User talk:VQuakr/Archives/2011

Lavinia Spalding article
I am a new wikipedia contributer. Could you explain your comment that my most recent article "reads like and advertisement"? I am gradually filling in the reference and citation blanks, which I know are pretty thin so far, but the "advertisement" comment has me a bit puzzled...

Thank you! Huntgather — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntgather (talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome! I think the main things that prompted me to add this tag were the inline external links and the excessive external links to the subjects' projects. These two together made it seem a little promotional in nature, at least to me. VQuakr (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcoming Message
Thanks for the heads up, VQuakr. I appreciate all your comments and am very motivated to improve the article. I actually read alot of the references you gave me but had trouble locating what I was supposed to do at the moment I was actually trying to do it. Like how to sign the article at the end :). If it's within the rules of a talk page, it'd be great to open a discussion by my sharing with you what I thought I was doing right and we can go from there.  Thanks! Aatkii (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, discussing improvements to an article is a great use of the article talk page! Let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tomas Ross (actor)
Is quoted on IMDB is known in involving Casi Angeles --GiorgioCha (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are some issues with IMDB as a reliable source, but let me know if you need help adding the reference to the article. Do you know of any other sources that could be used to establish this person's notability and expand the article? VQuakr (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm Italian. Sources to find them in my language. 1 2 3 4. It takes as sources?? --GiorgioCha (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Mambo's Combo
I removed morefootnotes and refimprove from Dr. Mambo's Combo since I added some refs. Feel free to put those templates back if they are still warranted. --dfrankow (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Is there any reason the myspace and facebook references are there? VQuakr (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The myspace and facebook pages are the band's official home pages. See #1 in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked.  dfrankow (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which one is the band's official home page? VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea. dfrankow (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

On Sep 6, 2010 you linked "needs more citations" and "needs inline citations". Now, on Jan 9, 2011, you've linked "remove excessive and inappropriate links". I am confused. Can you leave on the discussion page some suggestions as to what exactly should be revised? Thanks. dfrankow (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a reference to the facebook and myspace used as sources. WP:RS and WP:V are policies related to why these are not great sources. VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. I presume you are saying neither myspace nor facebook are verifiable. I agree.  dfrankow (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

PC Power Management
Hi, I am open about my affiliation but this is an article that is primarily being maintained for the features by other members of the industry (many just don't admit their affiliation). The features I added are not unique to the solution we are with but are relevant to the industry we are in.Mgmcginn (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sincerely, thank you for being straightforward about your conflict of interest. I have no delusions about the fact that this article is being edited by multiple editors with COI, but that does not make your edits more acceptable. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you've used sledgehammer to crack a nut with this article. The comparison table is a useful tool but has suffered over time as additional features have been added and additional, possible un-notable products have been added. However, at it's core the table is relevant is kept down in size and not used to advertise products. I would encourage you to restore the table and discuss improvements to it in the discussion page rather than the blunt approach you have taken now with little community discussion.Hnobley (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree that removing the table was overkill or lacked discussion from the community. I will start a section on the discussion page for the article, since it's probably best to have this conversation there. VQuakr (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Rick Nielsen
I represent Mr. Rick Nielsen and the management of Cheap Trick. I can be contacted directly at webmaster@cheaptrick.com. I can verify that the birthdate information posted is incorrect. The correct date is Dec 22 1948, not 1946. We have publicly posted this information at CheapTrick.com. Please correct this information as requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.89.167 (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied on the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to email me at Special:EmailUser/VQuakr if you wish to contact me non-publicly. VQuakr (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Roland Gibeault list of Whistleblowers
I don't understand why the name Roland Gibeault was removed from the list of major whistleblowers? I've asked for help with some of it. Could you have a heart and allow me to edit what the Admin. & Editors don't like or is not up to Wikipedia standards or edit it yourselves to what you think is appropriate. I'm willing to comply but don't have a very good computer. This is a very important case in the list of whistleblower history and don't want to jepordize it not being a part of that history and will comply with whatever you folks want or need at Wikipedia. I tried to put as much reference material as I could to show the validity of that case in time. Tell me/show me what I need to do in order to allow this name on the list of Major Whistleblowers. Thank you for your ear and considerationQui Tam Relator (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC) I am also very humbled that you see this as self promotion and believe I was giving an accurate account of the historical value of 1988 Roland Gibeault with out grandstanding or self promotion and would like to ask all Administraors and Editors at Wikipedia to forgive me for my errors and ways to get this accurate beyond the point of standard Wikipedia guidelines. I have no other interest other then making sure this put into Wikipedia history of major whistleblowers. I' m very sorry that I put this important piece of history at risk of being deleted out of the archives. Again please accept my apologies I only had good intentions in mind and met no harm to Wikipedia and to anyone else at this very valuable world wide encyclopedia.Qui Tam Relator (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Hello Again VQuaker all of this information can be sourced but I'm unsure which information would be most pertinent to the article and am looking to you and other Administators and Editors to guide me in the right direction. This case was one of the most important in U.S. History in regards to whistleblowers and the False Claims Act. I'm looking forward to working with you and others to again have this posted on the list of Major Whistleblowers in a way that would be acceptable to all at Wikipedia. If there is anything I can assist you with as far as documents, newspaprer and magazine articles or news shows I'd be happy to do so. Please help me form something that would be suitable to all. Thank YouQui Tam Relator (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My main concern is that you seem to have no issues with making edit after edit to this section of the list despite your obvious conflict of interest. I notice that on cactuswriter's page you proposed to voluntarily avoid making such edits in the future ; I think this is a great idea given how difficult it can be to avoid "crossing the line" on COI edits. Based on the secondary sources added by cactuswriter, this subject probably is notable enough to merit an entry in the whistleblower article, but I would like to wait for consensus to build on the article talk page. As for your question about sources, some of the court documents might be non-copyrighted and be eligible for uploading to wikisource. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello VQuaker and thank you for your response back to me. I realize that some of the Court Documents that I put on the reference pages were not stamped by the court and were only copies I have all the originals that are stamped by all the courts but I was afraid to but them out there because I not sure about the law and did'nt want to get myself or others in trouble. As a matter of fact I have in my possession over 45 Zerox filled boxes from the courts that I've had from the middle 1990's including 100's of newspaper and magazine articles. I have everything that Wikipedia needs plus a lot more references if needed. I saw CactusWriters reply back to you and the significance of this case. The Criminal portion of this case was the first to be won under the Grand Jury Indictment and because of my involvement when Genisco Fired me it was the first Qui Tam Instant case to also be won. Grant it my case did not change the law in anyway outside of the courts and all the False Claims Law Firms throughout the U.S. learned some extreamly valuable lesson on the do's and don'ts of filing and protecting Qui Tam Relators in future cases ie 9th Circuit court opinions. You tell me what you need as far as court doucuments and dates ansd court opinions and I have them all "Stamped" by the courts. Keep in mind VQuaker and CactusWriter that this was the very begining of the New False Claims Act and a lot of the information is fuzzy and hard to get a hold of but truly I have everything that you need. I need to let all the Editors and Adminisrtators at Wikipedia know that what you see on my own site is a very small amount of court documents and newspaper and magazine articles 99.5 % are still in Zerox Boxes. Also I never intended to allow this site to go public until Googlepages decided to change to Googlesites and when that happened it went public which was not my intentions my googlepages were for my use only to begin to store all of the documents on the Google server for the sake of preservation of a very important event in time and te notes that were written at that site were also for my own personal journal and not for the public. I posted the Youtube videos after google released my site I figured that there was nothing to loose after staying silent about this case for many years. I just thought you and other Administrators and Editors at Wikipedia know that because of this case I became homeless in the Los Angeles area for over 10 years and still have times that I become homeless because of an illness I contracted during those times eating out of dumpsters and grocery stores and resturant I contracted Hepititus C and have had it for so long that there is not much to be done for me hence telling my tale of fraud. I have a social worker who has urged me over the last two years to tell my story or at least be know for what I did for my country in the 1980's and I'm not looking to tell my story on Wikipedia just to be put on the list of whistleblowers thats all and to add to some of the information on the False Claims Act. A very kind person gave me a very good but old Dell 5100 to do this because as time goes on I realize that my illness will get to a point where it will not be possible to write and think clearly anymore and its something that I've accepted. The Folks at Wikipedia should know that this was common place for many early whistleblowers because of the stigma that comes with that word and action. Most American People don't see whistleblowers as heros they see them as the Julian Assanges of the world that are traitors or finks, that only have one thing in mind, notoriety or profit. A note on all the news coverage; none of that was my idea it was all setup by the FBI, DCIS and the U.S. Attorneys office to show the American People that this was the first case to be won both criminally and civilly and that the day of the $800.00 ash trays and the $600.00 claw hammers was comming to an end in reality the news shows are what ruined my life and made me become homeless. I tried for many years to get a good paying job but when I went into the interviews for jobs in the Southern California area many of the Aerospace employers said did'nt I see you on 60 Minutes or CNN. Keep in mind that I never got the reward that was promised to me by the D.O.J. because of Geniscos financial situation a reward that would have changed my life for the better and my life would have turned out much differently. I'm not bitter about what happened to me because I never expected any reward on Oct. 13, 1986 when I went to the FBI, I went to tell them about the fraud and was going to quit my job at Genisco after that but the FBI insisted that I stay there as an informant for almost two years which I really did'nt want to do but was made to feel like less then a patriot if I were to just leave because the D.O.J. knew they did'nt have a case without my working undercover for them I was their only link to the fraud. I have to say looking back this many years that the Federal Governments Dog and Pony Show of me on the news shows which I was totally against but once again was made to feel that I had a duty to do these shows to let the American People that this new law was out there and the feeding frenzy that our government contractors were on in regard to milking the American Taxpayers for as much as they could was OVER, hence the news coverage that this case got. This case was the first to win after John Gravitts first filing under the False Claims Act not by much but still the first especially as an Instant Case under the Qui Tam provision of The False Claims Act. Everthing I've told you is true and can be proven in many different ways. Like I said VQuaker I just want my name on the list of Major whistleblowers and challenge anyone of the importance of CR-88-232-AHH and CV-88-3757 JMI (GHKx) I you need anymore information whan looking for court documents I'm willing to be compliant and cooperative in furnishing them to Wikipedia. Good luck finding these because the court archives are so fragmented due to the lenght of time and complexity of this case they are extreamly hard to find at the El Segundo storage facility where most of these documents that are spread all over the place because of the lenght of time and different judges and different lawyers there hard to find. I hope you truly know where I'm coming from and is not to use Wikipedia as my story board. Just a mention on the list of whistleblowers, thats it a very important bench mark regarding the history of the False Claims Act and the whos who of that list. Thank You for your ear and patience.Qui Tam Relator (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, was that an agreement to avoid autobiographical edits to article space? VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is an agreement that I will sign with the editors and administrators. And if I find something to add to it I will post my proposed correction or add ons in my sandbox and will link all involved to it and allow you all to look see and someone other then myself can post it as not to have a conflict if interest if my proposal is accepted by all.Qui Tam Relator (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Posting to article talk pages is probably more practical than to a sandbox. VQuakr (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually VQuaker it feels so good to feel my fingers on a key board again I'd almost forgot what it feels like to type but I'm catching on again and to be brutally honest with you that is why I got carried away on the list of whistleblower, it was as if I was being born again almost like I had a voice again for the first time in many years. Actually it was like having sex for the first time in a long time I couldn't help my self that's why I want to make this deal that the List Of Whistleblowers should be off limits to me. I have no business editing there I can't separate myself from that subject matter. I will learn how to use the article talk page after reading about the correct way to use it. Actually I'm beginning to understand the method to Wikipedia Madness as an ex systems person and am understanding the reason for the complexity of it all and appreciate the reason why. Thank you for your ear and patience Qui Tam Relator (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your tag on Unstable
Quote:"Lots of sources in the article, but there are either primary sources, places to buy their music, or websites that simply contain the word "unstable" in the title and have nothing to do with music."

