User talk:Gregser

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion of Re-co-de
A tag has been placed on Re-co-de requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Re.co.de
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Re.co.de, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * non-notable neologism

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ironholds (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Re.co.de has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \byoutube\.com (links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unsje2ddpqs, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unsje2ddpqs, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1gjk0fbq0i, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey7vmfm16n8). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and vandalism warning
You created Re.co.de, and all but one of your edits so far are about it.

1) Per WP:CONFLICT, I am asking you to declare your interest in this subject. "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit." (If you don't reply, the assumption may be that you have a major conflict of interest.)

2) You replaced a YouTube link removed by by XLinkBot, with the explanation "no copyright on these videos". In fact, it appears that at least one is copyrighted by the BBC. Copyrighted links are not allowed in any circumstance on Wikipedia. I have removed the link. Replacing it without a legally correct reason would be considered vandalism.

3) In this edit, you removed without a prod tag without giving a reason. In this edit, you removed an advertisement and a notability tag without explanation.

This is a formal warning. If you continue deleting material and re-adding questionable material without satisfactory explanation, you will be blocked from editing. FYI, I would estimate you are about two or three edits away from being blocked. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________

Hi I have been working on this article for more than 2 months now, doing my best to make the RE.CO.DE concept easy to understand, and to comply to Wikipedia rules. I have taken into account every single feedback I have received, and spent a lot of time to learn how to use WP.

1) I am a witness of the emergence of this concept, and one of many contributors to it. As a collaboration designer, my interest is to share my understanding of it; To help people, communities and organizations reinvent how they interact, and build a more respectful and sustainable future. I am part of a non-profit association of designers, called "The Value Web", which committed to contribute to spread this meme. I don't understand why you refer to a COI (Conflict of Interest) here.

2)I replaced the link to youtube with the BBC video because BBC gave us the right to use it freely. The video is about the peace process in the Middle East, and shows how political, civil society and business leaders try to build neutral and peaceful solutions to help solving the conflict. Is this vandalism? When it was removed in the first place, I understood that it was because of the video being hosted on youtube, not considered as a reliable source. In this particular case, it is reliable.

3) the page has now been deleted, and I have no recent copy of the text. I don't know what you refer to because the specified link is now inactive. I have answered the tag by modifying the article directly, clarifying the fact that it was not an ad by writing that the concept is open source. Notability is a very subjective notion. I know there is a debate about inclusiveness among WP contributors, but this emerging RE.CO.DE concept is really impacting lots of people, especially in the design community, in the NGO and multilateral initiatives, in the global political, media and business sphere.

I hope these explanations will help. Please note that English is not my first language, and that I am not fully familiar with WP habits yet. It is not an easy environment, in terms of how the rules are interpreted. Gregser (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Re.co.de
A tag has been placed on Re.co.de, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Re.co.de and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Vicenarian (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that this page has now been deleted. Please do not recreate the page unless you can write it to the standards of Wikipedia. I would suggest reading How not to be a spammer. Thank you. Vicenarian (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

__________________________________________

Hi The article has been deleted before I could copy the latest version. I have no recent copy. Did you save one before deleting? Can you provide me a copy so I rework it. As I explained to Piano no troppo, there is no advertisement in the article. The concept has emerged from the designers' community, it doesn't belong to anyone, it is not copyrighted, not protected, and aims to serve non-profit initiatives. I am doing my best to share on WP my understanding of it, and have made multiple edits to comply to WP rules and clarify this design thinking approach. I am also learning WP, being a long time reader but a very recent contributor... Gregser (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Restored article for you
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Creating an article that meets wikipedia guidelines is not that easy unfortunately; our guidelines for what a new page must have are somewhat complex. I've restored the Re.co.de page in your userspace here so you can continue to work on it.

There are some things that need to be done before it can be moved back as an article: Mainly it needs to be referenced by reliable third party sources. Are there any newspaper articles or scholarly discussions about it which you can reference?

We try to only have article on things other reliable sources have written about. (basically a reliable source are those with editors and a reputation for fact checking: blogs and youtube links are not sufficient). Let me know if you have any questions, and give me a ping when you feel it is ready to be moved back. Cheers, henrik  • talk  09:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you henrik. Gregser, I've just answered you on my talk page, here . Thank you for explaining. I need time to think, but probably between henrik, administrator "One", and I, we can work something out. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the restored text. Where can I forward you guys the email received from the BBC giving permission to use the video? I will keep working on the text on my side...

Talkback
Vicenarian (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(Moved) Re.co.de page deleted
(Discussion moved from

"Hi I have been working on this article for more than 2 months now, doing my best to make the RE.CO.DE concept easy to understand, and to comply to Wikipedia rules. I have taken into account every single feedback I have received, and spent a lot of time to learn how to use WP.

