User talk:LFaraone/Archive/2013/December

Keeping the AutoTURN/Transoft Wikipedia pages active
Hello,

I received this message over the weekend:

"Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Transoft Solutions Inc, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it."

I would like to add to this page, especially the AutoTURN page, but have always been stumped by how to add content that is objective and not promotional. I often look at the Autodesk wikipedia page as an example. We are similar companies, but everytime I try to add to our history or facts about AutoTURN, they are blocked. Autodesk seems to have lots of "promotional" content on their page.

In 2011, we added 3D capabilities to our AutoTURN product. How can I mention this without sounding promotional?

I would really appreciate some guidance here. Could I send you some proposed content and we could work to make it acceptable for the Wikipedia audience?

Thank you.

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjohnstransoft (talk • contribs) 22:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

David V. Aguilar
Are reviewers inept to check vandalism and BLP-violation on this page? I checked the history log, and it appears on grounds of "pending changes" based on infrequent editing before and after protection. --George Ho (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what you're asking? The current revision of the article appears fine. L Faraone  03:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not lowering to PC on this infrequently edited page? --George Ho (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've switched the article to requiring edit review for the next 6 months. L Faraone  03:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Khowar Academy
Hi LFaraone. About the closure of Articles for deletion/Khowar Academy (2nd nomination): Do you think the Keep argument bears any weight in terms of the Wikipedia's Notability Guideline? And did you consider the fact that the same article can be deleted per CSD#G4? -- S M S   Talk 13:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There was insufficient consensus for deletion, primarily due to limited participation. I can reopen and relist it, if you like. no, I did not consider that. If you felt that classification applies then tagging it with a CSD template might have been more appropriate than a deletion discussion. L Faraone  14:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the answer. No please don't relist it, it is not going to do any good besides adding to the workload of administrators. Actually I discovered that G4 may apply only after I started that AfD and since I did't have access to the previous version so I couldn't do it with surety. And I am not good at determining the consensus especially at deletion discussions so thought to ask you. -- S M S   Talk 17:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Precious
  articles for deletion

Thank you for quality articles such as Ubuntu, for page patrol, dealing with articles for deletion, warning vandals, for and, for concise answers and asking for the (civil) smile, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed at your thoroughness. Your thanks is appreciated. L Faraone  02:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations
On the election thing. NE Ent 23:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ! :) L Faraone  02:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

DJ Many Deletion Appeal
DJ Many is clearly notable and meets the WP:MUSICBIO criteria several times and has a MTV source http://www.mtv.com/artists/dj-many/biography/ about him along with info from his verified twitter and tweets http://www.twitter.com/djmany and the previous deletion review always had a keep consensus from administrator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bearian --Supermusicboom (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Affirm is not keep; in fact, it means the deletions were upheld. The comments by in the AfD I closed are instructive:
 * "Please note that an article on this subject was deleted in 2011; see AfD. Two subsequent DRVs endorsed the decision and admonished a promotional account for pushing the topic."
 * The result of the consensus here was also delete. L Faraone  22:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It's 2013 and DJ Many is clearly becoming more notable the article should be restored it meets WP:MUSICBIO several times, you specialize in technology so i don't expect you to reach a clear consensus on a music based subject. Supermusicboom (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If you will not reply to my previous post i will contact another admin, it is disheartening that my first wiki article with enough notability got deleted after it was relisted for no reason after it already got a keep vote from a administrator... Supermusicboom (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a vote, it is a determination of consensus. Your discussion was relisted because there wasn't sufficient participation to judge consensus. Administrator comments do not have inherently more value than the comments of any other user. L Faraone  04:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand, those who voted negatively had sparse comments without a precise assessment. what do you personally thing about the article? Supermusicboom (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on it, nor does my opinion matter, since one's feelings on an article should not impact the closing of a deletion discussion. L Faraone  05:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like the article to get another review from a expert in the wikipedia music department since the subject clearly meets the WP:MUSICBIO Supermusicboom (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

MOS vs. inaccuracy in article titles
Since I respect your judgment and way of doing things, I'd be much obliged if you can spend a few minutes looking into the editing patterns of "Robsinden". Robsinden has been nitpickingly switching article titles claiming the MOS guideline on title capitalization should trump accuracy. He did this with one article I work on, Remember not, Lord, our offences (which he retitled Remember Not, Lord, Our Offences despite 330 years of evidence), and recently has been edit-warring over A Boy was Born - which he insists should be "A Boy Was Born" despite the composer Benjamin Britten titling it and publishing it with a lowercase w and that composer's legacy/creative rights entity, the Britten-Pears Foundation, using that format to this day. While these are minor issues, they are promoting the insertion of inaccuracy into these articles in a latent form, and misusing the instruments of WP:RM and consensus to do so (which I find abusive). Because they are not improving the encyclopaedia (where per WP:IAR we are advised to ignore rules that prevent such improvements), I'd appreciate it if the titles were restored to their accurate format and Robsinden were admonished to discontinue such pointy, edit-warring behaviour.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)