Note:I also want to state to you that use of the link of where to buy the album was used to prove the validity that the album is sold on many markets, and sites, and wasn't just a home made ordeal, it's an album. It was unmarked (not listed as 'buy album') it was a source for editors to see, so they could see this was an officially distributed album, and it deserved coverage n the worlds encyclopedia.

Response:Okay that is very disagreeable. Plugging that an album is available is on every single wikipedia band page. That is completely different than saying 'support unstable', 'buy their albums' I don't know where some of the strange sources come from. The bands official webpage came offline on Sunday January 23rd 2011, although an official site should be considered a reliable source. What band doesn't sell their album on an official website? Because it's listed on the same page as information doesn't mean the source is being posted as promotional. It's the page the info came from.

Quote: "None convey any notability and I am unable to find anything better."

Response: The encyclopedia of metal (Metal-Archives) is considered a reliable source for any metal band worth while. Why? The website is very picky about the bands listed, and do not list bands who don't qualify as metal, and bands with no notable releases. Spirit of Metal is the same exact deal. It is a reliable source to look up metal bands with actual releases. A bands official myspace provides a biography with information, album details, links to blogs that are direct from a band, ect. A good example is when you go to a bands wikipedia page and you see "According to the official myspace", however you argue that's not a reliable source... so question, should every article linking to a bands official myspace be deleted? The bands official facebook doesn't even provide room for advertisement. Unstable's is updates from the band directly, videos that evidence big show performances, and list the info used for the source. Use of OFFICIAL venue links to back up and create evidence of performances of big national shows, which the band has indeed played sound like reliable and necessary sources when claiming such things. No Clean Singing, a heavy metal review, and heavy metal band archive is a prestiged European metal website, and they only review bands, once again, that are worthwhile, and where it is sourced is relevant, and backs up the albums large distribution that was claimed, because it wasn't just claimed, it's factual. Once again, photo evidence of Unstable albums in music stores, and hundreds of loose copies (which would be unnecessary is they weren't sold on a large scale) can be provided. Also, you might not find anything better because the band is still establishing itself on more national websites that are considered reliable. Job for a Cowboy up and coming didn't have a huge internet presence, but was recognized on wikipedia because they self produced at the age of 16 the EP Doom.

Quote: "Same is true of Thomas John Stanford and their album and EP."

RE:Their releases were released from a licensed independent label, a label that might not be Roadkill Records, however it has significance. Many bands on wikipedia have had releases exclusively on iTunes, which both albums are listed on. They have distribution in Long Island record stores, photo evidence can be supplied of the albums on sale. A band with more than out of house distribution holds significance. To say 'the same holds for their album/EP' is ridiculous. How do the pages self promote? The list the facts, the tracks, and the meaning. Why shouldn't an album written as a concept album be explained on wikipedia? Just because some album pages are blank doesn't make listing the concept and facts (who produced, ect) doesn't make it self promoting, and certainly doesn't discredit it's significance. The Thomas John page tells what a man who has traveled and played music around the world has done. His significance is that he's a solo artist with two upcoming albums (lil Eazy E, who's the son of Eazy E, and before he released an album, wikipedia had him listed a year before either of his albums were released, and listed one as upcoming)and the singer of his band. He indeed screams, raps, and freestyles, just like Kerry King uses a whammy in his guitar solos. It's only a statement of the mans work, not promotion. Look at any artists page, it says these things they're known for. No Clean Singing is proved reliable as an outside source of the band says he does these things on the album he's reviewing, so it's not just stated to make the performer look good. Coming from the slums of Brooklyn and growing up to be an accomplished and uprising artist, who earns a living in music, with a deal with a licensed independent label, sounds like a factual description of the man's history.

No listen, my main response is that this page is desired to be removed because Unstable is not signed to a major label. But here's the deal, the band had a presence in New York, and facts (such as a widely distributed album, that is being secured on other markets by the bands LICENSED independent label, and secured deals in other states, meaning this is not just a 'made it at home' album by a local band) show the band doesn indeed have significance. And with those facts stated, why aren't a lot of bands removed? The only thing that was correct was improper use on one source within the entire article.

