User talk:Terrillja/Archives/09/2010

SSCS cats
FYI, as far as I can see, Meco has not gained consensus for creation of the category tree to whichh he keeps adding the SSCS article. The only mention I could find is his announcement of creation at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's a ridiculous organizational scheme.-- Terrillja talk  16:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Starr Commonwealth Creed
Hello Terrillja. I am just letting you know that I deleted Starr Commonwealth Creed, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The bottom bit of the article was blatant SPAM. It was written like a press release.-- Terrillja talk  03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Subtle spam about the group I suppose. But anyway A7 was a more convincing reason. Kimchi.sg (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Case edu (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Contest page of Harvest Tradings
pl give me the reason. importance of this page is to be there. on your talk
 * There is not evidence of why the company is notable. See WP:CORP for the guidelines on notability of companies.-- Terrillja talk  20:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

C&P Tag and related
Thanks for the reply! Just so you know, I'm absolutely not trying to second guess you, but just double-checking in case you had access to sources that I didn't see. More eyes the better, and so on. I'm also deliberately taking a soft approach with this user as I feel they are a good-faith user with potentially much good to contribute, but who needs some gentle steering to make sure they *don't* continue to write PR releases... I hope I'm not coming across as combative or trying to shoot you down in the process. If I am, do let me know, as we both have the same end goal here. Thanks! Arakunem Talk 20:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I just tend to get annoyed when someone is warned and continues to edit disruptively instad of asking how they can meet our rules. If they want to write articles in their userspace and ask for help, I have no problem with that, it's the whole pushing out press releases as articles that I have a problem with. At this time, they seem receptive to feedback, so hopefully they can realize what was wrong with what they were doing and open dialogue rather than ignoring everyone else. Just wish that they could have done that before it had to go all the way to COIN, but perhaps that way they have now had another person or 2 who will also work to help them understand wikipedia.-- Terrillja talk  20:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Harvest Tradings
There is no need to nominate the article for deletion again. i have gone through in detail. Wikipedia administror also decline your thoughts. Iam a citizen of Pakistan and this company contribute a lot for the peoples of pakistan. if you have issues discuss on the talk page rather put tag on the article. --Azamishaque (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC
 * If you wish to discuss it, take it to the AfD page. If the issues were fixable, I would have brought them up first on the talkpage, but I don't feel that the company meets WP:CORP-- Terrillja  talk  13:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * - Well done for making this Case edu SPI. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They were pretty apparent socks from the start, I was just waiting for them to break policy by contributing to the AfD. Having multiple users to write articles isn't explicitly forbidden, but using them to modify the outcome of a deletion discussion is. Tricky tricky!-- Terrillja talk  00:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:MDSanker
Thank you for your comments. I'm aware of WP:BLANKING and was (as you indicated yourself) weighing it against WP:COPY and numerous other violations that this user committed. I'm not sure how familiar you are with copyright law, but multiple parties can be named, and I would prefer not to be guilty by association (yes there is a such thing). The fact that this is an internet forum in no way protects users from liability, and copyright violations are criminal offenses. Just FYIObamafan70 (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

