User talk:Reboot

Welcome. Thanks for the kind words. -- Zoe

Reboot, the standard is ==External Links==, despite your preferences. -- Zoe

Hey, the wiki does have references, not all articles have references but some do. Usually when I write something up Ill put a reference to various things like so (1) or (i)

United States Page
I wasn't the one that changed it to that, that was 70.68.173.118. I've been reverting their changes, that's probably where the confusion originated. Sholtar 04:13, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Your AMA Request
I'm sorry about all the annoying password requests you receive, but there's nothing we can do about it. It happens to lots of people, including admins. But, on the upside, the way it works is that each request resets the last one, so currently you only have two passwords that work; your real one and the newest requested one. There has been a bug report made about it that would set it to only allow one reminder per day. There's nothing else we can actually do though. Sorry. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk) 20:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Triangle Linux Users Group
A tag has been placed on Triangle Linux Users Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. shoy (words words) 00:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Septimus Severus
Dear Reboot, you should have made that edit while logging in. I've seen IPs making unconstructive edits to religion related topics. Thanks for clarifying. Happy editing and Merry Christmas! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Talkback
--  Darth Mike  ( join the dark side ) 22:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

People to People
I continued the discussion on the article's discussion page instead of the User talk pages. This will allow other article editors to see the thread and weigh in, as necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nowthenews (talk • contribs) 19:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: People to people
I'm not really sure what happened with my edits there. I was using Huggle, an anti-vandalism tool, and it apparently went haywire there, so I appreciate you reverting my edits. Also, it appears that the IP address has stopped editing, but if he starts again, let me know and I'll take care of it. Regards. Thingg &#8853; &#8855; 22:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

People to people
Reboot, you're really not making any serious attempt to engage in a productive editing effort on the People to People Student Ambassadors Program article. Despite several invitations from me to discuss in an effort to achieve consensus, you've instead decided to bull forward and re-insert your text several times despite a number of editors in the discussion thread encouraging a more balanced treatment after the outcome of the Hill case. It is at best confusing and, more alarmingly, part of your repeated attempts today to recast the subject matter of the article in a negative light. All of your edits today re-introduce old complaints, allegations, or lawsuits that have been previously vetted and discussed in the discussion. Please try to take a more neutral point of view to this topic. Nowthenews (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You continue to revert before engaging in any discussion. I don't see a reply to the latest discussion page so let me copy here:


 * I've started to do some research on the appropriateness of lawsuit allegations as encyclopedic content in Wikipedia. I could not find any articles about other companies where one-sided allegations are relayed in detail in the main article (if you find any, please share). Failing to find that, I looked for articles about people who have been sued. There is a consensus on the talk page for Joseph Schlessinger that I think should guide us here 26. Note that I am not an editor involved with that article so presumably, these are conclusions reached by objective persons. Please click on that link but I will quote some of the sections here
 * "The complaint is quoted by the article that is cited by the various references used by Truthertruther, but they are most certainly unsubstantiated allegations. There was no verdict...it remains Garceau's word (in the suit) against Yale and Schlessinger's lack of word. I think it's prejudicial."
 * "Thus, it is inappropriate to give details of the allegations in an encyclopedia in my
 * (by a different editor) "I agree on the principle that quoting allegations from a suit that did not end up in findings of law, especially if that suit was settled out of court, is prejudicial. Anyone can allege anything about anyone in a lawsuit, and settlement is no admission that there was any substance whatsoever. . . the gory details IMO do not belong in an encyclopedia
 * (another editor) "I now agree with Coren on this, for the reason he has
 * To summarize, one-sided allegations in a complaint in a case where that has been no court decision, are unbalanced, prejudicial, and do not belong in an encyclopedia. Your section on the Hill suit is a non-neutral rehashing of the unsubstantiated allegations with the net effect of denigrating the program. I don't know your motivations but you've ignored entreaties to reach a consensus; you've reverted efforts to compromise summarily with responses like, "Nope. I'm reverting."; you're over-riding the consensus reached by previous editors of this article; and now you are also ignoring principles established by other, neutral Wikipedia editors regarding the encyclopedic appropriateness of lawsuit allegations.