Outside of that, what good reason could you have to take the page down than a personal vendetta? -Makk3232 (not logged in before)

Furthermore

7.Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Response:Well give me a way to show verifiability. . .In Long Island the band's following is a result of playing multiple styles of music, like it's a gimmick, like KISS with the face paint, they play a bunch of styles of music. That honestly what there known for. I mean if you listen to there songs its heavy, than the guys rapping, then screaming, I mean c'mon I can't make this stuff up it's in the music. The point is they've built a following, and a label, and there self driven success because they have a following otherwise how, and why would the band waste its time and effort?

I'd appreciate the removal of the tags for deletion, I feel I've stated a fair case, and I really don't see why you discredit the bands importance in music. So I really would appreciate that removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I noticed you already contributed to one of the deletion discussions. You may want to review WP:ATA and WP:AFDEQ as they give suggestions for how to contribute to a policy-based discussion (the applicable notability policies here are the notability guideline for bands and the general notability guideline. It would be inappropriate of me to remove the AfD tag from these articles since the discussion has already started, and removing the AfD tag would not stop the discussion. AfD discussions generally run a week, if the result of the discussion is a keep then the closing administrator will remove the AfD tag at that time. Primary sources including sites like myspace have their use, but they do not convey notability because anyone can write them. We generally try to use reliable, secondary sources rather than social networking sites whenever plausible. VQuakr (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand, however an upcoming band doesn't have one million resources online to source. Most bands in metal honestly don't. The band is growing in notoriety, and it shows with a place on sites like Metal Archives and such, however the myspace link was only intended because it provides a lot of information about the bands history mainly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.101.137 (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There actually is an interesting essay here about WP:UPANDCOMING. The thing about sources like myspace is that they don't count for anything from a perspective of notability - anyone can create a myspace page, so it doesn't show that the subject is being written about. VQuakr (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay but likewise not anybody gets on Metal Archives, or Spirits of Metal. Not anyone is reviewed by No Clean Singing. To push the No Clean Singing anymore, Unstable's only the second band they ever reviewed that indeed has clean singing in the music. The website is a credible European review/Archive site, and there is NO self submission, requesting a review takes weeks to months if you're lucky. So once again I don't see your argument, they fir up and coming very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

InterRidge
Thank you for your advice about the InterRidge page. Please can you: send me the link to change the Username - I can only find guidelines as to how to do it.

InterRidge is an umbrella science group focusing interdisciplinary studies on mid-ocean ridges. I will add citations to external websites to improve the site, but please explain why the references and links are not sufficient at present. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterRidge (talk • contribs) 11:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Try Changing_username/Simple. It has step-by step instructions including a "click here" button to start the request. Please note that the guideline regarding conflict of interest will still apply. CITEFOOT has an introduction on how to format footnotes. The COI tag was largely based on your username; and the advert tag is because the article is written at the moment like a promotional piece (there usually is not a mission statement section in well-developed articles, for example. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Hi, VQuakr. Thanks for the calm and helpful approach in your discussions there and elsewhere. The list is much more readable now. — Cactus Writer (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! VQuakr (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

InterRidge
Hi Thanks for advice. I have changed the Username this morning to Deborah Milton, so that hopefully will work soon. I have added footnotes and taken out the mission statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterRidge (talk • contribs) 15:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Olympia College Malaysia
Really? I see no text there. Corvus cornix talk  06:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the editor added a paragraph, then self reverted as I removed the nomination. Not sure what they're doing there. On a different note, it's probably best to avoid A1 and A3 nominations within a few minutes of article creation, don't you think? VQuakr (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree at all. There's no way to remember to go back and look at them later, and that leaves things sitting around possibly forever.  If somebody wants to create an article, they should create it either all at once, or indicate that they're still working on it.  Plus, all of the images have been flagged for copyright problems on Commons, so that will leave nothing in the article anyway.   Corvus cornix  talk  06:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No way to remember seems a little over-dramatic. Anyways, not a big fan of WP:NPP then? Many new editors save articles before they are ready for prime time, which is why the suggestion not to tag A1 or A3 right away is mentioned in multiple places. VQuakr (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Derek Lowe (chemist)
I received the note about not creating pages about one's self. Just wanted to mention that I did, in fact, abide by this one. Looking over the page's history, it was created last summer by user LinkinPark (who isn't me). I think it got started when someone was putting up a page of SciFoo attendees and back-filled in a page for my name. I did contribute an edit, now that the page exists, but I wasn't its originator. --Dblowe (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, sorry for the confusion. VQuakr (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Noise By Numbers
Hi VQuakr, you have put a general refimprove tag on the page rather than tagging any individual statements that you think require a citation. Given that practically every statement in the article already has a citation, would you be kind enough to use inline tags instead so I have some idea of where to add the additional references. Thanks. Robman94 (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But the article still only has one reliable, secondary source - the punknews article. Everything else is blogs or sources related to the topic, such as record label websites. VQuakr (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't the Chicago Sun-Times article also count? Also, if this is regarding notability, the band passes the test because at least two of their members have performed in other notable bands. Robman94 (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you have any objections, I will remove the refimprove tag. Robman94 (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It looked like a blog, but I notice it is by a music critic. I agree that notability does not appear to be the issue here; see WP:V. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for reviewing it. Robman94 (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppetry investigation on Michael Hemmingson
Thanks for taking the time to look into the the various SPAs. I can see why you suspect sock puppetry, but I think the more likely explanation is tag-teaming by a small cadre of editors. The editors you mentioned, plus a few others, have contributed almost exclusively to a handful of interrelated articles. Many of these have questionable notability and few other contributors, suggesting it's attempt to raise the profile of a narrow field of interest. Some may be salvageable, some I may nominate for deletion; if you want to help it's appreciated. TJ Black (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! I wanted to rule out sockpuppetry, but I agree that the edits could also be a walled garden. I agree that these articles need a broader audience and there appear to be at least come COI issues here, but I'm not convinced that the article are great candidates for deletion, either. VQuakr (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Rapid removal contest for Kaboombee!
Hi VQuakr. Thanks for alerting me to the potential issue with the Kaboombee! page. The page is intended purely for informational purposes, not actively for promotion, as I'm aware there are people interested to find out more about the Kaboombee! project. Is there a way that I can make the page acceptable? Kaboombee (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah! I've had the situation clarified by JohnCD. Looks like I should plead 'no contest'. Will see you again when we're established and somebody else has created the page(!) All the best Kaboombee (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Kaboombee (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm glad to see you agree with JohnCD. The heart of the problem is that it is almost impossible to write a neutral article about something with which we are personally invested. Thanks for your understanding, and thanks again for your contributions! VQuakr (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

