temporary user space pages, or wherever. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you please expand on the copyright issues exactly? I work for EXTENSION and work personally with the person who created the website, so it shouldn't be a problem to get the correct copyright information.
If you have permission, send an email to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for fuller instructions. However, you should be aware that material posted to Wikipedia is licensed under a CC-BY-SA license and the GFDL, which means that considerable freedom to reuse the material is granted to anyone in the world: it is not just a question of allowing the material to be used on Wikipedia, and you should make sure that the copyright owner really is willing to grant such broad license terms. Finally, it is only fair to warn you that the people who deal with copyright on Wikipedia tend to be rather overworked, so there may be quite a delay before you get a response. This is very unfortunate, but unavoidable. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I've left you a message on my Talk Page. Would you mind assisting me in the article "Scott Tattar" to make it fall under Wikipedia guidelines as this is my first time and I may be doing it wrong.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hey, JamesBWatson just wondering what is happening Here This page was created with the letter "A" then deleted right afterwords ? Please respond at my talk, Thank you. Mlpearcpowwow 00:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, yes I was wondering why was a page in my user-space being deleted, but on the other hand I don't remember creating it either. All's good, thanks for the Info. Mlpearcpowwow 13:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Taliban & Pashtuns
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi James, thank you for your comment. I agree I could have put it in a better context, but the zealots usually get their way on this site I have noticed.
I wanted to point out that Sikhs originated as a rebellious movement against the wave of Mughal rule around the 1700's, where as today one notices a trend where radical Sikhs try to align themselves as a sort of new neo-Islamic movement - My point is that they are not Pashtuns at all, and never have been. Even the link I tried to edit is a dead link, but its still there ?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.96 (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This is clearly a reference to editing of Talk:Pashtun people. I reverted your edits because you altered comments by other editors. If you want to make a point of your own you should write your own comment, not change someone else's to reflect your view. That is all that my contribution was about: I know nothing of the subject of the discussion at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Ukguyspriggs
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Could you please point out the copyright violation in the text that Ukguyspriggs was attempting to post? I can't see anything obvious but all I did was grab random text from the article and searxch with Google for it so there might be something, even soimething obvious, that I wasn't able to find (I've seen other cases where text is copied directly from a website, but the text is in a Flash or Java-like program and thus is not indexed in Google). —Soap— 10:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I am surprised that your Google searching hit nothing, because I did the same and very quickly found several hits. Perhaps there's an important difference in how you and I choose quotes to search for, or perhaps I was just luckier than you. At least one paragraph here is almost verbatim from http://www.as.uky.edu/about/mission/history/Pages/1933-1958.aspx. (Ukguyspriggs's version begins "The College continued to expand with the creation the Department of Geography in 1944 and the Radio Arts Department in 1947", the original begins "For the College of Arts and Sciences, the 1940s brought additional expansion of curriculum. In 1944 the university created the Department of Geography and in 1947 the Radio Arts Department", but they continue almost identically), Other, shorter, direct quotes can be found from http://www.as.uky.edu/about/mission/Pages/Mission.aspx and http://www.as.uky.edu/about/mission/history/Pages/1908-1933.aspx. I found these examples so easily by searching for a few odd quotes from the attempted edits that it seems virtually certain that there will be many other such quotes and close paraphrases, but I have not searched further. I seem to remember that when I originally posted about this I had found a fairly substantial quoted passage, but I cannot now remember anything about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there. The article which you deleted a few minutes ago has been recreated by the same editor. Amsaim (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Last Bastion Entry deletion
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The deletion log shows code G-11, and I personally am curious why it was classified as such. Would it be possible to see who tagged it as such and their reasoning behind it? 69.138.169.249 (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The article was tagged for speedy deletion by Deconstructhis, whose edit summary said Added {{db-promo}} template to nominate for speedy deletion. It appears a similar promotion for this game was speedy deleted in January titled "Project vega". The article gave no indication of significance of its subject, and appeared to be written to publicise it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I see. However, I would like to request the delete be reverted, seeing as the article was in no way close to completion, (Both with adding content and re-writing said content to allow it to not come off as an advertisement.) and I believe was tagged for deletion quite hastily. 69.138.169.249 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
chandran supermaniam
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have an article on Chandran Supermaniam. Please help me on what I can do to keep this article going in wikipedia.
