User talk:Kateshortforbob/Archives2009/October

Tengaged!
Please protect this page/block the user who has recreated it 4 times now. Thanks,  C T J F 8 3 Talk 18:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Already done, thank!  C T J F 8 3 Talk 18:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The disadvantages of working with a slow computer. Thanks for letting me know! -- &#9735;  Kateshortforbob talk &#9732;  18:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

List of umbrella companies
Hi Kate,

You have recently removed the list of umbrella companies under "Umbrella company" on the grouds that its a spam attractor and there are not even remotely notable companies on the list.

I feel both the reasons are unfair.

Regarding the first reason,

In fact this list was the only open, non biased reference list of umbrella companies for the contractors in UK. All others are biased commercial information available on net with the site owners have absolute control over information and that contractors can not trust. As a vindication to its usefulness, many contractors started using it, the Google page ranking very quickly improved from page 4 to page 1, within few weeks.

Do you not think, open, unbiased information rendering is one of the objectives of wiki project ?

Given its value and alignment with wiki project goals, the reason potentail spam attractor is not good enough.

Regarding notable companies:

The list has many, like Parasol, Drole, Orange Genie, Nasa, Trafalgar contractor Soltions. Which are in UK market for quite few years and are well reputed. but the list did not just limit to notable companies as its intended to be reference list.

You may wish to take few opinions before removing the list. If some one has complained about the list, it should be the companies on first page of Google. Which is quite understandable. But please do not kill the open non biased information.

Regards, Chanveda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.254.170 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have replied on Talk:Umbrella company; hopefully we can try to gain wider consensus there. Thanks -- &#9735;  Kateshortforbob talk &#9732;  10:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You should have followed procedure
You should have followed procedure and not marked ASP.NET MVC: Problem - Design - Solution as a speedy delete. There was nothing advertising related about that, it was the same text provided on many reputable sites, including Wrox.com (the publisher), Amazon.com (provided via the publisher), Barns and Nobel (provide via the publisher). This was at best a gross misstep on your part to not mark it as a general delete so that it could be debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nberardi (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless the publisher released it under the GFDL, then it would have to be removed immediately on copyright grounds anyway. Pseudomonas(talk) 16:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And are you saying that it can't be advertising because it's what a publisher says about their own stuff? Surely publishers release text designed to sell their books - i.e. advertising. Pseudomonas(talk) 16:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am the author of the book (Nberardi) doesn't that hold any water? And according to the text posted on the page.  This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article that contains no content whatsoever, or consists only of external links, category tags, a "see also" section, a rephrasing of the title, an attempt to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments and/or images  None of this was true about the original content.  It should have been marked with the standard delete which would have started a conversation between you and the authors of the book.  Which include me. -- Nberardi  —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC).


 * See WP:COI for why writing about your own work is considered a bad idea on Wikipedia. Pseudomonas(talk) 16:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So it is a conflict of interest to post up your own book? What about adding your home town?  Your place of work?  Or updating some knowledge about your local historical landmark that you visit monthly?  Hell if what this article was taken to the Nth degree nobody could edit anything to do with Earth article since we all are biased by living on Earth.  This is an assign argument, we are not talking about politics, we are talking about a book I wrote.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nberardi (talk • contribs) 17:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also how do you know I am trying to advance myself. Which I am not, I am posting a book that I worked on with a couple other authors.  As a statement of pride, as I would if my local town wasn't in Wikipedia or updating the page of my favorite B league sports team with a championship win.  I think your bias here says more about you than about me.  You don't follow the rules you are calamining you do as indicated by the bold text above.  My article had none of those qualities, and it was work a work in progress at the time, and you assumed the worst of people and decided to take it in to your own hands like a spoiled child.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nberardi (talk • contribs) 17:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

hey you have deleted my site encyclopedia -Netpharmaworld(Website).there is nothing wrong with that, it was all informative, please do restore my Page.

Mark Anderson Wikipedia user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.2.110 (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Netpharmaworld (Website) deletion ?
i have re established Netpharmaworld and deleted text that look promotional. Please do con sider now.

User:00markanderson —Preceding undated comment added 05:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC).

Page Request do not delete manupatra pages
Hi Kateshortforbob,

This mail written by manupatra IP 122.160.177.194.

Please {unlock | manupatra account data added in manupatra its copywriting data of manupatra legal law}

Data added in manupatra its copyrighted data of manupatra legal law

Regards

Manupatra


 * Above editor today made a change, copy-and-pasting marketing material from their site . I rewrote most of it as being WP:PEACOCK, not having a formal tone, and including material from an unreliable reference. (I.e., the company itself.) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Dates
Thanks for your note. Sorted. Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

Moonriddengirl chatter

 * By the way, the instructions are more formal than they need to be on that particular cleanup from here on out. When there is some doubt as to the extensiveness of the copying, it's a good idea to log each positive find to help mount a case if needed for blocking. After what we've already done, this is so blatant that it's really not needed anymore. We've got quite enough evidence. At this point, speed is the need, so what I'm doing is opening several articles at once and then blanking them from the list. And you might find the talk page quicker if you use cclean. It's very handy--even signs for you. :) If you want to put in a URL, you can--more than one even. Just put a space between them and bob's your uncle. Of course, your handcrafted notes are perfectly fine, too. I do this so much that I created the template long ago to speed things up. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's useful info, and I like the template. As I was editing the talk pages, I kept thinking, "There must be a quicker way," but I was too lazy to go looking for something! -- Kateshortforbob talk  16:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reynolds Plantation
Kate,

I work at Reynolds Plantation in Greensboro, GA and have been trying to create a Wikipedia page for our community for a couple of days, but it keeps getting marked as spam. The community has been around for 20 years and and the land has been owned by our developers for hundreds of years, so there is some history here, as with the Greenbrier in West Virginia. The most recent page that was added is pulled from a book that our staff wrote on the history of Reynolds Plantation and the golf courses here. Can you help me understand why this was pulled down and how I can get an effective page up and running that does not get pulled down?

Thank you, JasonMurray (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback would be appreciated
Since you recently went through finding a multiple point infringer and trying to muster assistance with it, you may be in excellent position to give feedback on the new proposed process page at Contributor copyright investigations. I plan to place it at village pump soon (like maybe tomorrow), but would like a fresh set of eyes that might help find glaring issues before doing so. Thanks for any input you may be able to offer. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Where to take a dispute
We talked briefly recently on a minor issue of page protection, and now I could use your opinion on another matter.

An editor maintains that changes to pages involving their WikiProject must be cleared by them. Changes the editor disagrees with are reverted with the reason being given as vandalism. The editor was asked to mediate. They refused, writing: "Because mediation isn't necessary. I don't see how mediation will solve anything."

If anything, the editor is taking a more extreme position -- expanding the types of edits they regard as vandalism.

WikiProject WP:TVS is involved in thousands of articles, so this isn't a small matter. Other editors maintain the WP:TVS edits are contrary, for example, to WP:COATRACK, WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:DIRECTORY. The response is basically that WP:TVS don't recognize those authorities, unless they agree with them.

What should I do next? Is it time to start an arbitration?Piano non troppo (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)