User talk:Cymsdale/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! The Wookieepedian 21:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * Thank you for your welcome! Cymsdale 22:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Earl of Stirling
Hi, I saw your alert on Wikiquette alerts and am responding to that. First off the edit by Atlant makes sense when you look at this diff. This is the difference between the last edit by the *.206 anon and the version by Atlant. Your revert sneaked in the minute before that Atlant's edit happened, so it looked like he reverted your edit (well he did, but probably not deliberately). Now it should have come up with edit conflict for Atlant, however I think there must be a problem that sometimes means edit conflict doesn't appear (I've come across the same thing with edits I've made).

As for the edits by the IP: well the legal threats are against WP policy, and I can't seriously imagine any real Earl resorting to them over the sort of edits they were making. It's not like the article contains libel from what I can see. That user has been warned, and I think an admin would apply a block if the current situation continues- however it looks like it has stopped for now. Petros471 21:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I was thrown off guard when the last revert was apparently made by Atlant, but your explanation of the edit conflict brings a lot of light to this situation. --Cymsdale 08:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Boy George
My reversion on Boy George seems to have happened at the same time of your editing, I'm sorry. Rotring 00:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem; has happened to me before on occasion as well. --Cymsdale 00:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Lululemon AfD
You recently voted in the AfD for Lulu Lemon. I'd appreciate it if you would reconsider your "delete" for advertising vote. Since your vote, I've added some information to the article and removed more of the "advertising". Would you revisit the article as well, as the comments that I made a number of entries below your vote. Thanks so much for your consideration. &mdash;ERcheck @ 23:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work on the revisions. I've removed my delete recommendation. --Cymsdale 00:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to revisit the article and the AfD. &mdash;ERcheck @ 01:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD on ComoAnda
Hello Cymsdale - You voted AfD on Articles_for_deletion/ComoAnda. I've edited the article - ComoAnda. Please take a look at it again and let me know what you think. It shows definate compliance with WP:WEB - criterion 3 - It's search content is distributed by A9.com, a site which is both well known and independent of the creators. Also compare it to some of the other metasearch articles Qksearch - Ixquick - dogpile.

Thanks. --Oceanrythm 19:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it meets criterion 3. A9.com doesn't distribute content specifically unique to ComoAnda.  I'll continue to follow the discussion on the AfD site to see if my mind can be changed.  For now, my delete recommandation stands. --Cymsdale 20:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. criterion 3 reads: the content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. What do you mean by 'specifically unique'?  The distribution of search content on A9 generated by ComoAnda is not trivial.  A9 distributes content from over 300 providers, and every content feed is unique to its provider. If you search for comoanda in the search columns of A9, you can see the comoanda feed.  Search results on A9 can be a combination of any feed the users selects. I really appreciate your attention to this.  Can you post your interpretation of criterion 3 and how ComoAnda does or does not fit into at  Articles_for_deletion/ComoAnda.  Thanks. --Oceanrythm 22:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * With respect, I do not believe that being a feed for A9.com is enough to warrent an article at Wikipedia. You said yourself that A9 distributes content from over 300 providers.  To me, it would not make sense to have an article for every provider distributed by A9, and you seem to imply that being provided by A9 is enough. I disagree. --Cymsdale 23:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, your logic seems to conflict with the wiki guidelines for web site notability.

Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
 * 1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
 * 2) The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation
 * 3) The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

These are the current guidelines as defined by WP:WEB. So what I would like to hear is your objective view on whether ComoAnda meets these guidelines for notable web-specific content. The way I see it, all 300 sites that contribute to opensearch through A9, are notable as defined by WP:WEB.

Thanks --Oceanrythm 23:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza!
Hello,, and welcome to  Esperanza !. I hope you enjoy your stay!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my Talk page. —   nath a nrdotcom (Talk • Contribs) 23:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
P.S. If you are interested in The Beatles, User:Lar has asked me to tag on a little note advertising the creation of a new Beatles WikiProject that we are currently setting up. Please sign up and help.

Suzy Parker AfD
Hi, I replied on my talk page. --kingboyk 02:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA/Christopherlin
Thanks for your support in my recent RfA. Unfortunately it didn't quite reach consensus, (22/11/8). --Christopherlin 16:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Your help needed
I saw you were keeping an eye on the NPOV dispute on the Hamsexy article. which appeared for a while to have been resolved, or atleast on the track to resolution. Despite many of the other poster's ad hominem attacks both on the talk page and on the Hamsexy.com website I have tried very hard to remain objective. I am not sure if I can do so anymore and would appreciate it if you would just continue to do what you were doing and keep an eye on the the article and its related discussion. Anonym1ty 17:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Greetings, I had actually got a little tired of following the Hamsexy article because the subject matter was something I didn't know much about. However, since this debate does seem to still be going on, I'll start putting attention back toward it.  I've been a bit busy with non-wiki activities lately.  When I can next spend time, I will make Hamsexy a top priority. --Cymsdal e  23:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Here's a userbox for you. -- Cyde Weys 04:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
I'm leaving this macrophage, a particularly hungry white blood cell on your talk page, I just finished a rewrite of its article and realized they're not so different from administrators, as they keep their surroundings clean, doing away with anything that's not supposed to be there... Anyway, with that short lecture on cell biology done with, I'd like to thank you for your vote on my RfA, which passed with (49/2/0), I'll do my best to not let you down, and if you see me heading towards a common newbie mistake, please nudge me in the right direction :) -- O bli (Talk) ? 20:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)