If you are telling that we are not supposed to be marketing oneself or a company, then how about this person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Babe_Ning—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandran supermaniam (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The article has twice been deleted because it was unambiguously promotional. If you cannot see that such language as, for excample, "Chandran S is a rare breed of talent" is promotional, then I am not sure how to start explaining. I hope you have looked at the guidelines which were linked from messages which editors have posted to your talk page. If you have done so you should have a reasonable idea how to proceed. As for comparison with other articles, I suggest you look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
HI James,
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi this is VENUS VIJ, and you just deleted an article of mine called ZapBooking.com
Actually the article wasn't intended to promote a company but to introduce a travel portal that introduces new technology where travelers can go and plan their travel with the sheer assistance of technology. However, it might have sound like an advertising article because it contains the name of a company.
Please tell me in which other manner I can write about this portal which is really good for the people and will help them planning their travel within seconds.
So tell me how to create another article and how I should write then. Should I make it more generic or what?
I am puzzled as to how anyone can write a whole article full of such language as "an unparalleled reputation in the domain of its operation", "Zapbooking stands apart from the normal crowd and deserves the attention", "Zapbooking has frightened its competitors by magnetizing the youth", etc, etc, and apparently not think they have been writing promotionally. If, however, you really cannot see that this kind of writing is promotional, then unfortunately I do not know where to start with explaining it. If you write stuff that reads as though it is intended to tell us how great the company is then it will probably be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Can you please tell me why you deleted this page? It is most certainly passes the notability guidelines. The page was deleted in haste and was not properly discussed prior to its deletion. Is there a way for you to restore it? Thank you! Doooda (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You say that the article "most certainly passes the notability guidelines", but you provide no evidence that it did so. The article's only sources were blog posts and pages belonging to the Aspen Institute. Presumably you would not make such a categorical statement as that the article "most certainly" passes the guidelines without having read those guidelines, in which case you must be aware that unreliable and non-independent sources are not sufficient. Nothing in the article indicated significance in the eyes of anyone other than the organisation and its members. I agreed with the assessment of RHaworth, Kudpung and Blanchardb who had respectively proposed deletion, nominated it for speedy deletion, and restored the speedy deletion nomination after it had been removed, possibly by you. As for deletion "in haste", the article was first proposed for deletion at 11:55, 11 August 2010, and was deleted at 19:38, 16 August 2010. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
What can one do to request a page about that organization? If one provides more notable sources that are sufficient under the notability guidelines, can one just recreate the page? Is there a copy of it saved some where? How can I get the copy of that text? Thanks.Doooda (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I have moved the article to User:Doooda/Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs for you to work on. If and when it is ready it can be moved back to the main space as an article. Note, however, that this is a temporary process to allow you time to improve the article, not a long-term alternative to having it as an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Uffe Elbæk
Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hello,
You recently deleted my entry for Uffe Elbæk despite my request to "hold on" as I was preparing to provide more information and learning how to use wikipedia.
Can you put my entry back up?
