User talk:Pointblankstare

Spanish language wikipedia talk page es:Usuario Discusión:Pointblankstare

Basque
The reason I used the strong wording "ridiculous" was that English, Russian, French, German and even Hindi and Bengali are all more closely related to Spanish than is Basque (see Indo-European languages and Basque language). I probably wouldn't have used the word in the main text, but I sometimes go for a lighter tone in image captions. This wording is just a matter of taste, so I don't dispute the change. I just thought it might be worth explaining (over-explaining?) that thinking Basque is a dialect of Spanish really IS ridiculous. I really do, however, appreciate and agree with your conservative approach to wording. I would take a bland entry over an entry full of hyperbole any day! Best wishes. ◄ HouseOfScandal  ►   06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

--Response-- Now I have a better understanding at what you getting at, and I learned something new in the process. I would not be offended if you chose to change it back to "ridiculous", but If you offer a subheading or a link to some wikipedia area that describes the Basque people, your sentence will have much more value to the reader. Speaking as a reader who probably read what you wrote too quickly, we can all benefit from a more thorough explanation! (I'm also very new to this editing of wikipedia, but this experience will help me in the future in investigating the topic, even for small things, before changing something.) Regards,  Pointblankstare 06:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No prob, I definately don't want to discourage you. If you look at the caption you corrected, you will see Basque people and Basque language were already linked. Welcome to Wikipedia, BTW.  ◄ HouseOfScandal  ►  06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Organizational Culture issues in Mergers and Acquisitions
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Organizational Culture issues in Mergers and Acquisitions, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Flotation cost
Another editor has added the  template to the article Flotation cost, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question...
...in your edit summary, Your first article is a good place to start. The links from it are also interesting. Hope this helps! ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems
Hello. Concerning your contribution, CDC Corporation, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, CDC Corporation appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. CDC Corporation has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:CDC Corporation and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:CDC Corporation with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:CDC Corporation.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. – ICDaniel (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
You've been here since 2006 and you don't know how to create a redirect? I think it's time you learned :)

Click on USSG and then type Then press "Save page". It's easy. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) redirectUnited States Federal Sentencing Guidelines

Speedy deletion of Open Yale Course Fundamentals of Physics
A tag has been placed on Open Yale Course Fundamentals of Physics, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which 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 guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

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. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you intended this article to be, but very, very few classes merit their own encyclopedia article. You would need to provide multiple reliable sources to verify the content and establish the notability of the subject. Click here for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Defense of speedy deletion of Open Yale Course Fundamentals of Physics
Hi All and User talk:Ged UK,

For this free online course an article of at minimum timestamps and class summaries with links to wikipedia articles would help those interested a great deal. I know It would be a good use of my time as I go through these courses and have thoughts I want to socially collaborate with others. I think the social collaboration would be productive and promote wikipedians updating and improving many physics articles too.

For notability I would imagine this article could someday be posted as a resource off of physics, no? Can you give me an example of "secondary reliable sources"?


 * I read Reliable source examples but i'm a bit confused. What would it be in other cases? What could it be in this case? a review of the course by another organization? what general people have said about the course?


 * I probably agree with you that this is more of a directory than other wikipedia articles, but i think it can be much more than a directory once more content is added about the way the course is structured, why, and its different topics...is this type of idea unprecedented on wikipedia?

thanks --Pointblankstare (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A reliable source is a source that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so any self published pages like blogs, etc are no good. Also, the text in the article was copy-pasted from another website, making it a copyright violation. The general notability guideline has more information on sources and notability. As far as wanting to socialize and discuss this course with others, I'm afraid that just isn't what Wikipedia is for. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, firstly this article was deleted for copyright violation, you had copied from the course website. The website owns the text, so it can't just be copied to Wikipedia. Ignoring the copyvio issue for the moment, the question you need to answer really is, why is this course notable, essentially, why is this course important? Is it doing something different to every other physics course. I suspect that the content isn't going to be the issue here; they don't seem to be teaching a different sets of lawas of physics etc. What may be notable is the way the course is delivered. Are there articles in academic texts or newspapers/journals that talk about the course (and more than just listing/advertising it).
 * As to it linking from Physics, no, to be honest I can't. That article would link to concepts about the science, not about the way it is taught. Hope that helps a little. -- Ged UK  21:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Much help! Thanks to both of you, I'll think these things over. --Pointblankstare (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)