User talk:Kateshortforbob/Archives2009/August

Tengaged!

Please protect this page/block the user who has recreated it 4 times now. Thanks, CTJF83Talk 18:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Already done, thank! CTJF83Talk 18:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The disadvantages of working with a slow computer. Thanks for letting me know! --☇Kateshortforbob _talk☄ 18:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

List of umbrella companies

Hi Kate,

You have recently removed the list of umbrella companies under "Umbrella company" on the grouds that its a spam attractor and there are not even remotely notable companies on the list.

I feel both the reasons are unfair.

Regarding the first reason,

In fact this list was the only open, non biased reference list of umbrella companies for the contractors in UK. All others are biased commercial information available on net with the site owners have absolute control over information and that contractors can not trust. As a vindication to its usefulness, many contractors started using it, the Google page ranking very quickly improved from page 4 to page 1 , within few weeks.

Do you not think, open, unbiased information rendering is one of the objectives of wiki project ?

Given its value and alignment with wiki project goals, the reason potentail spam attractor is not good enough.

Regarding notable companies:

The list has many, like Parasol, Drole, Orange Genie, Nasa, Trafalgar contractor Soltions. Which are in UK market for quite few years and are well reputed. but the list did not just limit to notable companies as its intended to be reference list.

You may wish to take few opinions before removing the list. If some one has complained about the list, it should be the companies on first page of Google. Which is quite understandable. But please do not kill the open non biased information.

Regards, Chanveda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.254.170 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have replied on Talk:Umbrella company; hopefully we can try to gain wider consensus there. Thanks --☇Kateshortforbob _talk☄ 10:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You should have followed procedure

You should have followed procedure and not marked ASP.NET MVC: Problem - Design - Solution as a speedy delete. There was nothing advertising related about that, it was the same text provided on many reputable sites, including Wrox.com (the publisher), Amazon.com (provided via the publisher), Barns and Nobel (provide via the publisher). This was at best a gross misstep on your part to not mark it as a general delete so that it could be debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nberardi (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless the publisher released it under the GFDL, then it would have to be removed immediately on copyright grounds anyway. Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And are you saying that it can't be advertising because it's what a publisher says about their own stuff? Surely publishers release text designed to sell their books - i.e. advertising. Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I am the author of the book (Nberardi) doesn't that hold any water? And according to the text posted on the page. This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article that contains no content whatsoever, or consists only of external links, category tags, a "see also" section, a rephrasing of the title, an attempt to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments and/or images None of this was true about the original content. It should have been marked with the standard delete which would have started a conversation between you and the authors of the book. Which include me. -- Nberardi —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

See WP:COI for why writing about your own work is considered a bad idea on Wikipedia. Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So it is a conflict of interest to post up your own book? What about adding your home town? Your place of work? Or updating some knowledge about your local historical landmark that you visit monthly? Hell if what this article was taken to the Nth degree nobody could edit anything to do with Earth article since we all are biased by living on Earth. This is an assign argument, we are not talking about politics, we are talking about a book I wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nberardi (talk • contribs) 17:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also how do you know I am trying to advance myself. Which I am not, I am posting a book that I worked on with a couple other authors. As a statement of pride, as I would if my local town wasn't in Wikipedia or updating the page of my favorite B league sports team with a championship win. I think your bias here says more about you than about me. You don't follow the rules you are calamining you do as indicated by the bold text above. My article had none of those qualities, and it was work a work in progress at the time, and you assumed the worst of people and decided to take it in to your own hands like a spoiled child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nberardi (talk • contribs) 17:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

hey you have deleted my site encyclopedia -Netpharmaworld(Website).there is nothing wrong with that, it was all informative, please do restore my Page.

Mark Anderson Wikipedia user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.2.110 (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Netpharmaworld (Website) deletion ?

i have re established Netpharmaworld and deleted text that look promotional. Please do con sider now.

User:00markanderson —Preceding undated comment added 05:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC).

I have replied on your talk page. --☇Kateshortforbob _talk☄ 08:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Page Request do not delete manupatra pages

Hi Kateshortforbob,

This mail written by manupatra IP 122.160.177.194.

Please {unlock | manupatra account data added in manupatra its copywriting data of manupatra legal law}

Data added in manupatra its copyrighted data of manupatra legal law

Regards

Manupatra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.13.249 (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see Donating copyright material for methods of giving Wikipedia the right to publish copyright text. You will need to contact the Wikimedia Foundation and provide them with evidence that you are the owner of the copyright material. Note that any material donated cannot be used in an article unless it complies with our policies and guidelines, for example WP:SPAM. The article is currently protected for one week. Once permission to use the material has been received, you can request unprotection at Requests for page protection. --☇Kateshortforbob _talk☄ 08:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Half protect request

Hi, could you please half-protect article War rape? It appeared on Polish version of Digg and as it contains some descriptions of atrocities during war, some Polish readers might want to try to remove/change them. So far it happend once, but as day progresses it might happen more. Otherwise someone should be prepared to pay more attention to this article today/tomorrow. Thanks! Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to put such a pressure on a new admin ;) My reason behind it is that I saw your activity in RC, so I decided to ask you first. Hopefully the influence from Polish IP's will be small. Tnaks once again and I wish you pleasant sweeping as an admin :) Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Netpharmaworld Updated with new info.

hello sir,

i have made amendments in Netpharmaworld.please do consider.

regards, Mark Anderson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00markanderson (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This page NetPharmaWorld (Website) has now been deleted 3 times by 3 different administrators as "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Based on my own searches, I can see nothing that suggests this website meets notability guidelines. You have been been warned from adding promotional material to Wikipedia on several occasions. I would suggest you direct you energies elsewhere to avoid being blocked. I have salted NetPharmaWorld (Website) to prevent it's re-creation. If you feel you are able to write an article which meets our policies and guidelines, you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. --☇Kateshortforbob _talk☄ 12:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Projectevolve

Hi! You recently deleted User:Projectevolve as a copyright infringement. The author has just recreated the page (with speedy tags and everything), stating that they're the web administrator of the source site. Could you have a look at the issue, please? Jafeluv (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, taking a look now. (Bear with me - my computer's not the speediest!)--☇Kateshortforbob _talk☄ 11:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to leave this hanging. I've been unexpectedly called away - I *will* look at it when I get back, if someone else doesn't get there first. --☇Kateshortforbob _talk☄ 12:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well written. I hope Projectevolve understands that they can get blocked for an inappropriate username... Thanks a lot for your help. Jafeluv (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)