ITA Iscar Tool Advisor
Dear VQuakr, In this article I am trying to describe a software that is unique phenomenon for metalworking industry. It can provide scientific based recommendations for its user without specific knowledge from user side. This software is used by more then 10000 engineers worldwide according to Google Analitics report. This number is big enough to consider the software as notable for the industry. The software functionality is described in leading industrial magazines, so there are senior sourses of referenses. The software is free of charge and presence in Wikipedia of such article is not expected to lead to commercial benefit. This is not advertisemend but description of first such software that without any doubt will be duplicated by other developers. Becouse I am not professional editor, I am kindly asking for your practical support in improving the article. Thanks in advance. stkn
 * Again, welcome! I tagged this article for several reasons. First, notability - the applicable policy on notability for products is WP:PRODUCT; the standard for inclusion of a product as a stand-alone article is pretty high and is not based on the number of users. I have proposed that the article be merged into ISCAR Metalworking, since this article already exists and is not overly large. Second, I tagged it for reference improvement because the efunda reference did not mention the product, the next two looked like press releases or other content written by the company, and I could not verify the last because I do not read Japanese. Finally, I tagged it as sounding like an advertisement because of several unreferenced words like "unique" and "outstanding" that seem to promote the subject. Thanks! I will start a discussion on the idea of merging the articles on the talk page of the target article. VQuakr (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving an article into userspace
Hi, I was around when you moved the Plasma linux article into the editor's userspace earlier today. Moments later I CSD-tagged another new article for copyvios - Support service - and this also involved a new editor. He has put a hold on the process but it won't work for long because it is a clear copyvio. But he is talking now and is happy to listen (see the article talk page). With this in mind, do you have the time to explain what the procedure is for moving that article into that editor's userspace please? I suppose I could just copy and paste it but suspect there is a more elegant method! Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that article is already deleted; probably just as well for cases of copyright violations since we really don't want to leave them hanging in user space. All you have to do to userfy a page is to move it using the buttons at the top of the screen. You don't want to copy and paste it because that destroys the editing history. Regards, and happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wondered whether the history could be retained. Thanks for the info. Need to keep an eye on that editor as it has happened before, but at the same time I'd hoped to encourage a newbie and had given some (I thought) good advice about how to write based on sources rather than copying them. - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Qui Tam Relator
Hello VQuakr, I'm just getting out of the hospital after a two week stay tried to login to Wikipedia but couldn't do so from their server at that site. I'm requesting per my agreement with yourself and CactusWriter that I ask you to personally add a small bit of information on the list of whistleblowers regarding my bio. Again I'm coming to you because I am a person of my word and I made an agreement regarding going there myself. What I wish for is that you put into my bio that I did work undercover for 18 months like it says in court documents and newspaper and magazine articles and the mention would be less then a handful of words at best. Also VQuakr there are a lot of conversations that are posted on the Internet ( Google) that I had with you and other editors and administrators about myself and others at Wikipedia. Is there a way to delete these conversations that are spread all over the WEB? I'm not asking for much here but want the future readers of the list of whistleblowers to know and understand my sacrifice for my country and that I risked my well being inorder to get the truth out regarding the HARM missile Crisis. I am a man of my word and will not go there myself but I am looking toward you and CW to tell the truth about me and what I did for my country and the men and women of the armed services before the first gulf war occurred in 1991 and these tainted weapons were known about because of what I had done in the mid to late 1980's. Please delete this conversation so it does not find its way to the internt. Thank you for your ear and patienceQui Tam Relator (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome back; I hope you are feeling better. I will have a look at the whistleblowers list; feel free to also contribute to the article talk page. As for the privacy issues, if there is some personally identifiable information on the Wikipedia domain like a phone number or email address, it can be removed (just send me an email with the specific link, or you can send a request yourself at the oversight request page. As for conversations appearing on Google, neither myself nor anyone else affiliated with Wikipedia has any control over the rest of the Internet so I do not think there is much to be done. VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you VQuaker it's good to be out! Thank you for responding to my request and hope that you will be able to grant my request regarding the List Of Whistleblowers. If it had not been for my coming forward and working undercover for that eighteen months to uncover the fraud at Genisco and Texas Instruments I would hate to think what would have happened in 1991 during the beginning stages of the suppression attack of Radar and SAM Sites regarding the HARM missile performance and the fraud at Genisco. I sometimes cringe when I think back when I was making my decision on whether or not to just quit or go to the FBI with the information I had, I'm glad I went! My coming forward had absolutely ruined my working life and branded me a Whistleblower that would follow me for the rest of my life. Sometimes in your life you have to look outside of yourself and think about the common good and I'm glad I grew up in an all volunteer township on the east coast as a young man and on Oct. 13, 1986 found that person within me to have the courage to STAND and step forward to tell the truth. Thank you for your ear and patienceQui Tam Relator (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome Box
I just wanted to ask if the welcome box you placed on my page is for anyone to use. Thanks. Zunraa (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can find the template and its documentation at Template:Welcomemenu. Again welcome, and let me know if you need anything! VQuakr (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

IRedMail CSD
Wow, that was fast, before I could press save page you had already put the template up! Beat me to the punch. 128.61.23.52 (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The page had existed for more than 30 minutes when I nominated it, but cheers. VQuakr (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

COI tag on Brettina
I see you placed a COI tag on the Brettina article. I'm not sure whether I'm the only major contributor the template refers to, but I have 12 edits, which account for about half of the article's character count. I confess to editing with a close connection in the past. (And yes, I should have known better.) However, while actively editing the article, I made an effort to maintain a neutral point of view. Am I the offending contributor, or was the tag aimed at the more recent editors? I see that most of the more recent contributors are sloppy editors, with broken tags, shaky citations, original research, and inattention to Wikipedia policy. — Steve98052 (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The basis for the COI tag was this edit, which makes it pretty clear you have COI. If there are WP:BLP violations in the article (negative, unsourced content) by all means remove it immediately, but in general it looks like many of the edits to the article are by editors with an interest in promoting the subject. VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the guidance. Incidentally, it seems that a lot of the edits in the article deal with points of fact that are unsourced or poorly sourced, but neither negative nor positive. One or more unregistered users have made edits that add information (apparently original research), and a series of users apparently registered only to edit that article have removed the information. Consensus seems absent, and as you note, quality sources remain scarce. I don't want to enter into an edit war, since the contribution I could make (other than cleaning up sloppy edits) would be to add my own original research.
 * One additional question: it is my understanding that it's bad form to remove anything from someone else's edits on a discussion page, unless it falls into the category of negative unsourced WP:BLP, or to archive old discussions. Is that correct? At least one of the users with the throw-away registrations has done that. — Steve98052 (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, the article is so poorly sourced right now that it really barely meets the notability guidelines. The article needs secondary sources; I am not convinced that any of the sources qualify as independent and secondary so far. Yes, refactoring other people's talk page comments is frowned upon with a few minor exceptions, see WP:REFACTOR. VQuakr (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch for the pointer to WP:REFACTOR. I thought I had read such guidelines, but didn't recall where. It looks like the throw-away registrations (the subject's sock-puppets, I would guess) have on several occasions violated those guidelines.
 * To clarify my understanding of refactoring, am I right in thinking that it would be within refactor guidelines to merge the two "Qui Tam Relator" sections on this user-talk page?


 * As for the citations, I can offer a bit of an assessment of their quality and independence:
 * Subject's .com site, Facebook page, CD booklet, talent agency: Obviously not independent.
 * Tara Hunnewell, Kirkland Performance Center: Also not independent, but maybe not as obvious.
 * Bahamians Online: Site is independently moderated, but fairly indiscriminate about what they publish; content is not independent.
 * Alysha Live: Genuinely independent, but I suspect not very discerning.
 * Bahamas Weekly: Legitimate media outlet, but family friends work there.
 * Nassau Guardian: It's the top print newspaper in the Bahamas, and a high-quality source; the only independent high-quality source. All three articles are by the same intern. I think some have disappeared from the newspaper's web site by now.
 * So, there's only one independent high-quality source. I agree; that's only barely notable. Finally, please forgive my middle-of-the-night verbosity.
 * Never mind all this. Your last reply (plus a good night's sleep) make it clear that you've already figured all this out. — Steve98052 (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * — Steve98052 (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Phil Davison
New developments have arisen that nullify the four month old AFD.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A segment on a cable TV show, taped during his 15 minutes and only recently aired does nothing to contest his status as a BLP1E which was the primary argument for deletion/merger in the AFD's (as I recall). Please review WP:BRD, and if you wish, start a discussion in an appropriate location and allow a consensus to be reached before re-creating this content. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

New Page For Energy Drink
Hello VQuakr,

I am attempting to create a page about an energy drink that I have had in existence for the past 3.5 years. I am wondering if there is anyone that I can get to write it for me that is familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines. I was stating the basics about the beverage and providing documentation on the company that owns the product, trademarks, and listing ingredients in the beverage with internal wikipedia links about those ingredients. I am still getting the page deleted. Can you direct me to someone who may be interested in creating the page for me?

Please advise

Thank you! rexhymen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexhymen (talk • contribs) 20:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is essentially impossible to write a neutral article about a subject which which you have a conflict of interest. What is the name of the company that makes the drink? I did see the article on the drink, and I do not think the subject meets the notability guideline for products. VQuakr (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Black Spark
Hi, this article does not have an AfD notice raised on it, presumably you were raising the AfD by hand rather than Twinkle. Could you finish the notification to make the AfD validly raised? Thanks Fæ (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ This actually was a Twinkle nomination, but it seems to have hiccuped on the article template. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Micropsychoanalysis
Hello VQuakr, thanks for intervening and preventing a revert war by reminding BRD cycle.

