User talk:Avant Destiny

RE: Your comment to User:Philippe
Per this comment, please review the deletion discussion here.- CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings CobaltBlueTony, I'm familiar with the debate, Virtual-OS and similar applications. I'm currently writing a term paper regarding privacy in distributed network systems and was quite surprised to see this article deleted. Based on my research I believe the rebuttal was accurate and can not understand what criteria was determined for deletion. The situation discussed in the article is well documented with additional information regarding the system and provincial review available via public record from government offices. The only constructive criticism which wasn't really mentioned was that that the article had possible deprecated due to being outdated. The arguments presented for deletion seemed to range from confusion to personal preference. Regardless, I am not disputing Philippe's decision. I simply wish to archive ("userfy") the original content so that I may create an article that accurately conveys the applications history once the project goes public again. Thank you for your interest in this issue. Avant Destiny (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The most persistent argument for deletion comes from Wikipedia's criteria for notability. How is this topic notable per those criteria?  Might I reccomend a user namespace sandbox article of User:Avant Destiny/Virtual-OS for your work on this? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming it being briefly mentioned on the evening news and the main focus of newspaper articles, even though in a potentially negative light, would qualify as "receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I've found a copy of the original article in the google cache which I can rebuild it from once I figure out the template.

One of the issues with the article is that many of the references cited are over two years old and have either been relocated or are simply no longer hosted online. I've located the cited references on periodical microfiche by the dates for my paper but I would prefer to have newer references that can easily be accessed online for the revised article. The general technical white papers which are still online probably aren't considered significant.

This along with a lack of verifiable specs regarding the current embodiment is why I think it's best to work on the article in my own userspace for the time being. That and I'm pretty sure I'd get flamed for recreating a similar article right after a deletion debate. Thanks for your help. Avant Destiny (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've moved it over to your userspace at User:Avant_Destiny/Virtual-OS. :-) - Philippe  21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment to Ulteo deletion
Yes, I'm not english and really think that my english is orrible.

I would like to thank you for what you wrote on Jonny-mt Userpage for Ulteo.

I worked sometime on the page Ulteo in it.wikipedia.org and like to preserve that page from what happened on en.wikipedia.org.

I really will appreciate your help to build a well done page for Ulteo.

Ciao

-- http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Panta 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ulteo
Because you requested userfication of the Ulteo article in April, I thought you might want to participate in the deletion review: Deletion review/Log/2008 June 8. — Athaenara ✉  08:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Children's Aid Society edits
I haven't had time to review your edits properly but I did have time to read your comments on the talk page. There is no conspiracy on this page but information that is viewed in a negative light is usually not from a WP:RS and is thus removed. Ranting on the talk page will only make editors more likely to contest your edits as violating WP:NPOV. A piece of advice - save the conspiracy theories for a different venue and ensure that your edits are supported by WP:RS sources. --Daffydavid (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings DaffyDavid, it's a pleasure to talk to you! Would be happy to add references to my discusion on the talk page when I have some free time, the history outlined is entirely constructed from reliable sources and accepted historical references; plus good notes were kept, although most of the published historical information is provided by the organization in question... hmm. Any edits to the main article were dualy referenced, and rely on independent authoritive sources. Also performed a minor edit to fix the semantics to match the actual numbers and statistics already referenced.

My comment is not about conspiracy but the persistant removal of verifiable and referenced information from the article. From the historical CAS tragedies of the First Nation to the modern violations of the UN Charter of Children's Rights. Now I'm not discrediting the possibility of conspiracy being a component of historical corruption, but ya- no need to look for needles when the haystack is on fire ... IMHO the "edit-war" effect is just the nature of wikipedia and part of the process of generating a valid consensus that is encyclopedic (comprehensive in terms of information).

Currently working on the contemporary history of CAS from 1990-current based mainly on the "Persistent Violations of Children's Rights" report from the Child's Rights International Network. Which is verified by UNICEF and concur with several additional United Nations comittee reports. You may view my priliminary notes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avant_Destiny/SANDBOX

Will hopefully reduce this three section rough draft overview to a single categroy unit that lists and highlights the agreed upon parallels from these rather authorative reports; in clear and plain language. Still working on that.. If/when it does make it to the main article, I do expect it to get re-edited and perhaps condensed that's just how it works (vandalism excluded). Avant Destiny (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)