Below are several English sources where you can find mention of Uffe Elbæk
--Javier Leocadio Colon 09:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The article told us of a business that Uffe Elbæk has set up and run, that he has been a local councilor, and that he is a prospective candidate for an election. None of this indicates satisfying the relevant notability guidelines: see WP:BIO, including the section WP:POLITICIAN. The links you have given above include many links to pages which at a quick look do not seem to mention Uffe Elbæk, some which give him minor mention, and some which are clearly not independent sources (some of them, for example, are clearly labelled as press releases). Nothing at all suggests that he comes anywhere near satisfying the notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me JamesBWatson but Uffe Elbæk is clearly a notable person as the "founder" of a whole new way of studying business (The Kaos Pilots). Despite its name it is not a band... it is actually a university. The man created a school and a whole new way of learning that is being replicated across the globe now and that is mentioned in this article: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/03/kaos.html
I would like to also point out that Fast Company has its own wikipedia entry... it was created by Alan Webber and Bill Taylor, two former Harvard Business Review editors and is regarded as a "first peek" at the future of business leaders. Alan Webber is actually coming to Copenhagen to speak with Uffe Elbæk at the end of August to discuss Uffe's future work in the USA.
The Unreasonable Institute http://www.unreasonableinstitute.org/ is currently in talks with Uffe about forming a collaboration to teach social entreprenuers in the near future.
Uffe also has a large following in Asia as a leadership coach.
Uffe Elbæk is currently making the transition from Europe to the USA and despite most of the material about him being in Danish, Uffe Elbæk was the CEO of the World Outgames 2009 securing him as a notable figure in the gay community as well as having three published books to his name. Two are available in English: (KaosPilot A – Z, KaosPilot, KaosPilot – a personal story about a school, an education and a community)
and is in the process of getting his most recent book “Leadership On The Edge” translated into English and published in the USA.
Currently it is a misfortune to not have Uffe Elbæk defined in wikipedia as I believe many young social entreprenuers could benefit from his approach to solving some of the main problems facing young people who seek to get a higher education but demand real experience from the field and less craming their faces into books written by academics with little practical field experience.
The school that Uffe Elbæk created offers a unique education to students from across the globe and teaches in English. I myself recieved my education from a Business School and found it to be insanely boring and dull but had I known about The Kaos Pilots when I was searching for schools then I would have most definetly have applied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javileco (talk • contribs) 08:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
--Javier Leocadio Colon 09:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
That is interesting, but I don't see it addresses the question of lack of evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. The way to do so is to provide suitable independent reliable sources about Uffe Elbæk. If you can do that then there will be no problem with having an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
JamesBWatson,
1. The articles do not describe a "business" that Uffe set up... he did in fact create a university.
2. Your asking me for suitable independent reliable sources... I have provided you with links to one of the leading USA business magazines mentioning a new university created by Uffe Elbæk, two Canadian sources, a very large Dutch magazine, and two links from the UK.
How are those not suitable independent reliable sources???
I am currently seeking articles in Asian magazines to prove to you Uffe's global reach... but you won't be able to read them unfortunately.
Can I get the opinion of another person besides you? I actually resubmitted my entry to get approval by more people but it seems to have vanished. I am still learning how to use this stuff.
--Javier Leocadio Colon 09:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Nothing I can find anywhere contradicts my impression that "KAOSPilot" is a privately owned business, though trying to find unambiguous objective information is difficult, as searching their own website I find myself swamped by large swathes of promotional verbiage and gimmicky website presentation. Incidentally, please do not rearrange posts on my talk page. If I choose to have any arrangement other than the default one then I will introduce it myself. Finally, please do not remove or alter content of comments on my talk page, apart from reverting unambiguous vandalism or corrections to your own comments immediately after posting them. Also please do not make changes to the dates of signatures on posts. It is always possible to find the true time stamp for any edit by searching in the page's edit history, but it is much easier if it is visible on the page. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello JamesBWatson,
I was having difficulty reading these responses... so I thought I would just space them out. I didnt realize all the codes for different styles.
Well now I realize that in order for me to get Uffe Elbæk considered worthy of notice, that I will also have to get The Kaos Pilots worthy of notice. I am currently working on a list of credible resources to state that The Kaos Pilots is a business school and not a private business or gimmick and worthy of recognition and that Uffe Elbæk rightfully deserves mention as the founder of the school on Wikipedia.
