User talk:Olenick

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Proposed deletion of Kadoo
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kadoo, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. P HARMBOY (moo) (plop) 18:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. P HARMBOY (moo) (plop) 19:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how to use this thing nor who you are or why you'd have a problem w/ a basic Wikipedia page explaining a company. Somebody named "pharmboy" -- a name that, frankly, is difficult to take seriously -- keeps marking my page for deletion. Is this really some weird type of free-for-all where anybody can just blast away the work of others wily-nilly? Some of the self-aggrandizing commentary I've found (doing blah blah blah is "very serious" as if anything that happens here is very serious) are less than helpful. Olenick (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I explained this on the talk page for the article, and offered to explain and answer any question you have. The first step is realize that it isn't a personal attack on you.  Ironically, the very essay you vandalized, User:Pharmboy/PDT explains exactly what to do and how to deal with it.  I wrote it specifically for these types of instances.  Attacking my talk pages, attacking me, or making fun of my chosen handle here isn't going to accomplish your goals.  I have offered to help you, but I can't help you if you only continue to attack me.   P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 19:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Choosing a name like Parmboy is ... well ... like choose a name like Parmboy. Don't interpret disagreeing with you or thinking that your alias is weird as an attack. Assuming that you don't live in a country where free speech can get you locked up (I'll skip sarcastic references to the US that'll hopefully be irrelevant tomorrow) I strongly believe people should use their real names. Look at my name. Guess what; it's my name. My real name. The one I was born with, the one on my license, the one I used to vote; my family's name. I sign things with it and that adds accountability. People may not like what I say but they know that I'm me: no hiding behind a cloak of anonymity. You seem easily insulted. Maybe that just comes w/ the job...? Despite being annoyed there is a smidgen of admiration for those who work to keep spam off Wikipedia which is what you're obviously trying to do. Olenick (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at my user page you will see it has my real name. I have used the name Pharmboy on other sites, such as slashdot.org and many many others, for over 15 years.  I even own pharmboy.org.  It is just an old school play on "farmboy" (Ph=f, like "Phat") from an old guy who has been online since the late 1980s, and the BBS glory days.  A name is just a name, I don't really identify with it except that it is so familiar to me.  I have never even lived on a farm.  And I don't think everyone should be forced to use their real name, I just choose to.  And I'm not really insulted (many misunderstand the name, I don't understand why), I am just trying to avoid a heated discussion and keep focused on the article issues.  I would suggest you put some 3rd party references in the article, as many editors here would have simply put a speedy delete tag on it and been done.  Because the article doesn't make a claim of notability and has zero references, odds are that it would be deleted.  THAT is why I prodded it, to give a chance to fix it over the next couple of days.  Most of the time, when someone PRODs an article, someone else won't come and speedy delete tag it.  Speedy deletes take about 3 minutes instead of 5 days.  P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would anybody speedy delete an about page of a business that has $5MM in financing and whose founders prior company changed an entire market? What policy could justify that: it's like an overactive spam filter that deletes real emails. R.e. your name it's the combo of pharm (i.e. pharmaceutical) and boy (self explanatory); sounds like a young drug addict. My guess, from having spent some time now writing to you, is that you aren't but when somebody named pharmboy comes along and marks a legitimate article for deletion it feels like you've been robbed by a meth-head or something. Rather than marking articles for deletion why not just use the energy to say "source some of this stuff...?" which sounds a lot more reasonable (unless it is spam in which case the speedy delete sounds fine). Olenick (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Its about policy, not a statement about the company. Articles are deleted every day that might actually be about notable topics.  Remember, if an article creator doesn't make a claim of notability and provide a few sources, then it happens.  The best example I can give is, Pharmboy, Inc.  It is a 3 billion dollar company.  We have offices in 6 countries.  We build middleware applications.  123 of the Fortune 500 use our middleware.  We have been called the fastest growing company in the middleware business  How is a reader to know that the company is real if there are no sources?  No articles from newspapers, etc, links to stuff, book links or something. (and there is no Pharmboy, Inc...).  That is the foundation of Wikipedia: verification.  We are not in the "truth" business.  We just document facts that can be documented by reliable sources.  Five pillars is a great, short statement that covers the actual core of what Wikipedia is about.  These five are the only hardcoded "rules" on Wikipedia.  There really is a reason for all the policy madness here, you just have to take a little on faith until you are around a while.  Once you start seeing the abuse and vandalism, the guidelines here start making a lot more sense.  And keep in mind this:  I am just an editor, like you.  Don't worry, stick around and you will have the opportunity to deal with this stuff too. ;)   P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 20:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One more quick note: The (moo) is a "talk" link.  