Nowthenews (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's step back here a bit and try to reach some agreement. I understand that you are arriving new to this article and that you are suspicious of the other editors. There was an employee which you correctly ferreted out but that user was not a primary contributor to this article, however. Importantly, I am not an employee. I got involved in this article because I noticed there was heavy bashing of this program, which I noticed was generated almost exclusively by an involved party, Sheryl Hill (who is litigating and seeking damages no less!). That strikes me as extremely wrong and I've taken it upon myself to moderate that person's efforts to use Wikipedia to publicize her suit and slander. Despite my efforts to moderate and offer balance, the Hills unsubstantiated allegations reappear in this article periodically. Innocent-minded editors, who come new to this, "discover" the Hill allegations and re-insert them in the text. This has the same effect of rehashing the conflicted party's allegations before a judge has weighed in, or indeed without giving any treatment to the opposing argument! I've noted for you several times that if you go through the article discussion history, you'll see there are several editors, who are not "new", who clearly don't work for the company, who are even harsh critics of the company, and yet they come to the opposite conclusion as you: they think that the Hill allegations should be left out until a court has rendered its decision. I welcome a debate of this notion. I don't appreciate you bullying your text into the article and then claiming that I am the one bullying you! This is laughable, particularly since the discussion history shows that I have repeatedly requested a discussion, and you ignoring my entreaties and simply declaring "Nope" and re-inserting. It is only after your repeated re-insertions have been reverted that you have now made an effort to seek consensus. Check the history of this article, you'll note that I've tried to re-incorporate text where possible both negative and positive for the article. You, on the other hand seemed determined to reintroduce only the negative elements. I recommend the policy of moving the controversial text to the discussion page, debating the merits there, and then letting the various editors weigh in. To insist on the inclusion of your text is over-stepping in my opinion.Nowthenews (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You keep making insinuations that I work for the company or that I am somehow suspicious because I've decided to take a stand here against efforts by one litigant to substantially re-cast a program that appears to be no less decent than, say, the Boy Scouts. I think you're letting your suspicion of me (and all the other editors in this article) cloud your judgment. I keep asking you to consider the conclusion of User:Robert Horning who clearly is not an employee, is clearly skeptical of the program like you, but has had the sound judgment to recommend that this Hill suit discussion & text be tabled until the outcome of the suit is made. A balanced treatment simply can't be made before then. Moreover, it sounds like that suit result will occur fairly soon. Until then, you are simply rehashing unsubstantiated lawsuit allegations, in a very similar way to how the litigant Sheryl Hill has tried to tarnish this article. I know that you are not Sheryl Hill but, unwittingly, you are carrying out her efforts to re-cast the reputation of a program without a fair trial.Nowthenews (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for letting third parties settle this. I think we've both outlined our case pretty clearly, and if you'll agree not to bully subsequent editors on this topic, I will agree to do the same. I think the essence of where we disagree is captured in your statement: "I could care less whether the program is given a fair trial or not, the issue is whether the material is relevant." You seem determined to re-introduce the lawsuit allegations merely because they are related to the company. However, every lawsuit is going to be related to the subject party because that's who they're suing! The fact that it is related does not make it *encyclopedic*. The standard here is encyclopedic, and I've pointed to several other editors who have commented that a lawsuit allegations are prejudicial and not appropriate material for an encyclopedia. Please reflect on this rather than simply saying "it's relevant, I'm putting it back in". Nowthenews (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You're just repeating yourself. Wikipedia isn't here to give the company a fair trial, it is here to make sure that you can find out what you need to know about the company and its program.. Or if we can't have a fair non-advertisement then deleting it so as to not have a deceptive article that implies by omission that there is no controversy regarding the safety or that your kid really was nominated (rather than sent an advertisement in the mail). I cannot believe that if a student travel program is encyclopedic, that the tactics they use in advertising, 2 students have died on their trips in suspicious accidents and that a parent had to go pick their kid up from austrailia and that the company is engaged in a lawsuit that might affect its earnings and future performance -- if properly referenced -- ISN'T relevant or ONLINE-encyclopedic...SERIOUSLY??? If a student travel service company IS relevant than these issues about it and its marketing tactics are certainly relevant.. I can be convinced that this travel service is not relevant enough for mention. Reboot (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re Per before
Just letting you know for reason the program is still picking up on your's and the other user's edit.  Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Sandbox 03:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you like i can request that the page is protected for now and we can put up a speedy deletion tag to prove the validity of the article.This would most likely fall under the Three-revert_rule].

 Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Sandbox 03:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit war
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  04:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The page will be locked until this can be resolved.For now its locked for 3 days.

 Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 04:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys! Reboot (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Case
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Proposed deletion of Meldware Communication Suite


The article Meldware Communication Suite has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Project has not been updated since 5 years and [seems to be http://sourceforge.net/projects/buni-meldware/ dead].

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DrunkSquirrel (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:People to People Student Ambassador Program/ReDraft
Talk:People to People Student Ambassador Program/ReDraft, 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/Talk:People to People Student Ambassador Program/ReDraft and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:People to People Student Ambassador Program/ReDraft 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. DexDor (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Yugabytelogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Yugabytelogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of YugabyteDB
Hello Reboot,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged YugabyteDB for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bensci54 (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of YugabyteDB for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article YugabyteDB is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/YugabyteDB until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dirk Beetstra T C 20:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Yugabytelogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Yugabytelogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk
Voice 42.201.253.50 (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for The Sims Online
The Sims Online has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)