User talk:Shields020

Digital Mockup
Just wondering, what product are you suggesting that this article is an advertisement for? It wasn't clear to me... Brad Halls (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not suggest this article is an advertisement for a product in particular, but that it is written like an advertisement, and that it should be written from a neutral point of view. First, see WP:NOT.  Next, I'm referring to lines like "Digital Mockup is enriched by all the activities that contribute to describing the product."; "DMU allows engineers to design and configure complex products and validate their designs without ever needing to build a physical model."; and the entire Goals section. Wikipedia is not a place for infomercials/soapboxes. -- Shields020 (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
Hi, you may not be aware but whosdatedwho.com is not a reliable source and IMDB often is for general information but not for a birthdate. Please also take a look at our policies for biographies on living people as we have a higher standard for including information. On Crocker's bio we avoid using identifying information that is not well sourced as he has gotten numerous and persistent death threats. Our concern here is twofold; that we don't reveal who he is before reliable sources publish the information and that we are careful that other people don't get mis-identified as Crocker and are victimized as a result. We err on the cautious side. -- Banj e b oi   07:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You should take that same precedent and follow up on the other Wikipedia entries that feature such references to IMDB, Whosdatedwho.com, and other "revealing" information about living persons. If the information is easily available on reference-able sites, a single date of birth is no more revealing than a month and year of birth. You seem to be the personal moderator of the article in question, which is unlike the ideology promoted throughout Wikipedia.Shields020 (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * IMDB is a gray area as that site does do some source checking but almost anyone can add content so in a disputed area, or when we need stronger sourcing, they aren't the final answer. I use them as guideline of what information is available on a subject but anything worth referencing is almost certainly better to use a more reliable source.
 * Whosdatedwho.com, IMHO, should never be used. Like many blog, however, they can lead to good information you might not easily find elsewhere so they may be a good resource just not a reliable source. As for Crocker, we have reliably sourced he is born in December and the year. We don't have reliable sources for where he was born, his legal name(s) or the date he was born. This coupled with the numerous death threat helps us to err cautiously by leaving any speculation off the article. We don't want to identify him, or mistakenly identify someone else, or give informatio that could be used to harass him in real life. If a newspaper, or even Crocker himself, reveals this information then we can look to including it.
 * I'm not the moderator of the article but I wrote and researched most all of it so am quite familiar with the sources and subject, anyone can edit here but we do have policies and guidelines. -- Banj e  b oi   12:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Benji-Thank you (sincerely). I found a way to just put the month and year (which the article already has), in a template form. Thanks :-) Shields020 (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob, if you really want a challenge fix the template so the day can be left off altogether for situations just like this. -- Banj e  b oi   04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Comparison of online dating websites for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of online dating websites 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/Comparison of online dating websites until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)