User talk:Qaiassist

Welcome!

Hello, Qaiassist, 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 my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Mdd (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Good morning Mdd. My name is Cameron and I am trying to get a better understanding of how wikipedia works. More specifically, I believe Wikipedia may be an excellent forum for sharing the IT knowledge I have gained over the past 25 years. I am trying to understand how Wikipedia works and how I can best contribute - hoping contact with you is the first step. Looking forward to any instruction/suggestion you can make. Hope to pose questions to you (if that is the proper protocol). Thanks. Cameron.
 * Welcome, again. Start with the WP:Introduction, the WP:Five Pillars and the guide to writing WP:Your first article. Links from those will take you to more information, and you will find the WP:Tutorial useful. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Cameron. You did the right thing responding here to get in contact with me. Unfortunately at the moment I am not active at Wikipedia (what we call a wikibreak), so I didn't respond right away. I advice you to look for active Wikipedians to answer any questions you have. In time you will notice that they are going to find you as well. Good luck. Mdd (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  MrOllie (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have just received this message and am trying to understand how to address it. I entered wikipedia this morning to try and enhance a number of articles (including adding a number of web links) and I have been informed the article titled "Integrated IT Methodology" will be removed. I believe the "Integrated IT Methodology" article adds a great deal of knowledge to IT users and am wondering if I should remove the links I put in today

Thanks. QAIassist

Proposed deletion of Integrated IT Methodology


The article Integrated IT Methodology has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Sourced to blogs, no reliable sources establishing the notability of the concept

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Username probelm
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the username you have chosen seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.

There are two issues with this :
 * 1) You may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization.
 * 2) Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.

Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guideline to avoid editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.
 * I'm sorry if this friendly warning was unclear - please request a user name change before making any other edits - thank you.  Kuru   (talk)  15:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Integrated IT Methodology
I have nominated Integrated IT Methodology, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Integrated IT Methodology. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. MrOllie (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Good afternoon (Sinebot)

I trust all is well and appreciate your input.

I am quickly becoming aware that the world of wikipedia is far beyond my limitations. The first thing I do is try and provide information on a topic (Integrated IT Methodology) very familiar  to me. The second thing I know some guy/girl named MrOlle says I have breached the protocol and the article will be deleted (it has no references) - although I had presented 5 web based references of very reputed IT sites (ProjectInsight, AceProject, ProjectSmart, ProjectTimes, PMI-Houston). The third thing I know the article that references software development methodology and software testing methodology (by Scott Ambler) have been accepted into wikipedia and they have limited references (one in reference to a web page) than the article I had prepared and delivered. The fourth thing I know is that another user has signed on and was hoping to add some content to the original article because he saw the value in it to himself and the user community. The fifth thing I know I am being told I have to use tildes to make sure my name is displayed on my writings.

For the sake of my confusion I am not sure if MrOlle has any background in IT methodologies (integrated, software, testing, otherwise), I am not sure if MrOlle did any cross referencing against any of the other "methodology articles" and how they were composed. I am not sure if MrOlle took it upon himself to research the references for the Scott Ambler articles. I am not sure if wikipedia really cares that the articles of like subject matter (IT methodology) should have integrity between them (including how references should be evaluated). I am not sure who makes the decisions about who should be authoring articles and what their credentials are (or should be) before they start suggesting deletions without properly researching the collective integrity of the information.

That said, I am beginning to wonder if the intent of wikipedia is to provide valuable (and free) information to the user base or to allow those with less knowledge (and a lack of a holistic edit experience) to prevent information from getting to the users because of their interpretation of the rules and protocols.

Hoping my message is taken as constructive and am hoping MrOlle will one day take the time to properly understand IT methodology and that inconsistency in evaluating articles (see Scott Ambler reference) only harms the end product and the information getting to the users.

Thanks and good luck to all things wikipedia.

Thanks. Cameron.

PS Hoping one of the following enables me to formally sign this response using the proper protocol/signature. Qaiassist (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Cameron Cameron CameronQaiassist (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Cameron. The place to further discuss these subject is here at the Articles for deletion/Integrated IT Methodology -- Mdd (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

MDD - i am so glad to see you took a second to re-connect. I know you are on a bit of a sabbatical (well earned Im sure)and dont wish to be such a bother to everyone. All I am trying to do is add information that I believe will be of benefit to the users. I can confess to not knowing all of the proper wikipedia protocols and dialects (the tildes and the forum to discuss the deletion process, etc, etc, etc nor the roles of who performs edits and their jurisdictions). I see your credentials and am awed by them and know someone of your experience and knowledge would have taken the time to effectively perform an edit (content, reference and integrity of article) prior to submitting an article for deletion. Again, my intent is not to contest the protocols but to contribute - hoping you might take a second to pass along a few more words of wisdom. Thanks MDD, appreciate all of your effort and putting in more time while on sabbatical.


 * Hi Cameron. The thing is that I tend to agree with the arguments MrOllie is given in the Article for deletion debate. You have to respond to those arguments. Again, that is the place to respond. I am sorry. -- Mdd (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Good afternoon MDD.

I trust all is well and appreciate you getting back to me.

Seems the article I have drafted is not up to the wikipedia standard - what started as a lack of reference has cascaded to a lack to signing my name properly to being informed that I was trying to promote the information for my own self interest.