The (plop) is a "contributions" link.  I added those to help people recognize that it is a farm reference, not a pharmicalogical one, with the cow references.  (ie: Ph=F is k3wL)  I guess that escapes notices sometimes.  P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 20:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense in context, and hindsight. Why not just use that example on your other page? Rather than explaining how people get PO'd explain that it's important to link to third-party references because it verifies the integrity of the underlying article. If there are no third-party articles, or only really lame one's, then the article might just be spam and nobody wants that. I think the key would be to keep real articles in, while bringing them up to standards, while pushing spam out. Again, like an overactive spam filter, you don't want to mark a real article as spam because it annoys the person who sent the non-spam and deprives the recipient of information they might want (or may need). It seems like a few things would make that easier: 1) ask contributors to engage in a dialog; spammers probably won't want to, 2) look at prior Wikipedia use; have people edited or added stories?, 3) look for verifiable real names w/ verified email addresses, blogs, etc... This isn't that different than what happens on a social networking site when deciding whether to accept a distant friend or not.  In fact, it'd be interesting to integrate the two to see whose Wikipedia articles or edits link to articles or edits from their Facebook friends.  If only I had a time machine I'd build that into a F/B app.
 * I probably do need to integrate that essay with some info like that, and now that I have seen the issue in action, it makes more sense. I *did* try to engage in conversation ;) but even though I am an old fart, my methods of expressing my thoughts on the keyboard need work.  We both could have done better, but in the end, it worked out.  My best suggestion is to hang around, start out by making edits to articles on things you are familiar with, learn the ropes.  There are a lot more ropes than you can possibly image at this stage, I promise.  I've been here over 2 years and have over 8,000 edits, and I am just now starting to get the hang of it.  That essay you saw, it is on a separate page in my own space, not wikipedia space (I have one essay WP:BLUDGEON in wikipedia space).  That one you saw isn't done yet, although close enough to be somewhat useful.  You can do the same thing, create your own extra pages in your space, to work on articles, bring them up to speed, THEN move them over to the main space.  While they are in your space, no one is going to tag them (unless there was a serious legal issue, copyright infringement, etc.).  So when you start the article for real, it is sourced, formatted, clean, and no worry of deletion as long as it meets the other policies.  It isn't hard to do.  I just did that with Lexington Barbecue Festival.  If you look at the first version, it looks pretty good.  HA!  That was the 50th version in my user space, and I didn't move it over until it was "pretty good".  These are some of the basics that you can learn and they will help you editing here.  Oh, and seriously, grap a cup of tea and read the links in the "welcome" section at the top of this page, it really will help you.   P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 23:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right; we really both could have done better -- I definitely over-reacted. I looked at your b-day and I'm about the same age as you; a little younger, but just a little (we could have been in high-school together). I've made tiny edits on other articles that I know about, but nowhere near 8,000! It's one of those labors of love to keep Wikipedia up, and for now just don't usually have the time. Even cranking out a page for Kadoo ended up taking a long time, but it's an interesting company and I thought deserves a Wikipedia page.

Wiki-chat on subject, rather than editing
Wikipedia Chat Boards. Why aren't there Wikipedia chat boards that discuss the underlying content about a piece, rather than just the editing history of it. I realize the editing history is important, and appreciate the communal strength needed to keep the articles up-to-date (and don't personally have the energy to keep undoing the edits of others). Still -- what's wrong with an old fashioned discussion about the underlying topics, much like a zillion other commercial websites contain, for those that want to engage in discussion but don't have the energy to constantly undo the edits of somebody they disagree with? That'd kill 2/3rds of the Wiki-wars and make for a more interesting site. Olenick (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum. Discussion on talkpages should be about improving articles, rather than the underlying subject. If you want to discuss the show, I'm sure there are plenty of forums to do so. See WP:NOTFORUM for more info on Wikipedia's policies. -- Terrillja talk  19:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved this here since it doesn't really have anything to do with improving the Whale Wars article. -- Terrillja talk  19:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Feedback
 Chzz  ► 00:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

December 2015
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Linda Green (robosigner), from its old location at User:Olenick/Linda Green. This is because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. North America1000 04:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Linda Green (robosigner) concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Linda Green (robosigner), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 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.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

November 2021
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:Marvel Studios were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)