Third-party references I checked (listed on the discussion page) talk about micropsychoanalysis as a form of psychoanalysis. Of course I didn't consider autobiographical references.

I found no third-party references saying that micropsychoanalysis is not a psychoanalysis.

The article being written on the base of verifiable sources, I wonder how a user can come in, say "Have nothing to see with psychoanalaysis" without any valid source and impose his version based solely on his saying.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks, Bluebird33 (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Cookies
Mmmm... ones and zeroes... Thanks for that, I really appreciate it. Apterygial talk 00:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't eat too many of the ones - they have all the carbs. And no problem. VQuakr (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Crescent Tours article
I posted an article on Crescent Tours. I do not really understand what is your problem with it. How different it is for example from Balkan Holidays article. I am just trying to do the same article as Balkan Holidays — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheArticleEditor (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Existence of another similar article is not a great argument for notability. I referenced the applicable policies, WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY in the proposal for deletion; can you explain how this company meets those guidelines? VQuakr (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I should remind that Crescent Tours is a pioneering company in the new tourism sector called Halal Holidays, and thus carries general knowledge importance and thus needs to be included in Wikipedia. The references like The Guardian are very reliable sources.TheArticleEditor (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making changes to the article. I am ok with the changes. If I make a change I will clearly explain the reason in the title box. PLease, advise if we can remove the "Deletion" message at the top of the article?TheArticleEditor (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The claims such as "pioneering company" need support from reliable sources. You mention the Guardian article, but this is about halal vacations in general and only has relatively trivial discussion of this particular travel company. I do suggest that you make your case for keeping the article at the AfD linked from the template at the top of the article page (provided that doing so would not violate the conflict of interest policy). I have not made any changes to the article other than templates. I think using the edit summary is a great idea. You may want to review WP:OWN in the context of being "ok" with the changes, not saying this is a major issue with your contributions so far but mostly an FYI. Deletion discussions typically run for at least a week before they are closed; the template should not be removed before then. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Vikram Dhillon - Corrections
Hello VQuakr,

Thank you for your guidance regarding the Vikram Dhillon article. In my attempts to conform to your requirements undoubtedly some mistakes have been made but that shouldn’t deter from the value and significance of the individual and his achievements making the article worthy of placement in Wikipedia. To that end, I’d like you to consider the following as we work towards a finer tuned article. Of the twenty four references cited none have been published by Dhillon for his own promotion. They are each independent sources included amongst them sites such as the National Film Board of Canada, online versions of reputable print magazines and Newspapers such as Indian Today and The Economic Times as well as the lynchpin monitor of the Film and Television Industry, IMDb. References 1-10 and 12 clearly state Vikram Dhillon by name, some additionally have photographic evidence to substantiate his involvement. References 11, 13-16 may not clearly list his name but they serve to authenticate the project that he was involved in. The remaining references indirectly, but firmly, corroborate the project or association to the project giving Dhillon’s claims legitimacy. As a registered member of Association of Motion Pictures & TV Programme Producer of India (AMPTPP), Dhillon is a working professional in the Film and Television industry, I’d ask you to consider that many of his achievements that are currently referenced or highlighted in the Wiki article are listed explicitly in IMDb and IMDB Pro. As it’s the go-to source that industry professional’s reference, I’d ask you consider their extreme, stringent screenings as a reliable confirmation of his credits and noteability. With respect to the photograph, all copyrights are held by Vikram Dhillon and it is posted with his permission.

Thank you

(Vikramdhillon (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Please review WP:AUTO and WP:V. Any source with an "edit this page" button is not a webpage with "extreme, stringent screenings." VQuakr (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Major contributor" for AtHoc page
Hello

This message is in response to your inquiry on the AtHoc page which now cites that a major contributor to the article may have a close connection to the company. How can we resolve this and the other items cited at the outset of the article?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Young US (talk • contribs) 13:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings, and thanks for your contributions. You refer to the company as "our" company, and you are the copyright holder of images created by the company . As for how to get rid of the tags, I would like to see a consensus on the talk page that they are not needed. Specifically, that will probably require someone without a COI rewriting the article and use of reliable secondary sources rather than press releases. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks VQuakr. We have decided to remove the article at this time. At some point in the near future, perhaps we will resubmit a revision that incorporates your suggestions, and better meets the qualifications for full objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Young US (talk • contribs) 15:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Deletion of an article with multiple authors such as this one is a community decision; speedy deletion at the request of the author only applies if there is a single contributor. VQuakr (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Understood. It is not likely, however, that there will be much discussion and/or consensus on the requested deletion either way. The thinking was to take the updates and edits offline in the interest of Wikipedia deserving fully finished content rather than a series of live, ongoing revisions. If that is what you would prefer of if you feel that approach better meets Wikipedia guidelines, I am happy to comply...Thanks again for your attention and clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Young US (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not, Wikipedia actually has a policy on perfection. If, having read WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY you think your company is notable, feel free to make your case here or on the article talk page (not at the AfD because of our policy on conflict of interest). If the article is deleted, you should not re-create it due to that same COI. VQuakr (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Understood. ThanksAndrew Young US (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "AtHoc's base product, IWSAlerts™, uses the existing Internet Protocol network to send audio-visual alerts of current conditions and mission-critical information to targeted recipients via their desktops, handhelds, mobile devices, and telephony, giant voice systems and more." Your recent edits to this article, not limited to this sentence, lead me to believe that you still have a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of an encyclopedia, and specifically the policies on conflict of interest and advertising. This article is actually worse than it was when I nominated it for deletion; if I were to come across it for the first time, right now, I would request its speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. VQuakr (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Given your feedback above, perhaps it is best to simply delete and I will work with Qwyrxian to create a compliant version on my userspace. One question though:  In addition to Wikipedia rules, I looked over several other notification providers for examples of successful articles.  One of these was Reverse 911.  I thought that what I wrote here was at least as objective and pragmatic as theirs.  What am I missing? Thanks Andrew Young US (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are probably not missing anything, though I honestly do not see anything quite like the quote above in that article. There are many articles needing attention, which is why we judge them based on an external scale (policies) rather than each other. To be fair, Reverse 911 could really only be called a successful article in the context that it is not currently being discussed for deletion; a true success story might look more like Norwegian Public Safety Radio. VQuakr (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Norwegian Public Safety Radio article is excellent. Thanks for pointing me to it.  Andrew Young US (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Black Spark
Could you please revisit this discussion? Thanks, C T J F 8 3  21:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did follow the developments on the deletion discussion, but part of the problem is that as I noted in my nomination I do not really have adequate background in the subject matter to know what constitutes a reliable source. Based on Wikipedia's own articles on the publications, Out magazine appears to qualify as a RS, but The Sword appears to clearly not be since it is run by a porn website (therefore not mainstream media). Xtra appears more dubious and I can't find a Wiki article on Next, but again I am having trouble getting a read on how much so. As such, I don't really feel ready to revoke the AfD nomination, and posting a comment at the AfD similar to what I am saying here doesn't seem to add much to the discussion. What are your thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Out is the only one I had heard of, and you agreed that is a notable magazine. I guess you make good points, I'm not sure how notable the other sources are, to be honest.... C T J F 8 3  11:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Outdoor Cinema
Dear VQuakr,

Thank you for your guidance regarding the outdoor cinema article. It was not my intention that the article was written like an advertisement and i do not think that it sounds like one. If I wanted to write an advertisement I would have named only one company/event and not several in the citation/references. If you have any suggestions how it could not sound like advertisement i would be pleased if you could help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbrush (talk • contribs) 15:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what made me concerned that it was being used to promote a company or a few companies was the lack of reliable sources. It looked like most or all of the references were to blogs. I notice an IP addy removed the advert tag, I am fine with leaving it off while the references are improved. VQuakr (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Blazing Star Cinema on List of cinema and movie theater chains
Hello, I'm writting to inquire as to the problem with the inclusion of Blazing Star Cinema to the wiki article "List of Cinema and movie theater chains". We are a legitemate company operating as a drive-in and outdoor cinema and do not see a reason why we are not being allowed to add ourselves as other cinema companies have.

