User talk:Tangotango/November 2006

College lab
Regarding your post to this ip's talk: it is a university 24/7 lab. Please do not consider banning.147.174.150.24 01:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Helmi Technologies
Hello,

I'm wondering why you deleted the article describing Helmi Technologies. I know that Wikipedia isn't a advertizing media, but there is plenty of information about companies as well. Helmi just recently made a significant contribution to Open Source community by releasing it's product as open source including some patented technology (which nature is kind that even wikipedia could benefit from if wanted to). For instance prototype.js has a page in wikipedia, Helmi's library has a lot more functionality than prototype.js, infact it includes prototype.

If you feel that despite the above, the deleted information doesn't meet the nature of information there should be in wikipedia, I would like to receive some quidelines of what then would fit, and in which kind of ocassion information about companies and their products are admitted in and in which cases not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jrisku (talk • contribs) 08:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I do feel that the article meets the notability criterias. The company has been around since 2004, there has been several printed and non printed articles in independetn and well established, respected news sources, magazines etc. about the company including some full page articles during the last few years (both due pressreleases and due personal interviews of the company officials) both in US and Finland. Additionally Helmi as a company is referede by several independent analysts including Rober Francis Group, 451 Group and few others in their analysts reports. Obiously most of the information, in terms of source, in the article is from the company itself, but atleast the article tries to be objective there. I would appreciate any quidelines of making the information as objective and independent as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jrisku (talk • contribs) 10:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

eMSN
errr... wouldn't it be an idea for me to even have a chance to edit the article before you delete it (which btw was totally unneccesary)? how was that article an "advertizment"? it contained information, and a describtion of the product. the reason I used words like "unique" to describe one of the products's attributes was 'cuz it _is_ unique to that product. anyway: it would still be a good idea to even give me a chance to edit it before you just go ahead and delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.0.151.131 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Gothic Embrace 09:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * re: eMSN - so what you're saying is: if you want to stand any chance of editing you stuff, before it gets deleted; you have to be online exactly when it's tagged with speedy deletion? 'cuz if not, you just go ahead and delete it after an hour or two, even though I haven't been online too notice the speedy deletion tag? wow. that makes a whole lot of sense. sounds like a really good system. riiiight. and what's wrong with it being an "advertizing" article? that's better than _not having an article_ all together imo. yeah yeah. whatever, dude. I won't bother making a new one. I'll just hope for someone else to do it instead. Gothic Embrace 13:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * re: re: eMSN - please do, 'cuz I don't have any intention of writing it from scratch again. Gothic Embrace 15:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please Reinstate entry for Aplus.Net immediately
The entry for Aplus.Net has been the victim of an unfair speedy deletion. A valid and non-promotional entry, it had been carefully rewritten to be purely informational, so as not to be mistaken as an advertisement by Wikipedia's unfailingly reactionary community of users.


 * Um. No. This particular user has been wikilinking spamming his way through the wikipedia purely for advertising purposes. The article was uninformative and unencyclopedic, and purely a place holder for a web link to aplus.net, presumably to raise its google ranking. This article has a pre-existing afd against it, and was less than a week ago deliberately speedy deleted. This article was resurrected against all wiki policy like this. Dnate76 along with numerous sockpuppets have been 'writing' this article and linking it for dubious advertising reasons into articles like 'network neutrality'. I can only assume he's a paid shill. The article only makes sense as advertising for the company.WolfKeeper 13:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The claim was that it was a reposting of a deleted article. It was not. A site entitled "Aplus.Net" was posted and soon deleted in August 2006 for being too promotional in content. An entirely rewritten entry was then reposted, written in an encyclopedic, non-promotional format.


 * Yes, and that only survived since it was at a different name. In other words the article was resurrected less than a week later.WolfKeeper 13:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The rewritten page existed on Wikipedia from August 2006 to November 2006 without deletion or complaint -- except that it contained too few internal links.


