User talk:Ubardak/Archives/2008/March

Image

I have restored the image talk you asked about, but moved it to your userspace at User:Ubardak/Image talk:TRNC location.png. Please see User talk:Metropolitan90#Discussion on Images for details. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Durango accomodations

Whoops you were right, the article was way too stilted. Thanks --Eleaf

• I actually had to read it a few times before coming to that conclusion, but yeah it was pretty bad :P Ubardak (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD question: Recombinant text

I have very little experience in AfD matters, and am asking for your input before nominating an article for deletion, because, quite frankly, I do not want to be seen as someone who capriciously nominates articles which do not meet AfD standards.

If you have time, please take a look at this article. It was created by the person who—as the intro asserts—is the very person who coined the term. Most of the edits are by that person. Most, if not all, of the sources link back to this person. I mean, at best it appears to me to constitute OR, at worst, self-promotion. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. What do you think?

I selected you and many other editors pretty much completely at random; I picked one day's AfD archives, and clicked on the talk pages of the first two or three dozen editors' talk pages I came across. I hope that in using this selection method, I will get editors who are well-versed in AfD policies, yet who also represent a good cross-section of AfD philosophies. I will monitor your talk page for your response. Thanks. Unschool (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Unschool. My apologies for not replying earlier - this past Monday was a holiday here in Japan and I took advantage of the long holiday. As for the AfD matter you are referring to, I would agree with you that given that all the sources refer back to the author and that the material covered by the article is in fact the author's own creation, the notability is not clearly established and therefore would be a candidate for deletion. I am sure my fellow editors have responded much earlier and I can see that the article already has an AfD tag on it so I am not sure how useful my 2 cents are in this matter but nevertheless I hope this is of some use.--Ubardak (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

{{inuse}} tag

Hi. I appreciate your editing and fixing the typos, but if you see an in-use tag, please respect it to prevent edit conflicts . Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Avi. My apologies - I must have missed it. Which article are you referring to? --Ubardak (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Abbey Mills Mosque. Almost done; thanks! -- Avi (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Done; thanks for your patience! -- Avi (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Temperamental cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Temperamental cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Whoops - link to the wrong article :P Fixed it and removed the template. --Ubardak (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Turkish adaptation of Fiddler

Hello. Thanks for your message. Several issues: 1. Notability (WP:NOTE): Is the Turkish show extremely popular in Turkey? Is it a weekly prime time show, or what? 2. Verifiability (WP:V): You need to give a link to an article that specifically says that the show is an adaptation of (or at least based heavily on) "Fiddler" or its source material. Your edits to Fiddler did not give such a link. They only linked to a Wikipedia article. Give the actual link to a real media article (not a blog) where a reliable source (see WP:RS) *says* that the show is based on Fiddler. Yes, I agree that it can be in Turkish, but that is obviously not as helpful to most readers of en.Wikipedia. 3. Balance. If we mention this Turkish-language adaptation, why haven't we mentioned all the French, Spanish, German, Japanese and Russian adaptations? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi there Ssilver. Let me try to address as many of your points as I can. 1. The show is a weekly primetime show. I believe it to be fairly popular in Turkey - there are rating numbers here which claim that it had the most viewers on January 7th 2008 (http://gunlukreytingler.blogspot.com/2008/01/7-ocak-2008-pazartesi_08.html). 2. Obviously - I did search for an article in English but unfortunately no dice so far. 3. Sure - as far as I am aware there is not a TV series based on the Fiddler here in Japan but I can not comment on the other countries :). I will try to first find a good reference and if I can then we can talk about the other issues. (sorry for the delay, I was sick) --Ubardak (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Shaquille O'Neal

Thanks, I saw I added that back and was trying to find the exact edit to undo. BJ^Talk 07:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

NP. Sometimes a small piece of vandalism gets stuck in there and survives a lot of 1-verts (single reverts). --Ubardak (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Chief Automation Officer

This can't be edited. I don't know what happened... I wanted to tag it but it said it was blocked. Basketball110 _{i'm not yik ginlyùn} 04:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the DB was locked for a minute. Should be fine now. --Ubardak (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

ibear page

hello, you sent a message saying that I could not add the marshall school of business ibear page. There is no information about the ibear international business program and I thought it was posted with good faith. I am an alumni, and wanted to find a way to add to your site...I thought this was a great way to start. I did add a link to the admissions page...which I am happy to remove if that is the problem. Though, I was just trying to copy the format of other education programs pages.