Thanking you in advance your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdepaola (talk • contribs) 05:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted a message on your talk page linking to the Wikipedia policies on shared usernames and conflict of interest just now. Based on your use of the plural first person it appears that you are editing on behalf of the company. VQuakr (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The shared username policy has no relevance, the username cdepaola is not shared and I don't understand what would have made you think it was shared. Cdepaola is my first initial and last name, not the name of a company or group. Also what precludes an individual from posting a listing of a legitimate cinema on a page specifically designed to contain a list of cinemas? Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdepaola (talk • contribs) 13:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, it sounded like it was a shared username based on the use of the word "we." As for the list of cinemas, Wikipedia is not a directory, and that entry did not appear to be notable. VQuakr (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Now I remember why I decide to never contribute to wiki. The comment that "Wikipedia is not a directory" flys in the face of the entire article that we are currently discussing. The whole article is nothing but a directory and I would challenge you or anyone else to show me how it's not. I thinks time to start hunting down obvious directories within Wikipedia and placing comments on them. So this article which is obviously a directory isn't really a directory? Ok, I can see this discussion is going to go no where. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdepaola (talk • contribs) 21:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not cause disruption to prove a point. Lists are very common, and they are not the same as directories. For one thing, they do not attempt to be exhaustive (about most subjects). In the case of lists of businesses, inclusion criteria are generally established for the specific article. Each entry being individually notable is the most common criterion. VQuakr (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks
for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. cheers! - The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Any time. VQuakr (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Kenexa Corporation
Dear Sir or Madam:

I have talked about 3 different awards that Kenexa Corporation has won on their Wikipedia article, with 4 more awards to add in the coming days. These awards come from Forbes.com, Human Resources Magazine, Software Magazine and others, who are more than likely reliable. Salary.com is widely used by individuals and organizations to determine employee compensation. Based on this information, I feel that I have added reliable second/third party sources, and that Kenexa is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. What would you like to see added to this article?

Thank you very much for your attention to these matters.--Jax 0677 (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review the notability guidelines at WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG. Awards a company has won can be important information, but substantial coverage in secondary sources are needed for writing a neutral article. For example, the Forbes "award" is just a ranking based on EPS growth and the only mention is in a table - clearly trival coverage. The majority of the sources in the article are press releases; these do not establish notability as defined in the GNG and if possible should be replaced with secondary sources. Feel free to call me VQuakr or "hey you," BTW. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good afternoon VQuakr:


 * According to COMPANY:


 * "However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage,  analyst reports , and  profiles by companies such as Hoover's (a commercial source)."


 * I have references from Bloomberg Businessweek, HotStocked.com and Hoover's Inc. among others. Is this sufficient?--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the notability tag; the article is still based primarily on press releases so I left the primary sources tag. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

David Osler
Hello. Back last May, you tagged this article with the notability template. I agree that the subject is non-notable, and have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/David Osler. Robofish (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, I !voted. VQuakr (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Your criticism of the new Lebedeff article
Hello, I am new and though I don't expect to get a "thank you" for translating vast swaths of Yiddish for Wikipedia, I wish I got something other than criticism. The reason I put the information in list form is that my source for this information (the yiddish theater lexicon) does not give any extra details about the work Lebedeff did, other than the names of the operettas and the people who wrote them and composed the music. Therefore I think if I were to break this down into a paragraph it would be far LESS readable. Please answer on my talk page if possible as I fear I may not see it if you answer here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Peppler (talk • contribs) 22:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings! I prefer to keep the conversation in one place; I will post a talkback template on your talk page. Thanks for your contributions. This is a collaborative writing environment; posting templates for highlighting ways that an article can be improved should not be interpreted as a personal affront or individual criticism. At the article Aaron Lebedeff is modified, I think it can be improved by focusing on his notable performances and contributions, rather than attempting an exhaustive or near-exhaustive list of performances he was in. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I listed all the performances, with writers and composers, is that this is information musicians need when researching projects and it's hard to come by. It will also help knit a community of Yiddish theater pages together - the composers, writers, and performers worked together and can be linked together via their work. This is the kind of information I was looking for - fruitlessly - when I began my most recent cd project and it's why I started writing for Wikipedia Jane Peppler (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Narnia
Hi, I've responded back to your posting on this talk page and I've got a couple of questions. Thanks! -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I like your idea for the title and I went ahead and implemented it. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Simon Corry
Hi VQuakr

Thank you for your interest in the page 'Simon Corry'.

I note that you have issues with this page and on first reading the biographic nature of the content appears to cause you concern. However according to the Wikipedia guidelines on this matter although biographies are not recommended they are permitted particularly when the entry is of relevance to Wikipedia. Given the achievements of the artist and the significance of links to several collaborators who already have biographies I would suggest far more research is done prior to any hasty deletion.

It may be advisable to seek the expertise of a photography curator for example particularly if you are not familiar with the relevance to British art and photography of this period, the same for contemporary music.

I will be studying your concerns in detail and of course rectifying any information that is factually incorrect although this is unlikely as considerable time has been taken to research the page whilst keeping it concise.

Kind regards

Simon Corry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Corry (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for the comment, and welcome. Please refrain from creating autobiographies and similar self-promotion on Wikipedia; you may want to review WP:AUTO, WP:GNG, and WP:BIO. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Further information on proposed deletion
Hi VQuakr

I have had another read of the reference articles you list and although the Simon Corry entry is autobiographical that should not be a hinderance to presenting unbiased and factual encyclopedic information. The entry is not self promotional in any way more than most other artist's biographies on Wikipedia and so if it is deleted on that basis the reason d'etre for much of the site becomes questionable.

The 'Simon Corry' section has been carefully written to ensure there is no bias whatsoever, relevant information has only been excluded if there is a security concern or at the request of a person or reputable organization. I expect there to be additions and amendments in time by the associates and users but not in a negative and destructive way.

I have re-instated the page subject to further checks and hope you can help amend the words you consider not relevant rather delete all the work that has been done to prepare this article.

Thanks again

Simon Corry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Corry (talk • contribs) 05:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree that it is possible for someone to write a quality article about themselves. Note that the key for inclusion in this article, like any WP:BLP is verifiability, not that it must be positive. If you cannot stand the possibility that negative, sourced content about you could be added the article, this is another reason that creating an article about yourself could be a poor idea. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Content update
Hi VQuakr

I hope you are able to view the revised Wikipedia entry for Simon Corry including revisions to external links etc. If there are still too many or you would like to reduce the information on the page please inform my talk page. It would also of course be possible to expand it.

I note that you made a google search on 'Simon Corry' earlier which may have influenced your surprising page deletion request. Please note that most Google searches take you to an artist based in Falmouth who has no relationship to myself and whose quality threshold is questionable. This is frustrating for me but I have great respect for the integrity of Wikipedia and hope you recognize this.

If a personal reference would be useful to you in considering my autobiographical inclusion my cousin is Dan Corry who also has a Wikipedia entry.