--Javier Leocadio Colon 10:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javileco (talk • contribs)
Being a business school is not at all inconsistent with being a private business. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Do not think you were right deleting Political Risk Services. I'm not fluent in English, but the PRS Inc. is a really important and the only agency issuing 100 reports on political risks for foreing business in different countries. You killed two hours of my job (and of my life). --Perohanych (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you show evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources? If you can, so that it looks as though it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then I will happily restore the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Just Google "Political Risk Services" --Perohanych (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
None of those is substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Removal of Jasmere.com
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I believe an error was made regarding the removal of Jasmere.com. The primary reason cited was G4 (recreation of a deleted page). This version of the page is substantially different than the last page. The last version was horrible -- no real sources, only blogs. This page has numerous credible sources. Several prominent newspapers and magazines as well as several long clips on local TV news segments across the country. I feel that Jasmere.com is notable. I also think that it is not "exclusively" promotional (G11). While one or two sentences could appear promotional, I feel the overall piece is encyclopedic. And I do believe there are negatives of the site, as I have a section dealing with shopping addiction. Thank you very much for your consideration. Jeff Jbernfeld (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I did check references before deleting the article, and I have now gone back and had another look at them. It is certainly true that there were far more references cited in the latest version than in the version at the time of the AfD. However, many of them are Wikipedia articles. Some of them are dead links. Some of them appear at a quick look to be pages on the general subject, but not mentioning Jasmere.com. Some give brief mentions of Jasmere.com. In short, although you have put a good deal of work into giving a larger number of references, unfortunately you have not dealt with the essential problem which led to the initial deletion, which was the lack of suitable sources to indicate satisfying the notability guidelines. I have also done a brief search myself, and nothing of what I found was from reliable third party sources. Unfortunately I have to conclude that the company almost certainly does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I appreciate you having another look. But I wanted to point out a few more things. None of the 27 sources are Wikipedia articles. As part of the overall source, they do link to a Wikipedia page. But every single one of the 27 sources is a 3rd party, not Wikipedia. I might be misunderstanding the point you made and apologize if I did so. Sources 15 & 16 are actual columns in the print (not online) editions where I note the issue and page number, so that may have been why you thought they were only linking to Wikipedia pages. Also, you talk about dead links. There is only one dead link (but it is sourced in two places). The article was just there last week because I checked all of them, but that newspaper site must have taken it down. Another issue is that most of the 27 sources are several minute long local news segments. Jasmere is prominently mentioned in virtually all of these newscasts. These local news segments are 13 of the sources (with some duplication). They really do talk about Jasmere extensively. Yes, a few of the sources (8, 20, and 22) are just brief mentions, but they are in huge publications such as the San Francisco Chronicle and Real Simple magazine. I hope you will take the time to watch some of the news segments to see how prominently mentioned this site is throughout the country. Thank you very much for considering this. Please let me know what you think. Jeff Jbernfeld (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I see now that there was a problem with the format of the citations you gave. For example, for one of them the actual text you inserted into the source of the article was {{cite web|url=http://www.wivb.com/dpp/money/Savings-4-you-Jasmerecom|title=[[WIVB-TV]], Buffalo, NY, May 26, 2010 }}. In the list of references this showed up as "WIVB-TV, Buffalo, NY, May 26, 2010", with the actual link to the web site invisible. From the reference as it was listed there was no way of knowing that it referred to that web page. The link which was visible was a link to a Wikipedia article. Confronted with a long list of references I simply clicked on the links and got, in many cases, Wikipedia articles, so I thought that was what the references were. I have now looked back at the references cited, and checked most of them. First of all, although the list of references has numbers from 1 to 27, there are fewer than 27 sources, as some of them are repeated. (For example, http://www.wusa9.com/money/story.aspx?storyid=95733&catid=284 occurs twice, and so does http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6I64L88juY.) Next, of the ones I checked, one (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100528/FEATURES/5280319/-1/EXTRAS03/Online+Obsessive+%7C+Jasmere.com+finds+the+discounts) is a dead link. Next, there are pages such as http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/13/LV6A1DJP0T.DTL, which gives a mention of