1) I am a witness of the emergence of this concept, and one of many contributors to it. As a collaboration designer, my interest is to share my understanding of it; To help people, communities and organizations reinvent how they interact, and build a more respectful and sustainable future. I am part of a non-profit association of designers, called "The Value Web", which committed to contribute to spread this meme. I don't understand why you refer to a COI (Conflict of Interest) here.

2)I replaced the link to youtube with the BBC video because BBC gave us the right to use it freely. The video is about the peace process in the Middle East, and shows how political, civil society and business leaders try to build neutral and peaceful solutions to help solving the conflict. Is this vandalism? When it was removed in the first place, I understood that it was because of the video being hosted on youtube, not considered as a reliable source. In this particular case, it is reliable.

3) the page has now been deleted, and I have no recent copy of the text. I don't know what you refer to because the specified link is now inactive. I have answered the tag by modifying the article directly, clarifying the fact that it was not an ad by writing that the concept is open source. Notability is a very subjective notion. I know there is a debate about inclusiveness among WP contributors, but this emerging RE.CO.DE concept is really impacting lots of people, especially in the design community, in the NGO and multilateral initiatives, in the global political, media and business sphere.

I hope these explanations will help. Please note that English is not my first language, and that I am not fully familiar with WP habits yet. It is not an easy environment, in terms of how the rules are interpreted. Gregser (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregser (talk • contribs)


 * I understand. I was surprised to see that an administrator had deleted the article. I did not request that. The information can be recovered: that is not a problem.


 * I just spent time researching, but I am not sure how to continue. I will need consider. Not everything that someone in "good faith" thinks is important is what Wikipedia wants. I will give you an example? I saw a performance. I wrote about something that the cast did. Other editors erased my edit, because Wikipedia does not allow "original research" WP:OR.


 * You will need the help of the administrator called "One". But don't write him, yet. Just to give you an idea of how complicated this can get? You said: "The BBC gave you the right to use it freely." Ah. But *what* right? Wikipedia follows the law! But it justifies itself with particular laws! It is *those* laws you need to follow -- not just an informal agreement between your group and the BBC.


 * The big mistake you made was erasing changes other Wikipedia editors made, without explaining why you did it. Your reason might not be very good! But no reason is quite bad! So it's much better, now that you are explaining what you are doing! Let's hope we can make progress tomorrow. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all this. How can I transfer you the email received from the BBC giving us permission for use of the video debate? Gregser (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)"

Discussion on re.co.de continues
I just reviewed some of the material you gave links for. You should ask "One" directly what their reasons were, because there are actually several possible problems. (If we keep this discussion here. it will be easier for "One", Vicenarian, me, and others to follow.)

1) To "set the stage", in your comment you said that the "BBC gave you the right". I presume this means you are an official representative for some organization? You should explain your role. See WP:CONFLICT.

2) Wikipedia has complicated rules on what is a "reliable, independent, third-party" reference. However this reference that you gave, a photograph of handwriting on an anonymous whiteboard is something anybody could do, including someone who was lying or was promoting their business . I am *not* saying that is what you are doing, I *am* saying the reference is not acceptable because there is no way to tell it from those things. Good references are often from published books, published magazines, major newspapers.

3) The article was titled re.co.de, but the BBC video and the whiteboard do not seem to mention re.co.de. I think you may be working on the assumption that Wikipedia is kind of a free blog. In fact, editors are generally discouraged from even quoting blogs! Wikipedia has much higher standards than blogs, and is not a social site where people can share wonderful experiences they had.

At this point I really do think you need to ask "One" to explain specifically what their reasons were. Unless you can come up with a reliable published reference, for example in The London Times the re.co.de material is probably not appropriate for Wikipedia. The fact that Google only returns 109 results for "re.co.de", most of which have to do with something else will be considered as evidence that it is not "notable". Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My main concern (that led to my nomination for speedy deletion) was that the article was written like an advertisement for the organization/project. Even if it does pass muster regarding notability and verifiability, the article must be written in an encyclopedic manner to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. As noted before, see WP:SPAM for more info on what is considered advertising and how not to write an article as advertisement. I find a good way to do this is to follow WP:NPOV. Cheers, Vicenarian (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, Gregser, and welcome to Wikipedia. As for why I deleted the article, Vicenarian and Piano non troppo have pretty much already summed it up for me. If you can greatly rewrite the article and show that its notability is established by using third-party references, preferably reputable news sources or something of that sort (looking at the CSD logs, it's been deleted before for just this reason - not establishing notability), then there's a higher likelihood that the article would survive longer than a few hours. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask them at my talk page. Onetwo three... 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)