Please tell me what I can do to make the page more wiki friendly. thanks. dp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanp (talk • contribs) 09:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi dp. The key thing to note when creating an article is being neutral while making sure the subject of the article fits into an encyclopedia. Therefore terms like "best and the brightest" or a tone that is advertorial is problematic. I would suggest consulting the "Creating your first article" page linked from the Main Page (I believe my message on your talk page should also have a link to this). Oh and a small note - this is not my site. It belongs to every editor equally, including you :). Please let me know if you have any more questions. --Ubardak (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Ubardak. I will read the "creating your fist article" and then try and recreate it in an unbias manner. Is it okay for me to post again after making the changes, or do I need to have it checked? Thanks for the help. I am excited to start helping. All the best, Dylanp (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. I am glad I could help. Make sure you contact the administrator who has dones the actual deleting before re-creating the page - Jmlk17. Let me know if you have any questions and best of luck! --Ubardak (talk) 08:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Alexis Biesiada

Hi, sorry about that. When I tried to CSD the article, the inuse tag wasn't on the page. If you look at the history, you'll see our edits were at about the same time. Anyway, no worries. The article looks a lot better now that you've worked on it. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Chris. No worries - thanks for taking the time to let me know. As you might have already seen I was unfortunate enough to run into the same problem earlier :). Best, Ubardak (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

good job

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although no person is welcome to make unconstructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits appears to be constructive and has been smiled about or lauded. Please use every article for any great edits you would like to make, and take a look at the page for cool editors to learn more about contributing awesomely to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Colleenthegreat (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You got me scared there for a second :) I thought I mistakenly made a chance I was not supposed to. Thanks for the compliments! I checked out the pages you mentioned. --Ubardak (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagrement about a recent change

I disagree with your recent change to What wikipedia is not, under the section about social networking. I explained why I edited that line in the talk page, and by simply saying Wikipedia isn't myspace the point gets across well because Myspace is a very connotive word, at least in my local culture (East US) I'm not going to revert it again, unless you fail to explain how mentioning both social networking websites strengthens the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustyfence (talk • contribs) 07:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC) sorry, forgot to sign,.. Rustyfence (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rustyfence. Thanks for taking the time to drop me a line and explaining your reasoning. As there was not much in your edit summary it was pretty difficult for me to understand the reasoning behind your edit. I believe that mentioning both, or in general multiple, sites strengthens the statement because different networking sites offer different interaction settings for their users. The focus is not always on the same thing in terms of the interaction model, however the main principles of social networking always hold true. By mentioning just one site I feel like we are saying "Wikipedia is not a social networking site like MySpace, but it could be like Twitter as that one relies on short messages to keep your networked friends up to date". Does this make sense? I feel like we need to make sure we get the point across that people should not use Wikipedia as a social networking site in general. --Ubardak (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, I guess. Most social networking websites are similar, and as from what I see, it doesn't really seem that way to me. Then again, I only use one social networking site regularly. The section would probablly be fine either way, and I think by policy the original text should take precedence, somewhere, so, ok. Rustyfence (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks again for taking the time to discuss this with me. --Ubardak (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Guerao de Cabrera