jasmere.com along with other sites, but does not give substantial coverage to jasmere.com. So does http://www.retail-merchandiser.com/current/774-social-butterflies.html, and the name of the site ("retail-merchandiser.com") also pretty clearly labels this as promotion. Finally we have a load of links to video clips which are totally promotional in character. It is true that many, perhaps all, of these, appear to be taken from broadcasts of local commercial television stations. However, all of the ones I have looked at have been a type of item which seems to be common in certain types of American television "news" broadcasting, which is essentially commercial, being not unlike a broadcast equivalent of the practice of newspapers writing up press releases as "articles". My own view is that these broadcasts are totally promotional in character, and they do little to establish the notability of the subject of the article. Nevertheless, I accept that it is not as clear-cut as I previously thought, and so if this were the only issue I would (reluctantly) restore the article. However, this is not the only issue, as the article still reads as promotional in character. Including a token two-sentence paragraph mentioning the concept of "Shopping Addiction" does not alter the essentially promotional tone of the article as a whole. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jasmere.com. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jbernfeld (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The Real Content of Bandar Seri Alam
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Admin - JamesBWatson,
I would like to inform you that the page you deleted (that I had created yesterday) is the real info about Bandar Seri Alam.
Current 'Bandar Sri Alam' is created by someone who we didnt know. And the info is incomplete. eg: the name of the Township is Bandar Seri Alam - not Bandar Sri Alam.
FYI, Bandar Seri Alam is a Township developed by Seri Alam Properties Sdn Bhd (SAP) (subsidiary of UMLand Berhad - one of main Developer in Malaysia). I am working in SAP now and my duty is to update info about this township on Wikipedia.
I would like to request from you to delete/remove page of 'Bandar Sri Alam' - the previous one. And please put back the latest page that I created yesterday Bandar Seri Alam, Johor Bahru on Wikipedia.
Another thing, how can I make it official page for my company and nobody else can edit the page except designated personnel from my company only. Help me please.
For further clearance or query, kindly contact me at:
If you want an official page for your company which nobody else can edit then your company can set up a website to host such a page. Wikipedia is not the place for such a page. Wikipedia's policy is that nobody owns a Wikipedia article, and articles do not exist to promote the preferred view of a particular person or organisation. Since you say you are working for the company involved, you probably should not be editing articles on the subject at all, as you have a conflict of interest. This is particularly so since you have expressed the wish to impose your company's view and suppress contributions from anyone else. The reason given for deletion was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", and it is clear that that is your intention. Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion is against Wikipedia policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Mr. James Watson,
This is regarding the page related to http://wikiread.fidenz.com. Even though I have explained the product, existence of our organization and the web site, you have selected to delete the page. Our web application's functionality is real and we are working on improving it further. The automated message says the content and the title are not matching but I quiet disagree with that. We like to know the exact reason for it to be deleted. If it is anything to do with its name (wikiread), we are happy to change it. But we wanted to give the due respect to MediaWiki org for being the only source for our application.
You can contact me on info@fidenz.com or chim@fidenz.com for any clarifications or details.
Thanks for your valuable time.
Best Regards
Chim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.94.220 (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not doubt the existence of the web site: in fact I know full well that it exists, as I looked at it before deciding to delete the article. It is true that another editor had tagged the article as a hoax, but this was irrelevant to the deletion, as the article was clearly not a hoax. However, the fact that something really exists is not sufficient to justify a Wikipedia article about it: you may like to look at Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. The reason for deletion given in the deletion log was that the article "does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". I suggest looking at the notability guidelines to see what is needed. Finally, I know nothing about an "automated message" which "says the content and the title are not matching". If you can tell me exactly where this message is I will look at it and see if I can explain it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Cobone - Deleted
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey James,
I would like to get an indication on why Cobone was deleted while other companies who are within the same field can get pages. I'm quite new to Wikipedia and I'd like to get pointers on where the article fell short and how we can improve the page in order for it to become legit and exist without any issues. We ultimately do want the information on here and I believe we provided adequate press information on the company's business.