 * I think that that is true only because nobody spotted it.WolfKeeper 13:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It was discovered the first week of November 2006 that the name of the company was misidentified: Aplus.net should have been Aplus.Net. This was corrected, and immediately thereafter the page was "speedy" deleted.

The reason given for this "speedy deletion" was that it reposted a deleted article. This is untrue, as it was a reposting of a rewritten article that had never been deleted and had been on the site for some four months. So, while there had previously been an article entitled Aplus.Net that was deleted, this was an entirely different entry, sharing only the NAME of that previously deleted article. Refer to the entry's history to verify.

Speedy Deletion Rule #4 reads: "Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another XfD process, unless it was undeleted per the undeletion policy or was recreated in the user space. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject. This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions, although in this case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply."

I also refer to rule number 11 in Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, as I assume this is the basis for Wikipedia not allowing an entry for Aplus.Net, a legitimate and fairly large web hosting company with some 200,000 customers:

"Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. If a page has previously gone through deletion process and was not deleted, it should not be speedily deleted under this criterion."

If you'll review the content you just deleted, you'll see that it complies with this criteria (in boldface, above). The original Aplus.Net entry that was marked for deletion in August 2006 is NOT THE SAME entry as the one that was deleted November 3; it shares only its name. It was carefully rewritten to comply with the Wikipedia rules, above. It is NOT blatant advertising. It is valid information about an existing company, such as the page for Godaddy and Web.com, similar companies that have graciously been allowed to maintain entries here.


 * I disagree, it is blatant advertising, written by a bunch of sockpuppets. The only logical reason for this article to exist is for advertising purposes. The company violated the rules and policies of the wikipedia, and essentially continue to do so. There is a pre-existing afd against it, and it entirely constitutes WP:OR, since the person who writes it is clearly paid by the company. Given that there is an AFD against it, under the wikipedia rules it needs to be speedied again.WolfKeeper 13:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand the Wikipedia community's compulsion to eliminate all entries which they feel may compromise the site. However, it would be very helpful if said community acquainted itself with Wikipedia's rules and performed due process in its reviews before arbitrary deletion of valid entries. I say that not only in frustration, but also out of concern that such knee-jerk reactions will contribute to the decline of Wikipedia's reputation for objectivity. Please reinstate Aplus.Net immediately to ammend unfair deletion suggested by biased and misinformed observers. Thank you. user: dnate76, November 3 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dnate76 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This guy is just thumbing his nose at the wikipedia. There's nothing really notable about this article or the company, it's OR, written by sockpuppets, it's advertising, and he's been inappropiately wikilinking it around. He was caught, twice, there's an AFD and he's trying to make it seem that resurrecting this article like this is in any way in accordance with the rules. It isn't.WolfKeeper 13:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Bernard E. Witkin
Acting on a request at WP:DRV, I've speedy undeleted the first few revisions of this article which you G12d yesterday, as I was unable to find a match for any of the text. The latter revisions with copy-pastes of newspaper articles seem to have been a panicked response to the (totally unfounded IMO) db-bio stuck on the article. As you didn't specify a source in your deletion summary, there's no way to know if you found a source that the original text infringes as well; if you did, please re-delete the article. &mdash;Cryptic 23:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Blatant advertisement?
I believe your justification for deletion of the article Clay Arts Guild as "blatant advertisiment" is not justified by either its content or its subject. I believe that this respected non-profit, non-commercial, public service organization of long standing (42 years) merits an article (please note the many local educational institutions documented in WP articles).

I am requesting the restoration of this article, or at the very least a more appropriate justification on your part. If you are unable to restore for technical reasons or it is inconvenient for you, I can perform the restoration from material I have preserved. If you need to review the article and need a copy, I can send you a copy privately.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely, Leonard G. 04:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Aplus.Net deletion
Hi. Thanks for giving Aplus.Net a democratic hearing before deletion. I'm disappointed that y'all decided to cut it but I respect the process itself so I will offer no more complaints.