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Guerao de Cabrera. The reason I declined it is because the redirect is to an existing article. The fact that you thought its a redirect to itself is evidence that the redirect is necessary. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. Thanks for letting me know. I could have definitely missed it. Can you kindly point me to the article that it is redirecting to? Thanks. --Ubardak (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Guerau de Cabrera. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's funny - I could swear that the redirect was to the page itself (or to an empty page) for at least 20 minutes. I even left a message to the creator of the page to ask for clarification (who did not reply). Anyway, sorry for wasting your time. --Ubardak (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability for Foxy Shazam

How can i get the permission to create a site for a band??K-LIDD (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I hope it is OK that I moved your question to here. As a general rule, please add your talk page comments/questions to the end of a user's talk page. As for creating an article for a band, I tried to explain this on the actual article's talk page but I think you must have missed it when the page got deleted so let me try to explain again. Wikipedia is not designed to be a huge repository of knowledge about everything (see WP:Not). Articles are created based on their subject's notability. In the case of your article, unfortunately the band did not meet the notability guidelines (see WP:Notability). Please let me know if you have any questions or if anything is not clear. Thanks! --Ubardak (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Cerberus CMS

Can you please rewrite the article for me so it is an encyclopedic article.. it is a legit CMS and should be added to the list of Content Management Systems. I don't know how to write the article properly sorry. GLogic (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sure, I will take a stab at it. Please try to read the "Your first article" - it helps in creating encyclopedic articles. Also, you will need to find some 3rd party sources in order to establish notability. I will make the article less ad-like but it will not be notable without sources. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! --Ubardak (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Does freshmeat.net or hotscripts.com count as a notable third-party source? because it's listed on those sites. Thanks for your help. GLogic (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I updated the article and I hope you won't be dissapointed with the short size. It was the best I could do with the material that was there. The sources you mentioned would be OK if they had an article on Cerberus. Just having Cerberus in a list of downloadable content would not be considered a source I am afraid. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. --Ubardak (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, but the category you listed it under was Software Stubs. Is that the right one? Thanks again.GLogic (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Glad I could help. CMS is software, no? If you see anything more specific that would fit better feel free to change or let me know. You can find the list of stub types here. --Ubardak (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry! I thought it would be added to the list of content management system portals on that page. thanks. GLogic (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Kagaya Yutaka

Sorry about that. I normally respect inuse tags, but this time something gripped me and guided my hand towards fixing up the Japanese linking. It won't happen again, most likely. Casull (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for taking the time to reply :) --Ubardak (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia

fixed it before I got your message. --JaGa (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

why TouchMail has been deleted?

Hi, why TouchMail has been deleted? I was working on it and I had not finished to write it: for this reasons maybe there were some imperfections. If you tell me what are the reasons I can verify. Thank you

• Hello there. The article you are referring to was deleted because it lacked external sources showing its notability. Wikipedia does not allow adding articles on subjects lacking notability. You can find more information at Wikipedia notability guidelines. Please take a look there and let me know if you still have questions. By the way - please do not forget to sign your Talk Page messages with four tildas. Thanks! --Ubardak (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

notability TouchMail

Ok, I've read the notability guidelines. But I don't understand: which point of this guideline doesn't TouchMail respect? I think it's a notable voice since it has a technology relevance.. Thank you for your support Uninc07 (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Uninc07. Sorry for not getting back to you earlier - I was away from my computer. The way to establish notability is to quote 3rd party sources. What this means is that you need to find other people independent of the developer who mention TouchMail. A very common example that would satisfy this would be an article on a webpage. Of course having just one person mention it in a blog would not be considered a good 3rd party source. Please let me know if you have any further questions. --Ubardak (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Ok, thank you for your support. I've understood the problem at all. Anyway there are 3rd party sources for TouchMail. There're infact some articles on webpage that mentions TouchMail, including a page on Apple.com/webapp. I was trying to insert these liks in the TouchMail's wiki page but first I prefer ask to you if it's ok or if it's going to be deleted anyway. If in this way it will respect the notability criteria, I'll try to write it another time. In other case, I'll not try anymore.