Please feel free to contact me on joe.akkawi@pazmarketing.com if you require further details.
The reason given for deletion in the deletion log was "Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". There was certainly no indication of significance in the article. In fact I'm not sure that there wasn't indication of lack of significance. What does "an internet start-up" mean? Does it mean, as I suspect, a newly started business which has not yet become prominent? To see what sort of thing is required to establish enough notability for an article have a look at the notability guidelines for companies, and the FAQ for businesses. The general notability guideline is also relevant. Comparison with articles about other companies is not very helpful, for two reasons. Firstly, they may be more notable by Wikipedia's criteria, and secondly it may be that they shouldn't have articles: see WP:OTHERSTUFF for an explanation. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey James, Thanks for the update. Judging by this, I think we will need to revisit creating this article once the company has got more beef in terms of media coverage and maybe even revenue values to support the information. Internet Start Up is simply a term referring to an online based company. Also given the fact that the backing group of the business is the Middle East largest entrepreneurial digital hub, I would have imagined that this is enough credibility. The reference to other companies was just a comparison because I didn't see anything on around 10 articles of companies in the same filed that surpasses the information we submitted. Thanks for the information and I'll drop you a note once I get something sorted with more information. Maybe even a demo page before it going live to get your feedback. Cheers! Joeakkawi (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2010 (GMT)
WHY?
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
WTF why did you delete "the chill garden" page?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.180.86 (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The chill garden was deleted by another administrator, not me. If you mean another article you may like to tell me what article it is. And incidentally, repeating the same word numerous times in capitals is not a way to encourage anyone to take you seriously. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Lisa Christiansen
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have restored the situation as it was immediately after your move, leaving Dr. Lisa Christiansen as a redirect to Lisa Christiansen (motivational coach). I suggest leaving it like that until the AfD finishes. If the AfD closes as "delete" then they will presumably both be deleted, so it will make no difference. If it closes as "keep" then we can consider what is the best title for the article, and whether to delete one of the existing pages. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your help. Cindamuse (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Dear JamesBWatson
I’m writing you as I’ve noticed that my article “My-Worktime” has been removed with the code “G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion”. I’ve re-written the article from the user point of view using neutral statements and adding our appreciation.
Please let me know how to proceed to publish this new version and respect the G11 code.
I suggest you put your draft for the article at User:Seujet2010/My-worktime. (If you click on that red-link a page will open up for you to create the page.) It will then be possible to get the page assessed before posting it as an article. If changes are needed then this should give you time to make them, without the risk of your work being deleted almost immediately (unless it is really blatant advertising, in which case it could still be subject to speedy deletion). However, I think it is only fair to warn you to check that the subject of the article actually satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as otherwise it will be likely to be deleted sooner or later. I saw no evidence in the previous version of the article of satisfying those guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand James and I see better know why it was refused. We (me and my team) have been analyzing and using different time tracking tools since we created the company in June 2006 and we thought I could be interesting to help other small firms by pointing in the right direction.
The mistake we did is that we took the text as they have it in their website instead of writing a minimum of appraisal/evaluation on the tool itself, based on our experience using it.
Thanks for your feedback.
I will proceed as you suggest and change the structure and content of the article to remove their “marketing speech” and add our own experience, making sure we don’t influence others (factual).
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Ok fine. Then I feel that I should talk more about the technology that they are using and how easy it will be for the travelers if they use that technology, and will surely not talk about the company. But I've one more question, will it be fine If I use the same heading while recreating the article? Please reply me because I have to create the content as well. And do you want me to send the content first to you to get it checked by you, whether it is according to the guidelines or not, or should I directly post it on the wikipedia.
