User talk:Scott.wheeler

Vidor
I am a little disappointed in your editing of the article on Vidor, Texas. I believe that your are taking out a lot of relevant information without adding anything back. Please let me know if you disagree.

--Mrtrey99 08:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry Mrtrey99, I didn't see your comment here before reverting on the Vidor page. Please follow up on the talk page there and we can try to come to a concensus. Scott.wheeler 11:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Music sequencer
Hi Scott

Re Music sequencer, the point of the 'main' and 'other' categories was (as in the Scorewriter article) to distinguish between those that are widely used from the obscure ones, which I should think is useful information for at least some people.

The big 4 in terms of market share are undoubtedly Logic, ProTools, Cubase and Cakewalk. (I have some industry stats on these.) I'd guess that Digital Performer comes next. Of the rest in the list, Reason and to a lesser extent Acid are quite widely used; GarageBand increasingly so too, though the fact that it is effectively free makes it a special case. But most of the rest are very obscure products AFAIK.

Ben Finn 23:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

"Huxleygame"
In your edit summary, you said: "revert, again. if this happens again I'm going to semi-protect the article for a few days.", in response to an IP address that added a link to "huxleygame" to the external links.

If it's just one person making these edits, why not block him or her instead of semi-protecting the article? You may already have reconsidered, but I just wanted to catch you before the aversive edit is made again.--Heyitspeter 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Heyitspeter -- they have all been from different IP addresses, unfortunately (and not even all in the same range). Even in the event of such happening, the idea would be to only leave it that way for a couple of days; alternatively though, if it continues I may try a warning template as a next step.  Cheers!  Scott.wheeler 00:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahhh. To be honest, I saw the '86...' at the beginning of each and assumed they were identical. Thanks for the response, though!--Heyitspeter 02:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie
Scott -- Sorry I had to delete your compilation of the voting in the above AfD. It's my understanding that closing admins are generally opposed to such compilations and thus I didn't want to bias the closing admin against finding a consensus. --Metropolitan90 19:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Metal Forms Inc
I have re - added this business back to famous Beaumont businesses. They have been in Beaumont since 1968 and are world known metal fabricators. I am unsure why you removed it as spam - I don't think half of the other business listed are world known or have even been in beaumont more then 25 years. And Conn's is famous.. for ripping people off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.62 (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm removing it again because (a) it makes clearly advertising like claims and (b) does not seem to meet the notariety requirements that the other mentions do. I checked for independant sources for each of the currently mentioned businesses a few weeks back.  The first few pages of Google hits for Metal Forms, Inc. do not turn such up. Scott.wheeler 23:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously you are doing research via the web. Metal forms has not really changed the way they do business since 1968, so it is doubtful you will find anything on the internet except for the site. And the site is Number one ranking for "metal forms inc." Try researching through the local newspapers archives.

I am unsure what "it makes clearly advertising like claims"? means.. ALL SITES LISTED UNDER THAT SECTION DO THAT. It is a listing of business so it seems redundant to say they are advertising.

What kind of Notariety are you reffering to? World wide distribution and recongnition? Local business that has been in the area for a time (almost 50 years) -

I believe the problem here is that you relying entirely on the internet to research a business that is not listed (except for the site) on the web. If you do research via local newspaper archives or even the local libraries you should find the notoriety you are reffering to. I read your page and it appears that you no longer live here. So I am completely confused on how could possibly have researched this business correctly - offline.

Please reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.30 (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again -- it seems that you're not yet familiar with how WP works on matters like this. Let's use Conn's as an exmaple since you seem to be fond of it :-) :


 * Conn's - Chain of Appliance and Electronic stores


 * That's a claim that I can verify. Others can easily verify it.  There are a number of third party sources (see the WP guidelines on "reliable sources") which establish that Conn's is in fact a chain of appliance and electronic stores based in Beaumont.


 * Contrast that with:


 * Since 1968 Metalforms, Inc. has earned a worldwide reputation for turning work around in half the time of other fabricators.