Let me know please. And thank you for your great support!Uninc07 (talk)

• • No problem. If you would like you can first put links to those 3rd party sources here and I can take a look at them for you. Would that be OK with you? --Ubardak (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • These're some links to 3rd party sources you suggested me to add.

[1] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] Let me know if now I can proceed writing the page or if it's not possible. Thank you so much!Uninc07 (talk)

• Hi Uninc. Thanks for finding all these. The third source, from La Stampa, seems most notable out of these four since the others are just mentions of the software in a list. What I would suggest is either finding more sources like the one from La Stampa or trying to find an article that would benefit from the addition of information about Touchmail (instead of creating a new article). Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for keeping on working on this :) --Ubardak (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Ubardak. These're other sources like the one from La Stampa:

[5] [6] [7] I think that at least the article webmail would benefit from the addition of a new article about TouchMail linked to this one. Also because I found RoundCube and SquirrelMail that seem to be similar notices to that I'd like to add. Maybe the question is because those ones have more notability than TouchMail? Apologize me if I'm annoying you, the fact is that I'd want to understand in which way I can contribute for this. Could I try to re-write the article in a neutral point of view, adding the sources I showed to you and the link to webmail, RoundCube and SquirrelMail? Thank you another time for your attention. Uninc07 (talk)

• Hello again :) No problem - it's great to see you working so hard to get this article to work out. I think these sources are better and it would be OK to create a new article written from a neutral point of view with these sources in place. Would you like to create this article in your userspace first so we can talk about it and I can may be help make sure it will be as strong as possible? Keep in mind that any editor can tag any article for deletion so it would have to be a good article to make sure what happened before does not get repeated. In order to create an article in your userspace all you need to do is to create the page as User:Uninc07/Touchmail instead of just Touchmail. Give it a go and let me know :) --Ubardak (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. I've re-created the article in this page Uninc07/Touchmail. I wrote it in a neutral point of view and I added the links I had showed you before, putting them in the section References. Let me know if it's ok and if it can be published. So that I'll add the external links to this voice from the other Wikipedia voices related with touchmail (for example from webmail). Thank you for everything! Uninc07 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Hello there. It looks like you actually misunderstood my comment about creating an article in your userspace first and instead created a weird redirect. Someone tagged that for deletion and it will be deleted - no worries. The actual article seems pretty good - good job :) I formatted the references to make them easier to read. You might want to remove the redlink around the pop gateway and also fix the images but other than that, I think it is an article that should stay. Good job, once again. --Ubardak (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Nice job on finding all the refs for List of unusual deaths --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 04:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering why you seemed familiar!

Thanks for fixing my talk page.

Ironically enough, he said he was "sorry" earlier and said his friends made him. Casull 02:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. He/she did seem to have an issue with you and only reminding him/her of an immediate block seemed to do the trick. Anyway, glad I could help ;) --Ubardak (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

biographybase.com

Nice job sourcing List of coupled cousins. I had to remove one cite. The Josiah Bartlett entry used biographybase.com as a reference, but biographybase is a copy of wikpedia from 2004. Quale (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both for the compliment and for removing that cite. I was not aware of the fact that it was a copy from Wikipedia. I will try to find a better source :) (sorry for not replying earlier. I am usually away on the weekends) --Ubardak (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients

I actually believed that the "in use" tag was directed to me because I was surprised that the tag was placed so soon after the page creation. It was still missing some info and people and I didn't want anyone to prod or AfD the list which has happened before in similar lists like this so I kept editing. In a way, I thought the tag was a subtle way of someone contesting the list and wanting the initial editor to add more. Sorry for the miscommunication but thanks for adding the notes, you saved me a lot of trouble. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Hi Ubardak,

The scholarly works mention the name, the year and page number. The name of the works come at the reference section. This is practiced in many articles. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello there Aminz. My main concern is with the removal of the link to the pdf which allows readers to verify the statements. Is this still available in the references? If so, I have no problems with cleaning up the body. --Ubardak (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see! Of course, we can keep the link. Thanks for pointing that out. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)