Please answer. Waiting for your reply :)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by VijVenus (talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 August 2010
I have managed to work out that this must refer to ZapBooking.com. Writing "about how easy it will be for travellers using the technology" could well amount to promotion of the technology. If you recreate the article then it can be done under the same title, but please note that "if". I have made searches, and nothing I have found suggests that the web site satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and if it doesn't then no matter how you rewrite the article or what you call it it will probably be deleted. I am certainly willing to check any draft article you may like to write and let you know what I think of it, but consider what I have said above before deciding to spend time on it. Do look at the general notability guideline and the business FAQ. (I know that the article was strictly about a web site, rather than about the business which owns the site, but it comes to much the same thing.) Also relevant are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Your first article, and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
123_(band)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
hello there,
i'm a new user of wiki.
i'm from istanbul / turkey.
there's a band here titled: 123
their web site is at: www.123theband.com
they've released a CD/Book which was very much appreciated in turkey.
i wanted to create an entry about the band and their releases but i've come to see that there were deletions of the same subject earlier.
can i just proceed writing a proper entry or do i have to inform specific admin like you before i start doing so?
looking forward to hearing from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irfan hakan (talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to inform anyone, you can just start an article. However, "you can just start an article" is not the same as "you should just start an article". I have looked at the band's web site, and I have also searched for them and their recordings on the internet. I have found myspace, blogspot, download sites, etc. I have not found anything at all to suggest that the band satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria, and if it doesn't then any time and work spent on writing an article about it is likely to be wasted, as the article will probably be deleted. Unfortunately large number of people keen to publicise their bands put a lot of work into writing Wikipedia articles on them, only to suffer the frustration and disappointment of seeing them deleted. This band has already had articles written and deleted twice, and nothing I have seen suggests the same will not happen again if another article about them is written. There is nothing to stop you from writing another article about this band, but I really would not encourage you to do so, as I think it is almost certain to be a waste of your time. Sorry to be so discouraging, but really it is more of a kindness to warn you than to encourage you to go ahead and probably finish in disappointment. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
hello again dear james,
the members of the band 123 did a project earlier called 'tamburada', i can see tamburada is in wiki with a very weak information, and there was nothing special at all with what tamburada achieved earlier, now with 123 they've evolved into a perfect band, they even got awards from the turkish press. what made tamburada stay in wiki do you think? can you have a look at that info too? thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irfan hakan (talk • contribs) 13:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
It is perfectly natural for newcomers to editing Wikipedia to look at existing articles, and think that if an article exists then another similar article has a right to exist. This is, however, a mistake, for reasons explained at WP:OTHERSTUFF. In this case you are quite right in thinking that Tamburada was no more valid as an article than 123 (band), and it has now been deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I know it's a mess, but there is salvageable content about Crystal Mountain (Egypt). Would you mind if I undelete, harvest the wheat, and merge into Crystal Mountain (Egypt)? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The text of the article was a copy of what appears at http://www.b14643.de/Sahara/Crystal-Mountain/index.htm. (I should have checked for such copying before deleting, since it looked so much like a copy from somewhere.) Since this may well indicate a copyright infringement, I suggest it would be better to consult the text there if you want to, rather than undeleting the Wikipedia copy. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought it read like a copyvio. Then I saw the note on the creator's page. Thanks also for the source link. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I invited the creator to rewrite, source and add to Crystal Mountain (Egypt). Dlohcierekim 14:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page. Message added 16:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
London Business School RFC
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
James,
My non technical friend is trying to set up our rugby club's wiki page. can you clarify why you deleted it, and how do I go about re-instating without the offending for so I can edit it.