Kind regards

Simon Corry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Corry (talk • contribs) 07:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In-text citations should be avoided altogether in favor of footnotes, but that is a minor style issue. If you are aware of third-party publications that are unrelated to you, and have written substantial amounts of material about you, let me know and I can assist in getting the article cleaned up and including those references. Bare links to the home pages of a fashion magazine does not do anything to establish notability. A personal reference is not really helpful; we would need content that is verifiable. Incidentally, if you can avoid creating a new section for each reply I would appreciate it; I find the more standard talk page layout using indentations to be more readable. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

1986 Ramsey Clark Complaint
Hello VQuakr Hope all is well with you. It seems a shame that the Ramsey Clark Complaint I have is not used on Wikipedia. The reason I say this is there is nowhere else you can obtain this 1986 complaint on the web and the numbering of the pages was done by Ramsey Clark himself. Yes I had wrote on it after his law clerk Jackson had sent it to me but this is an original from Clarks desk and has historical reference to it. I never did hear back from you regarding three (3) words to be added to the bio on the list of whistleblowers and I'm assuming that even if it's says in court documents that I did work under-cover with federal agents for eighteen months the folks at Wikipedia does not like that terminology and will not grant me three words so I will leave it alone. I wish you would reconsider both the Ramsey Clark Complaint and my three words. Thank you for listening to me. Oh by the way someone has given me a gift of a new I-Pad2 so I will be looking to you for your approval on my input of Gravitt, Maudal the old Dell computer crashed and died but out of the ashes emerges a new device and I am thankful for that and your past help and tolerance. Hope to hear back from you.Qui Tam Relator 17:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)
 * Greetings, I hope you are enjoying the new IPad. My concern with your request for addition of the "Ramsey Clark complaint" is that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original source material. If this complaint cannot be independently verified, then even if the information is true it may not be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Can you refresh my memory on the three words you wanted added to the bio? VQuakr (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You very much VQuakr you are a Gentleman and a scholar.
Thank you for all your help and patience VQuakr. I hope you get some hiking in and enjoy the up coming summer it should be a very radiating season this year, can't wait till next year to see what else can happen. I'll be seeing you in the sand box VQuakr Qui Tam Relator 06:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)

Bad name
I have declined your speedy deletion here; the article is, while not appropriate, clearly not vandalism. Ironholds (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I considered it vandalism in the context of the user's other edits, but understand your point. Thanks for the feedback! VQuakr (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "In the context.." we don't judge content by other stuff the contributor has done unless they're a banned user or sockpuppet. Ironholds (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I should have been more clear in my response that I understood that it was a poor CSD nomination. Thanks again! VQuakr (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Pnorman1 Math Mumble
Thanks for helping me. I am trying to figure out the citation process, and would move the article to the sandbox while I finish it, but I can't figure out how to do that either. The term math mumble refers specifically to the attempts at mathematical discourse used in the primary grades in the classroom. The problem is, that even the term "mathematical discourse" isn't in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnorman1 (talk • contribs)
 * Just surround what you want to reference with tags. Don't worry too much about specific formatting or getting everything perfect; adding the sources and citations is much more important than cleaning up the citations. There may not be a page called "mathematical discourse," but there is one called Mathematics education. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk page
When you gave on my talk page about my change of Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster, did you say I did something wrong? 124.125.8.133 (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it was a welcome message. I did revert your change though, and explained why in my edit summary. Looking through your edits so far, you may want to find sources for changes like updates to channel numbers. Again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you an administrator VQuakr ?
I'm not sure if your an administrator or an editor, here goes I have on my page a deletion tag on that 1988 Ramsey Clark complaint I put in and another one from an edit I had done back in January is there any way a person can get those two speedy deletions of my driving record at Wikipedia? I have seen the errors of my ways and will be a good boy! Oh there calling out for medication time over the intercom I have to go! Please see what you can do for me, thanks VQuakr Qui Tam Relator 05:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)
 * Nope, not an administrator. However, there is no requirement for you to keep those speedy nominations on your user page; you can remove them at any time. They are intended to let the page creator know that the page was or could be deleted, not to be a badge of shame. VQuakr (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Lydian Chromatic Concept
Thanks for the welcome message. I am trying to create a page for this book, which is the founding text for a whole school of music theory that is mysteriously unrepresented on Wikipedia. I am convinced that this is relevant information and that it is a good thing to get this information into the public domain.

However, the reason I think there is such a need for this information on Wikipedia is that it is hard to find related information elsewhere. A good Wikipedia article would be a great place to keep a synthesis of this information. It is hard to find information on the Lydian Chromatic Concept, just as it is hard to find information on musical set theory, neo-riemannian theory, or any newer school of music theory. Conservatory libraries have many relevant volumes, and I think that is why the pages for the aforementioned other schools of music theory are so well curated. It will take a long time for me alone to find enough relevant information online to round out this article. That is why I think it should be public, so that people with more extensive print resources can edit it too.

I have read Russell's book, but I do not own it. However, I am trying to get my friend's copy back again so I can cite right out of the book. This constitutes a primary source. In my experience, it is rare to find one music theorist simply summarize another's work without somehow changing it, so I am not sure if a summary of the book's concepts could be easily managed with second source citations. But, there are secondary sources about how other musicians have applied the theory. Do you think I could legitimize the article if I added a section for historical impact or something like that? It would be full of secondary sources that confirmed the relevance and applicability of Russell's theory, but it would not guarantee the validity of what is at this point basically a paraphrase of the book (would the paraphrase be better if it had direct quotations, or would that make it worse? I will look for a scholarly article summing up Russell's ideas, but it will probably be hard to find, just by the nature of the field.).

I am certain this article is necessary, but I am also certain it is an undertaking. The book creates a whole new paradigm in music theory with far reaching impacts, and I do not expect to be able to create a comprehensive page alone. Do you have any specific suggestions as to how I could get the page to a point where it would be acceptable for public viewing so others could aid its construction? Theadorerex (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, a second thought here, would it be a good or bad idea to hyperlink mentions of this text in the pages of Bill Evans, Miles Davis, etc.? Theadorerex (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Internal links to this text are fine, but the big issue that needs to be addressed is that this theory needs references that show it meets the WP:GNG. These would be articles or books written about this theory, and not related to its originator. As a practical side note, be careful with the word synthesis on Wikipedia discussion pages; it has a unique and negative connotation here and could sidetrack a discussion thread. As noted in the link, original syntheses are to be avoided, but I do not think that was what you meant in your post above. VQuakr (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the semantic tip. I am finding academic journals on JSTOR that discuss LCC. I am using them as citations in addition to the old citations. Is this bad? Should I remove the old ones, or can I just augment the older ones with this new stuff? Theadorerex (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning on Mel Gussow
My understanding that reversion of vandalism does not risk a 3RR violation. Mine were not substantive edits but reversions of persistent additions of unsourced, contentious material by an editor following the same pattern as dozens of editors before him (her) -- all blocked. This is all quite clear from the article's Talk page and History.

If I'm mistaken, please let me know. But I consider the warning on my Talk page to have been placed in error. JohnInDC (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As near as I can tell, the edits in question were not vandalism. They were ill considered and unsourced, and against the consensus on the talk page, but this does not make them vandalism. 3rr makes very clear that only unambiguous vandalism is exempt from the 3RR. Has this user been banned? That would make reversions of his socks' edits fall within a 3RR exemption. I appreciate that it is frustrating to have articles disrupted repeatedly this way, but since the 3RR is one that can be more rigidly enforced I thought it was important to give you a heads up that you were up against it. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the consideration for the warning (I'm trying to figure out a way that doesn't make that sound facetious, and failed, so - I'm not being facetious) but in the case of this particular longstanding and persistent issue the only way to draw admin action is to repeatedly revert the changes, running the other editor up the "warnings ladder" until they cross the line, then go to AIV. That can't be done without several reverts, and often puts me over the 3RR line.  This dispute has been going on for months - years - with maybe ten? a dozen? IPs (all Verizon, all Manhattan) blocked in the past 6 months or so, all for making the identical problematic edit.  The edits are contentious (claiming a conversion to Presbyterianism that the family contests) and while minor, have no business in the article without a source.  The page was semi-protected to guard against *these precise edits*.  So now, a registered account arrives, having been created soon after the semi-protect and becoming auto-confirmed on the strength of a dozen trivial edits, and starts in on the article.  As in the case of the IPs, warnings on the user's Talk page were ignored and the same edits immediately reinserted.  I am at a loss to know how to attack the problem other than head-on, and it's exceedingly exasperating when my efforts are second-guessed.


 * All of which is more than you bargained for I'm sure. Thanks in any case for responding and I'll keep looking for ways to deal with this that don't subject me to templates -  JohnInDC (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that since there now is a named account, you view the content additions assuming the editor is completely new to the article and engage the editor in question. If (and I would not assume this is a certainty) the user is eventually indef blocked for disruption and another new user pops up with the same verbatim edits, you could start a sockpuppet investigation without doing any edit warring. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * D'oh, of course. I'm so used to dealing with anon editors that sockpuppetry - which is quick and often definitive - didn't come to mind.  Assuming that named accounts are the ones that continue, that'll be my route.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Heir to the Ottoman dynasty
Why delete?