I do want to air a request, however, that many of those who have taken it upon themselves to regulate Wikipedia do so with a little less hostility and prejudice. It seems that once that ever-evil "spam" label gets mentioned on this website, people's emotions overrule their sense of fairness. It's akin to saying the word "terrorist" in a small town truck stop. So, while Aplus.Net does have an unfortunate reputation for "spam" because of a few missteps in the past, I do wish that the users who were so vehemently against the organization would have simply added those complaints to the company's description rather than decided that the company itself (with revenue in the millions, a customer base in the hundreds of thousands, and widespread recognition in the web hosting industry) is not allowed a mention on this site. Like it or not, Aplus.Net has a prominence that goes far beyond its alleged use of “Google bombing” to win high search engine rankings. Assuming that the Google-bombing accusation is true (which I suspect it is not, at least not on a widespread basis), I’d like to see the same condemnation levied upon the hundreds of other corporations that have not always played fairly.

While I understand the motives behind the heavy-handedness with which Wikipedia editors purge anything they deem suspect -- it's essential to this site's integrity to keep it free of such things -- I also feel that these reactionary tendencies underscore the recent upsurge in criticism and disrespect this site has received. I mean, come on: The main reason why Aplus.Net is not allowed on this site but its chief competitor, GoDaddy, is, can be directly attributed to a greater public awareness of GoDaddy due to the fact that they advertise on TV (those great Super Bowl ads). While this does point to GoDaddy as being more significant both in public awareness and revenue (hence being able to afford said Super Bowl ads), I'm greatly disillusioned to learn that these are credible factors when deciding whether to allow an entry on a forum that bills itself a community website.

Thanks, though, for heeding my earlier request for a moderated discussion. I appreciate it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dnate76 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Geek
Thanks for the edit. Apparently, 71.96.221.97 likes to redirect user pages and user talk pages to geek. User:Sd31415.

MedBot
Worked like a charm! Thanks! :D Essjay ( Talk )  20:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Brief request
Hey there - I know you are busy but I'm wondering if you can help me verify a copyright violation. At Copyright problems/2006 October 31/Articles there are two articles where the editor who reported them claim they are copied from a Japanese-language Web site. Do you think you could check the links and let me know if they are indeed copyvios? Thanks! -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 15:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much - that was an immense help. Let me know if I can ever be of assistance to you. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 15:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging
What kind of tagging would an image issued by the British Railway Police have?

Thanks

Book s worm Sprechen-sie Koala?  Jean-Paul 20:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Translation team
I left a message on m:User talk:Tangotango. --っ (Tsutsu) 03:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The Leigh City Technology Collge
Thanks for blocking edits, i feel this is the best course of action, as the The Leigh takes the actions of our students seriously, and on a personal level, i would not want to be know as poor SysAdmin. Kids will always do immature things, and sadly the openess of Wikipedia means that students can mess pages around for there own amusement. I do not feel it would be benifical to allow registered accounts to edit because they would register random accounts and once they work out they can edit after logging in, it would spread around the student body like wild-fire and we would be back to the inital problem, once the kids leave the gates, they can do what they want, at least its not my IP or online reputation @ stake :P Thanks for the fast response. Regards Jbarker uk 17:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Modéle XIV
Hello ! I have tried to rename the french page Modéle XIV (with an orthographic mistake on "Modèle") and I have received a message to solve all direction problems (sorry for my bad english...). I don't know how to use your robot. Please could you help me or made by yourself (if you are not too busy). Thanks a lot...

I have inputed the four tilde but in english I am not knowed so my user is "givet" on french wiki. Try http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Givet

Thanks...
Okay, I removed the images from my sig and the copyrighted material from my page. I'll try playing with the userboxes some more, and if it still stays that way, I'll have to remove them. Thanks - T  h   e   R   S   J  15:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report timestamp parsing broken
The wording for the expiration time on RfAs was recently changed and seems to have broken the parsing of Tangobot. See Requests for adminship/MrDarcy. —Doug Bell talk 07:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)