Thank you
Garryscott (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
garryscott
I think that the likelihood of a college rugby club being notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article is very low, in which case the answer is that you can't. You may like to look at the notability guidelines, including the sports guideline to see what is required, and if, when you have done so, you decide that the club does satisfy the guidelines, then you can go ahead and recreate the article, providing reliable sources to justify it. However, it is only fair to warn you that, on the basis of the first version of the article, I think you are very unlikely to succeed in getting what you want, for several reasons:
I doubt that the club satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria.
The article was clearly aimed at potential members of the club, encouraging them to take part. This is not what an encyclopedia article is for: it is aimed at the general reader, and is there to provide objective information, not to promote membership.
If the article does become established, then it will be open to being edited by Wikipedia editors, and it will not remain as a mouthpiece for what the club wants to say to its members, which was clearly the intention.
In addition, Wikipedia guidelines strongly discourage members of a club from writing or editing an article about that club, because their conflict of interest is likely to impair their ability to see the club from an impartial perspective, even if they genuinely intend to do so.
All in all I think you would stand a much better chance of achieving what you want by using either a free web hosting service, or a social networking site such as MySpace or Facebook. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Raktoner/The Word Alive
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
About the "The Word Alive" page...yes indeed I was using it as a template page, but I don't remember having linked it to other articles (perhaps other people had done that for me, though I don't know how they found the page in the first place). The only other article I personally linked it to was a talk page, where I was showing an example of template pages. I'm not asking for the article to be remade, as this happened a few weeks ago. I just thought I should let you know.
A question I do have though, will the article be remade once Deceiver, The Word Alive's first full length, comes out? Because I'm pretty sure by then they'll have fulfilled requirements. --Raktoner (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
That depends on whether it satisfies the notability guidelines, as at WP:Notability and WP:MUSIC. However, for an article which has been deleted 8 times, and had 3 AfDs, I should think you would need to have pretty solid evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, you seem to know what you're doing, a lot more than I do for sure. I'd like to ask a favor of you, and that is to check out things a little after August 31st, when their album comes out, because I'm sure you'll know if they're suitable or not. As much as I'd love to do it personally, I get the feeling I'll only get it rejected and create even more of a problem for creating this article. --Raktoner (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Remind me when August 31st has gone, and I'll have a look. Obviously I can't promise what the outcome will be, but I can promise to look at it for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Christian Morecraft redirect
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, that shouldn't have been deleted. That redirect was formed after discussion between myself and former member (and admin) Accounting4Taste and was mutually agreed upon to stop people from creating the article when he doesn't warrant one just yet. Paralympiakos(talk) 12:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually I realised that. However, it had not stopped people from creating the article, and when I deleted it was an article again, not a redirect. In fact as far as I can see having a redirect makes it easier for an article to be created, because an IP editor or unconfirmed editor can create it. I though it better to delete it than to restore the redirect, only to see it turned back into an article. I can undelete it if you like, or just recreate the redirect, or recreate the redirect and protect it. As far as I can see the last of those is the only one that would do anything to prevent re-creation. Any opinion? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I wasn't aware it was an article again. I do see your logic, it's just frustrating that this has amped up the deleted edits again despite the conversation I had with that admin. I trust your judgement though, so I'll leave you to what is best. I just thought I'd mention it since I saw the deletion.
As a sidenote, I know you're swamped from looking at your talk page, but did you ever come to a conclusion regarding the report I filed at my talk page (the Georgia vandal)? Paralympiakos(talk) 12:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on User talk:Rebekah1895, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for fuller instructions. However, you should be aware that material posted to Wikipedia is licensed under a CC-BY-SA license and the GFDL, which means that considerable freedom to reuse the material is granted to anyone in the world: it is not just a question of allowing the material to be used on Wikipedia, and you should make sure that the copyright owner really is willing to grant such broad license terms. Finally, it is only fair to warn you that the people who deal with copyright on Wikipedia tend to be rather overworked, so there may be quite a delay before you get a response. This is very unfortunate, but unavoidable. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
