User talk:Aecis/Messages 421-432

Laser Quest
I have seen many of these terms used in Laser Quest/other laser tag circles. The problem is the most reliable sources are discussions from lqarena.com and Usenet (and some of the Usenet info cannot be trusted). Would that be good enough? --Shawn K. Quinn (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dutch surnames
Hi, hope you can help me out here regarding Dutch surnames. I was wondering if, with regard to Daniel de Ridder specifically, how his surname should be written when used without the first name - should it remain as de Ridder with a small d, or should it be De Ridder with a capital D? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks, Struway2 (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

BA038
I think that you've made the edit code harder to read by unformating the inline citation templates and blurring the distinction between text and code. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 00:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actionist article
I appreciate that The article I submitted on actionism was far form polished and lacking with proper context for its development as a useful part of the fabric of wikipedia. And I would still like to protest that it was deleted without notification on my talk page.

I understand you have taken it upon yourself to keep wikipedia free of superfluous articles, and I salute you. I will work hard to create a better article, perhaps starting form the begining of the story and not the middle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Grog (talk • contribs) 23:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

JP1000 & Friends (comic)
I've added the Comicsproj template to the Discussion/Talk page. I believe this webcomic has as much significance as others such as Shortpacked!

I am new to the process so let me know what else I need to do to publish an entry on this topic. Fans are requesting a wiki resource.

Jatta Pake (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: United Kingdom
It was that you had added a T in the anthem, I know that Titantic was a US film. I know you where doing the right thing, but couldn't work out how that T got to be there. -- AxG  @   ► talk  12:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

R3
Hi. I'll be more careful in the future but notice that the definition of "recently created" varies for each person. The vast majority of administrators won't agree that a redirect created in 2007 is very old. In fact you are just the third administrator that complains that. For really old redirects I already have nominated many of them. I'll try to really reduce my limit from now on.

Btw, I would like to inform you that, I have requested that "recently created is removed from R3b criterion (check Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion) and that many cases that were nominated in January 8th (12-13 days ago) are, for some reason, still open. (check Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 8).

Again, thanks for your advice. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If a personal attack falls in the woods does it make a noise?
WP policy is best when interpreted as a general guideline. Someone creates a onetime article in a foreign language and runs away. My summary was a question, a question with an answer definite yes, but not a personal attack. Maybe an impersonal attack, perhaps. If you don't know who you're talking about how personal can a statement be? Example: "Those idiots in Washington are driving this economy into the ground." Not really personal. or I could take the Niel Cavuto question approach. Is Senator Harry Reid's stance on the Foreign Survaliance Act a sounding board for Islamic terrorists? Technically and legally it's only a question, not a defamatory statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitrebox (talk • contribs) 01:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from accusing your fellow Wikipedians of Wikilawyering. It is a instigative trolling statement and may be considered a personal attack.--mitrebox (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good Form indeed sir. I commend you for taking responsibility for your potentially harmful statement. Thank you and Happy Editing. --mitrebox (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Tracker (Business Software)
Hello,

You have deleted a page I created for our company products, on the grounds that they were blatant advertising. Please let me know what aspects of the page your considered promotional as opposed to factual, so that I may correct them and re-submit.

Regards,

KarsKormak (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not understand your position that our products are not notable. I had included 18 references about our company and products, both from trade journals and mainstream publications including the Chicago Tribune. Our products, as indicated by the articles, are in use by international companies, including Sanyo, DuPont, Pioneer-Standard, and others.
 * I understand and whole-heartedly agree with the Wikipedia position against advertising and spam. Aside from your position on notability, what aspects of the article did you find promotional or not in compliance with Wikipedia's neutral article policy?
 * Regards,
 * KarsKormak (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would rather resolve this issue with you, per Wikipedia policy, if possible, rather than resort to a deletion review. You stated that your issue with the articles was that they either:
 * Mentioned the products or company in passing.
 * Were not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia.
 * For your first issue, I realize that some of these articles are only available on a pay-for-access basis, however, several of them do discuss the products or company as their primary subject, including the articles from Investor's Business Daily and ITWorld Canada. If you would like, I can provide PDF copies of the original articles (I did not include these as links in our entry, as the PDFs are on one of our sites, and I believed this would constitute spam in the eyes of Wikipedia). As for the others, while the articles may have touched on other products or companies as well as Tracker and Automation Centre, I disagree that this constitutes "passing references". Could you explain what, in Wikipedia's eyes, constitutes a passing reference?
 * For your second issue, according to Wikipedia, a primary aspect of a reliable source is:
 * "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made."
 * That is, sources should not include original research, or work from extremist or self-published authors. None of these apply to the sources I referenced for our article. They are all well-established, mainstream sources, such as the Chicago Tribune or Investor's Business Daily, or trade journals with experience in the software industry. Indeed, as mentioned previously, our products were sometimes discussed in the company of others, without bias.
 * Please let me know your thoughts on these points.
 * Regards,
 * KarsKormak (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Trellis LMS article
You deleted my article without giving me any feedback on how to improve it. Also, it does not seem that you reviewed the discussion because the person who had an issue with it was in the process of reducing his request to delete it for just an addition of sources. --Shaddyz (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Why awkward?
Hello, I guess I should have been more specific, but I reverted the edits because using the names made the sentences awkward, with the proper names forced into an otherwise terse introduction. Since the Bulletin and Knight Ridder are covered later in the article I think its fine how it is, but if you want to restructure the entire sentences (and not just add the name) to use the proper names I won't revert it. Medvedenko (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

ASBL
Why did you delete the American Small Business League? How this different than greenpeace or the sierra club articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamasbl (talk • contribs) 21:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for writing back. Hopefully in the near future we can have a simple entry with our information. Similar to other advocacy groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamasbl (talk • contribs) 22:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)