 * That asserts that:
 * Metalforms, Inc. has significant international notoriety
 * The international community is aware that it averages half of the industry standard turn around time for fabrication jobs


 * As both of those are rather bold claims, they need to be verified with sources. (Note the highlighted link under the editing window -- it gives more info on what this means in WP context.)  From my searching (online) I've not been able to verify that it's notable within Beaumont, much less internationally or that it has a specific reputation internationally.  This is the guideline that I was loosely applying when I recently cleaned out the Beaumont business listings.


 * If you can produce specific sources that verify your claims please post those to the Beaumont talk page and we can try to come up with a reasonable wording. Note that for such sources, non-local sources would be preferable since that would do better for establishing general notability.


 * Oh, and almost forgot -- welcome to WP. :-)  I don't mean to discourage you by being a stickler on this point, but I recently spent a few hours looking up every entry in there and removing those that were not up to spec.  It takes a while to get into the WP swing of things and I hope you'll stick around for such.


 * Cheers,


 * Scott.wheeler 10:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

First off I would like to apologize, I completely misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were referring to the link - that the web site was making "advertising like claims" - not the text in wiki. I see what you are saying, but could you please explain what makes Conn's notable? Because I cannot find any evidence other then nasdaq and hurricane rita articles. Conn's is notable because they are profitable?

Also it is highly doubtful that will be any non-local sources available, They do not even use email for correspondence. So there is very little if any digitized information available for this company. But if profit is all that is needed for notoriety, I am sure there are records that can be produced that show Metalforms is a very profitable local company. So to be notable, a company needs to only be an economic powerhouse?

Additionally pagerank in Google shows notoriety. You have to understand that pageranking is Google is estimated to be 60-75% based on "referral links" meaning to rank number one, several other pages are linking to metal forms. So wouldn't pageranking in google be considered notable if the company has managed to beat all competitors in pageranking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.36 (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * WP defines notability as "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In theory being publicly traded (in this case NASDAQ) doesn't make a company fullfill that, but in practice it does:  there are regular, third party performance reports for virtually every company on a major stock exchange.


 * Metalworks using or not using email has no effect on its notability as information provided by an organization itself is not a determining factor in notability.


 * And yes, I'm very familiar with Pagerank (I was involved in IR research for a while), but that's not really relevant because the types of sources that WP editors look for when trying to determine notability are those that are not the company's home page. For example, I remember when looking up one of the people in the people list I found an article in Texas Monthly about her.  That's a good example of a source that establishes notability.


 * Scott.wheeler 15:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why this anonymous person was oddly vehement. Turns out it was just another case of "If I can't have my link, then they can't have theirs." -- Cyrius|&#9998; 00:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

First off noone is anonymous here and everyone is anonymous - its the internet and yes my ip is my signature (I cannot log in via Hughes Satellite network without going through secure connection with which satellite tends to time out).

Second, if you think that was being vehement you must live a very sheltered life. Perhaps you do not understand what the word means. Oh what cyrius? Did you just take offense to me insinuating that you lack intelligence? Well now you know how I feel about being called vehement. Please desist with the personal attacks, thank you.

Aside from the personal attacks by Cyrius - I still do not see any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" So you are saying that only notability that is needed is economic, for "famous businesses" -  I do not equate fame with economics, unless you are talking historical references. But if that is the only requirement - then metal forms made 3x more per store then Conn's in 2006. And this is easily verifable through local records. But you are stating that third party performance reports are what make this company notable? If that is the case then any company can "Buy" their way into Wiki. I thought that was what Wiki was trying to avoid all along.

Still confused as to why economics equates to notability - it would seem to me that a company would have to have some significant economic factor to be considered - or at least make the top 100 of the fastest growing companies/top 100 companies.

Also with pageranking I was referring to looking at the "referal links" as coverage independent of the subject. Not the actual homepage but all the other sites that link to it. I assume this is not covered under Wiki guidelines, but I think it would be a good topic for discussion, since pageranking is synonymous with notability, online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.86 (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's an example of a reasonable source article on Conn's. Motley Fool, its name aside, is a reputable non-local publication.  There are quite a few out there actually.  The rest of your arguments are contesting WP policy (and that I personally disagree isn't really relevant), which is open to debate, but that should happen on the respective policy discussion pages.