As was the case when I first started writing the article, my intent has been to make a contribution. In accepting the existing opinions I guess it will take more time and reference for the criteria to be reached. I have recently been invited by the editor IDG Europe (one of the worlds top IT media outlets (publishers of CIO, Computerworld UK, Digital Arts, Macworld, MacVideo, PC Advisor, and Techworld)to begin writing articles for them - they have reviewed my writings and are hoping to publish them in the near future. Although I now recognize that having material published in some of the leading IT publications/websites in the world does not necessarily translate into meeting the guidelines of wikipedia, I am optimistic that being published (again) in a number of these publications will make things more viable from a wikipedia perspective. In the event that is not enough reference I will have to have more material published by other industry leading publishers - there may even come a day that i will have enough references to meet the necessary wikipedia criteria. Suspect I am probably missing something here, when I see the comments and recommendations for deletion for my original article and then review the backgrounds and experience of those making the recommendations I become bewildered - how can quality be embedded in the product when the person doing the editing has no subject matter expertise.

At the risk of appearing overly enthused, I am now wondering about the sanctity, objectivity and integrity of all things wikipedia. In creating my article, I used the sample set by Scott Ambler (his references are with articles for "software development methodology" "SDLC", etc - in now seeing the response I have gained from those reviewing my article I am caught in a bit of dilema. For the sake of ensuring there is a consistency and a sense of integrity within wikipedia I was hoping you (or someone) might make a suggestion as to whether it would be better for me to take it upon myself to go back into reviewing (and recommending for deletion)the scott ambler articles (based on the criteria used to evaluate my article) or leave that responsiblity to those who have made recommendation to deleting my article - will await any suggestion(s) you might have.

All that said, I again want to say "thanks" for taking the time to review my material and provide me your knowledge and expertise (your experience and perspective has earned its right to always be respected).

Off to write some more material and who knows - there may yet come a day that I will be ale to write a methodology related article suitable for the needs of wikipedia. In the interim, can understand your want to take some time away from it - enjoy the hiatus.

Thanks again. Cameron.


 * Hi Cameron, I think your article is deleted especially because it failed to provide reliable third party sources, see Identifying reliable sources. It is not enough that you are a have written reliable articles. Third party sources need to establish this. Now the Wikipedia editors judging (your) article(s) are no experts in all subject matters, but we do are experts in establishing notability. I know this is all very frustrating... not understanding the right procedures. But there was little I could do myself here, because of the lack of those third part sources. I wish you all the best. -- Mdd (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Good morning MDD.

I trust all is well and wanted to say a huge "thank you" for taking some more time and energy on this. As per norm your response is both poignant and comforting.

Seems I have been working off the wrong premise all along. I was to the belief that the whole idea behind wikipedia was to present valid information and knowledge that could be of benefit to the readership. I must accept the realities (deleted article) of all things wikipedia and continue on my quest to identify forums and mediums that pursue knowledge in the want to provide it to their readership.

That said, the only disappointment that lingers is in my original belief of what wikipedia was has been very much distorted. On many occasions I would say to co-workers, clients and family members "did you look in wikipedia" - my original belief was that wikipedia was a generic knowledge base aimed at aiding it's readership - and know I am left only with the knowledge of why wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia".

Again, so many thanks for all of your efforts, and who knows, there may come another day when I feel compelled to write another article in the hopes that it too will be recommended for deletion.

Can appreciate why you may want to extend you vacation - hope I might have the pleasure of bumping into you again (true knowledge is a hard thing to find, letting it get away is a sin)

Thanks again for all your effort on this.

Keep smilin. Cameron.

PS - perhaps you might suggest MrOlle take a look at the Scott Ambler posts - or perhaps, we can let things be to ensure the lack of informational integrity persists


 * I guess there is the misunderstanding with more new Wikipedia contributors like you, that writing from your own experience is all it takes. This is how Wikipedia started but for several years now the policy has changed. We want all knowledge to rely on third party sources. A good Wikipedia article is and article which takes the best of thoses sources written in our own words. Now there are always other articles, that not (yet) follow those rules, but this is no argument to accept new articles without those third party sources. Again I know how frustrating this can be, putting your effort in this community project. I wish you all the best. -- Mdd (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Good morning MDD.

I trust all is well and appreciate your response and patience - soothing as per norm.

Will keep your suggestion in mind - recognize the dynamics between information, its source, and its applicability - can appreciate why the policy exists (ensure a modicum of quality assurance in the information). Am wondering how long it is going to take for the wikipedia readership to grasp the inconsistency in the editing/evaluation process - suspect this eventual reality may have the wikipedia policy makers revisit the effects of how far the pendulum has swung.

When I (and most others) read information with significant lack of integrity or cohesion between it and itself it puts the validity of the information (and the authors) into question - to read articles on the same subject matter that introduces terminology and concepts that contradicts itself is never positive for learning or transferring of knowledge.

Stay with it my friend, your patience and acceptance is a gift. Who knows, there may even come a day that someone other than myself will try and create a wikipedia article about an "Integrated IT Methodology" (perhaps even you) - perhaps by that time those editing the articles will have come to the recognition that informational integrity and cohesion really matters.

Be safe.

Keep smilin. Cameron.


 * Hi Cameron, I indeed hope this day will come some day. There is indeed significant lack of integrity or cohesion, as you put it. There is a lot of work to be done here. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards -- Mdd (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Qaiassist, does not meet our username policy. '''Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).''' A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
 * Adding on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Qaiassist/Integrated Methodology
User:Qaiassist/Integrated Methodology, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Qaiassist/Integrated Methodology and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Qaiassist/Integrated Methodology during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. PNGWantok (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)