iPad
If you have an issue with the use of the wordmark, take it to the talkpage there. It has already been discussed and consensus was to keep as it is now.-- Terrillja talk  07:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:CCC, though I wouldn't personally call it a matter of consensus, unless there is some consensus to abuse infoboxes and in other ways make Wikipedia discontinuous, which I'm fairly certain is not the case. Maybe YouTube should have an embedded video instead of its name atop its infobox?  Maybe NASA should have a dancing astronaut GIF on its?  …or maybe not.  ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edit warring isn't going to change anything. It's a wordmark, not a .gif. Grow up.-- Terrillja talk  07:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I call it maintaining consistency, a word that comes up a lot at WP:MOS. Why does this page say you're offline if you're not? :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * No problem. -- Terrillja talk  22:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Post hoc
I took a brief moment to review the extensive conversation on my talk page and apologize for not duly noting your comments. It's pretty clear that I was engaging in post hoc justifications for violating protocol. Though to be fair, you have to admit that a single WP:BLANKING violation is pretty minor in comparison to the vast mountains of vandalism that occur on Wikipedia on a daily basis (and that good faith editors like me are forced to clean). There are thousands of unreferenced WP:BLPs, and I suppose I felt threatened because you are a reviewer and possibly not taking the WP:COPY and other violations of the user as seriously as I would have given your reviewer status. I came to the aid of MDSanker purely to help the young chap before getting booted by 3 or 4 other angry users. Forgive any misconduct, and I'll be sure to find an appropriate barnstar for your patience. Thanks, Obamafan70 (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I take copyright quite seriously and am fairly aggressive about removing it and warning as such, but I tend to do a warn and watch, seeing if they have taken the message to heart rather than repeating myself. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Just a different way of going about things. Part of the reason why i wanted to give him a bit more leeway was because he was doing some good things here, something that you would not have instantly been familiar with, however I was the one who tagged some of his first articles as spam and such, then he has changed. Short of going through his whole edit history, there would have been no way for you to figure that out, so I don't fault you at all for that and hope that he can learn from his lesson on copyright as well.-- Terrillja talk  20:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What barnstar seems most fitting? I'll let you go shopping on this one over at WP:BARN. Obamafan70 (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Emptying Category:(year) establishments in the United States
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow Hi Terrillja,

Recently, you emptied a couple of categories with the name: (year) establishments in the United States.

Were these duplicates of some other category?

Was this in response to a CfD?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was in response to this and this request to either stop edit warring or come up with a valid reason why this organizational scheme makes any sense.-- Terrillja  talk  19:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does Category:Cancer deaths in New York make sense, or Category:Musical groups established in 1951? These, like the establishments by year and country, are category intersections with obvious benefits that should be rather uncontroversial. Unlike the German Wikipedia were no such intersections occur, and they thus have a pretty useless category hierarchy, we have a tradition for expanding and refining our hierarchies when the usefulness is appreciated. There are many examples of intersection categories that are created that the community does not find likely and useful. With all the experience and long-time interest in maintaining and developing the category hierarchy which I have, I find it difficult to understand why two editors, you being one of them, cannot see why this category scheme would be useful. Also, it has been asserted that I have no mandate to create these categories. That is not how the category hierarchy in general is expanded and developed. There is no formal forum which bestows a mandate for these initiatives. One can, as I did, post on Wikipedia talk:Categorization, but that is no requirement. __meco (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Those have nothing to do with the categories at hand. These are so broadly construed that they are essentially useless, such as a section of a highway that was opened in 2009 and had an image tagged. Who goes to a cat to look for pictures of divided highways built that year? It serves no useful purpose to categorize that image by year. And there is not a forum that is needed for approval, but being turned down on a talkpage for the associated policy shows that there is clearly not consensus for your changes. Either open an RfC for your proposal or get blocked on yet another wiki for disruption. Your choice.-- Terrillja talk  17:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

IPad
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow
 * From Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: you have been edit warring at IPad. It was clear several days ago that discussion-by-edit-summary would be insufficient in this case. The discussions at the talkpage and at the Village Pump do not show a firm consensus, indicating that further discussion is in order. It may be useful to make a request for additional input from a neutral venue.
 * Additionally, this is wholly inappropriate. Please do not use the vandalism board to report content disputes. This sort of comment likewise should be avoided. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Disruption and harassment are vandalism, coming from the first sentence about disrupting the process of writing an encyclopedia. If you compare edit histories, Reisio was copying every single edit I did down to the edit summaries. Clearly rational responses were not resulting in anything useful. "Grow up" is quite appropriate considering the harassment and mocking that I dealt with. -- Terrillja talk  20:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SHUN and a little more patience might come in handy. Loathe as I am to recommend that board, I believe that Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the best next step once an issue like that has been raised at user talk. In any case, SarekOfVulcan seems to be aware of the situation, so I think I shall leave it to their best judgment. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather work with editors than just ignore them, but when met with responses referencing a dancing astronaut, any amount of patience is quickly expended. -- Terrillja talk  20:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)