 * The only one that I'll directly comment on is the Pagerank comment. All that Pagerank confirms is a certain topical clustering around a specific query string.  If I enter a search for the guy I share a desk with's name, he's the first hit.  This does not make him notable, it just means that he has a suffeciently uncommon name.  I on the other hand, have a more plain name, so despite being closer to notability (Even with over 100,000 hits for myself in Google, I'd be borderline.) I'm not the first hit.  And in fact, there is an entire policy page called "The Search Engine Test".


 * For now I'd like to close this debate. Per current policy you'll need to find appropriate sources if you want to re-add the link.  Please bring this back up on the Beaumont talk page in the future if those are available.


 * Cheers!


 * Scott.wheeler 15:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (video)

 * A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 21:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

About sensomusic Usine
hello, just few comments about Usine,

Usine is a young soft (a year) and has a 2000 users community which increase around 20% each month... How can you decide that it's not a 'notable' soft?

I'm a spammer because I've included a link on max/msp page? If you look at the French version you will see that the page contains around 10 links to related softwares... So on the English version of the article I have only reproduce the same kind of link. If I resume the 'related software' section is allowed in French but not in English? It's not a problem but I didn't know!

Also the article has been rewritten to fit to 'wiki spirit'.

Regards Olivier Sens


 * It's considered spam because it doesn't meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. Also, please see the autobiography guideline as there's more information there about why in general you should not be writing articles about yourself or your company. If you check the talk page that I mentioned in the remove log, you'll see where I mention a long list of sequencers which were removed for similar reasons. Scott.wheeler (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

- thanks for fixing city hall pic - besten Dank- MfG 6 February 2008 -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.64.78 (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Native Instruments
Sorry for not responding. I had intended to then completely got sidetracked and forgot about it. Yes add the links and flick the tag. No problem. Cheers, Sting au  Buzz Me...   05:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Calvin College
Okay Scott ... here's where I write you. I see you've made some suggestions/ changes on the Calvin College site. How do I make the new pages (for faculty, alumni, traditions) you suggest? Where is there a tutorial? Please excuse my lack of skills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushop (talk • contribs) 23:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

JuK
Hi Scott.wheeler, I have answer your question about Juk here Talk:JuK.

--KDesk (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Calvin_College_Chappel,_Inside.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Calvin_College_Chappel,_Inside.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

REAPER - Citations missing
Hello Scott. I have a question for you on the REAPER talk page, care to have a look? --mightylikearose (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again! I added general references as per WP:CITE. Your thoughts? --mightylikearose (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Directed Edge (company) notoriety
Hi Excirial -- just as you tagged the article I was adding an RfC there to help step possible WP:COI issues. With the specific flagging though, do you find the current sources unacceptable? If so chiming in at Talk:Directed Edge (company) could be good. Cheers, Scott.wheeler (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi scott,


 * Directly quoting from the WP:CORP guideline, a company is notable "it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". Significant coverage means that it must have had at least 3 publications of considerable length in publications that are considered reliable sources of significant size. A newspaper such as the new york times is deemed significant enough, but a local newspaper published in a single town is most times not. Of course the specific article must also not been paid for (IE: Advertising).


 * The first source in the article (crunchbase) is only supplying bandwidth statistics which is never a reliable source. The next three sources are really about YCombinator, and only give a trivial mention about Directed Edge. The last source is somewhat better, yet it does not really confer any form of notability - IE: it mainly an interview regarding the company.


 * Did the company receive any coverage in large news sources such as the New York Times - and did it get more coverage then a mere mention? As a company has to be notable to be included in an encyclopedia it is generally very hard to add a start-up company - or even a longterm small company. Combined with the WP:COI a future editor might mark it for removal. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Ableton-live-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ableton-live-1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ableton-live-1.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Ableton-live-1.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted
I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 01:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

File:White House North Side Comparison2.jpg
No source provided for this work; so difficult to keep, I think. J Kadavoor J e e 10:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to update the file with available info. J Kadavoor J e e 16:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Directed Edge


The article Directed Edge has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "A directory-like listing on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to routine company news, WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Directededgelogo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Directededgelogo.png. 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) 18:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Juk-2.2.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Juk-2.2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)