User:Ernestvoice/Talk Archive/2008

Can I ask why do you edit the page again
Hi, I saw you have edit out almost all the content that I wrote.

Can you give me a reason for that?

I have tried my best to cite the sources according to your tags and my wording is objective enough at this moment.

what is your problem?
 * Responded on user's talk page -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 13:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD for iTalkBB
Hello - you nominated my article on the VOIP company iTalkBB for deletion on 21 Jul 2008, while I was on vacation, and I never got a chance to participate in the AfD. The article was deleted today, 01 Aug 2008, after three "delete" votes. Although the article itself is in my watchlist, I did not get any kind of e-mail alert (also, no one commented on my talk page regarding the AfD).

While I agree that the article was a stub, I feel that the size of the user base and the significance of the company as a Vonage competitor (especially among Chinese-American users) warrants existence of the article. I am and have been more than willing to collect sources to establish notability. Also, as someone who is not an employee or affiliate of the company, I have endeavored to maintain impartiality: if you took a look at the article history, you probably saw that I have made dozens if not hundreds of anti-vandalism reversions to the "Criticism" section due to its being deleted by shills of the company. (The particular telemarketing and quality of service criticism documented by me and subsequent editors is quite well-substantiated, and protecting this information - for encyclopedic purposes as opposed to journalistic ones - is one reason I've tried to stay vigilant in maintaining the page.)

I do appreciate your contribution in looking out for anemic pages and taking action to prune them; doing so keeps Wikipedia fresh and free of bloat. However, I feel the discussion in this case was a little one-sided and that the deletion decision was premature. I'm planning to re-create the page AFTER sourcing some of the stats and providing more encyclopedic background information on iTalkBB, and I am writing to ask for your patience and cooperation. Thanks.

Banazir (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When you do re-create the article, please make sure that you provide evidence of notability using this guideline--Ernestvoice (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 16:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKC Networks
Please see my comments at Articles for deletion/MKC Networks. --Eastmain (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 16:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Got your message
I have changed biased wording according to your advices.

THX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topken (talk • contribs) 14:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't change much, you still added in all of the content that was deleted because of OR. I have left this in but have flagged it as such. Please only remove these tags if you can provide proper 3rd party references to verify their weight -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 15:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did search all there web pages and found nothing related to the error code 33.
 * I am just stating the facts, as simple as black is black, white is white.
 * And when people say, black is black, do they really need to find out the original research to validate their arguments?
 * If so, then we need to point out all the originals of all the words that are used in the whole article.
 * It is ridicules to cite something from nothing. And if you can find out they do publish the solutions of error code 33 on one of their official web page, you can point it out and cite it in the place to say that the publish the solution.
 * If you can not, then it is you not me, who put bias on the article. What I said is totally based on the truth and my own research, though some of them can not be seen as reliable source.
 * And if i can find two different websites, it is more than one, please do not edit them out. Since you point out one of them could not be seen as reliable, to avoid confusions, i do carefully choose my words when I make the changes. I am trying not to make any conclusions or judgments on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topken (talk • contribs) 08:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved discussion to Betamax Talk since it is article related. -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 16:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you say so, then i will delete the disputable links and unsuitable words. But I insist to cite a bit more information from the reference. And usually it is called summary which is used by lots of editors. Also, when it comes to error code 33 I cite the information on Betamax's own product webpage can for be enough to back up the argument and it is a reliable sources since it is published in the company's webpage. If you still have any problems, please tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topken (talk • contribs) 21:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)