Is not it terrible what goes on in Wikipedia?

People who are there simply portrayed as a liar?

I happen to have contact with an Ottoman prince

Dilek2 (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)I'll post the official homepage and it is dismissed as advertising
 * If you have are in contact with someone who claims to be in the line of succession, and are posting their home page, the you very well might be advertising. In any case, I marked the list you created for deletion because it was a duplication of an existing list. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In the articles of the sultans, all descendants are deleted from the user:Anythingyouwant

This is an evil

Dilek2 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it really isn't. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information; entries must meet a number of inclusion criteria and be agreed, by consensus, that they belong. These policies have been communicated to you repeatedly on your talk page; please stop attacking editors who disagree with you. VQuakr (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Look this:

DescendentsThere is no need to include an unsourced list of all of this person's descendent's, especially living people. See WP:BLP. I will trim.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is unsourced.... Look here: http://www.ottomanfamily.com/ .Dilek2 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It is also important to consider, is this content notable and reported in independent secondary sources? Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why unsourced? This People still living one...and when the actually Head is passing than the nex from the list are the Heir. Selim78 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong,the descendants mentioned.

But this Anythingyouwant is deleted all

Dilek2 (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RS. This has already been discussed extensively in various forums, whether or not you are willing to acknowledge it. VQuakr (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Chris Tebbetts
Ok, being that I mostly edit on mini-wikis and have not done so in a while, i think I lost my head. is the citing that I've done for Chris Tebbetts sufficient to pass muster for the moment? Amthyst fire (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's plenty to remove the BLP PROD (which I just did), since it provides a verifiable source. The article still needs secondary sources to establish notability, though. Welcome back! VQuakr (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Article Welwyn Tool Group article
Hi there! Thanks for the advice, I wondered if you could help me. I have read the guidelines on references but I just want to be clear on secondary sources. Are these websites like newspapers or news websites or websites that have no affiliation to us whatsoever? I want to make sure I get the page just right as it seems a bit silly that a company of our size has no wikipedia page and it's been deleted once before. Thanks for the help! --Leisteruk (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Maria Freudenstein
Hello VQuakr, this page has been fixed and references have been included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perdogg (talk • contribs) 03:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the unreferenced tag. Note that you are permitted to remove tags like these in good faith when they no longer apply. Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Posigrip
Hi VQuakr, thank you for your notice. I posted a comment on the article talk page explaining why I believe the company meets Wikipedia's credibility criteria. Maybe you could help me out. I'm still relatively new to wikipedia, but am fully committed to the Project and am eager to learn and get more involved. I did a lot of research on the company before writing the article, and based on that research know that the company is notable. If my comments on the article talk page do not suffice to justify removing the "Proposed for deletion" message, could you please help me to understand why they fail to do so and maybe let me know how I might meet that demand.

Also, the "Proposed for deletion" message also noted that the article was "written like an advertisement" as the other reason is was proposed for deletion. I tried to stay away from that tone, as I have no reason to take it. Could you give me some advice on how to clean it up in this regard? Any tips and/or assistance will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Et bravo (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I replied on the article talk page, thanks for the follow up. I removed the product listing and the advert tag as this was the main concern for me from the advertising perspective. The relevant notability guidelines are WP:CORP and WP:GNG; how does this company meet either? VQuakr (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Article BeeBole.com
Dear VQuakr,

You recently flagged the page about BeeBole.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeeBole.com) with the followings:


 * It needs additional references or sources for verification.
 * The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed.
 * It may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
 * Its external links may not comply with Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines.

Could you please be more specific about the changes to be made?

Even after reading the Wikipedia documentation, I am not sure about the links/parts to be changed.

Thank you for your help.

Kind regards,

Yves Hiernaux — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yves Hiernaux (talk • contribs) 23:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will respond with some more specific feedback on the article talk page. However, I also have some concerns about your relationship with the company and the multiple new accounts that have been involved with the article and some related pages. I will give more detail on your user talk page; can you please respond either on your talk page or here with some clarification? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

V7-Sport/Iqinn
I'll look into it again. Don't expect a fast or easy answer. When I took it to ANI before, not much got accomplished.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem that lends itself to a fast or easy solution. I would be inclined to ignore it if they confined their warring to one or two articles, but they are disrupting a significant chunk of the topic. Anyways, thanks for having another look! VQuakr (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I followed this back from KWW, just wanted to say sorry if I had helped diminish your experience here, it wasn't my intention to do so. V7-sport (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly never thought that you doing anything personally against me. The problem is that your editing style is disrupting everyone else. On a side note, can you please consider archiving comments on your talk page rather than deleting them? VQuakr (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm scaling back my interaction with that editor and haven't been edit-warring. It would be great if other editors of good faith could look over some of his contributions as he has a penchant for using this site to propagandize and has no qualms about mischaracterizing what his sources say.
 * Re. the archive, I had been archiving the talk page but somewhere along the line I lost the archive links. (You are corresponding with someone who not only still has a VCR, but it is still blinking 12:00, 12:00, 12:00, 12:00...) At any rate, I've become a fan of deleting the backlog. If you need help finding something let me know. V7-sport (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply! Sorry, but yes, a quick look at your recent contributions confirms that you have been edit warring. As near as I can tell you are still not clear on the point that you do not have to be in technical violation of the 3RR to be edit warring. And yes, I understand that there are other editors involved here and I do not want you to feel singled out but you do seem to be the common factor here. Whatever you want to call it, what I care about is the disruption to the articles. No real improvement can be made to articles with so many reverts flying around. VQuakr (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Doing my best to behave here. Today I had someone who thought they smelled blood in the water and took advantage of it. Yes, I realize that you don't need to be in technical violation of the 3RR to be edit warring. What I am also observing is that when someone reverts me before I can get to the talk page to explain the reasoning behind the edits I made (again) they don't wind up with anyone concerned as to whether or not they are edit warring. V7-sport (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Southern Adventist University
There is currently a dispute going on at the named page as you know. Why are you only going after one of the editors, rather than both? From what I see BelloWello (talk) also may have violated 3RR. This dispute has been going on for a while and should probably go into dispute resolution rather than violation reports.Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I saw on the edit history, you were up against the 3RR and BellowWello was not. If I misinterpreted the editing history, feel free to file an edit warring report. VQuakr (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Serbian rugby union players
I have asked someone at WikiProject Rugby union to have a look at Milan Orlovic, Marko Kapor, Miladin Zivanov, Milan Rastovac, Srdjan Nikolic, Marko Vukovic & Predrag Vranes (see ) to see if they meet WP:NSPORTS. Mtking (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. VQuakr (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Janos Nyiri biographical article (May 11, 2011)
Thanks for your help. My question has to do with your preference for footnotes. Can you illustrate this or direct me to a template that conforms with your request? I believe the other matters have been addressed conclusively. Either way, please let me know. Thanks. Oulipo Oui (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly, just wrap the citation in at the start and end of the citation to creation a footnote. More information can be found at WP:CITE. Note that the citation style is a minor issue compared with the notability concerns, see WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I respectfully disagree that any of the issues so far have been resolved, please feel free to discuss at Talk:Janos_Nyiri where I started a new section on the subject. VQuakr (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your objections, VQuakr. But if I am at risk of being repeatedly overruled or deleted, or blocked, or accused of vandalism or COI etcetera, maybe I should just completely withdraw the article? That would be very disappointing, But it seems that you really do not like the article, VQuakr. Would you prefer that the contribution was just taken down and that there be no biography of Janos Nyiri on Wikipedia at all? There are more than 20 sources cited, and cross-references to internal as well as external links. The Times and Sunday Times articles were removed because of concerns, rightly or wrongly, that there may have been some kind of copyright infringement. The Amazon, Google, print media and press citations are supplied, with links where appropriate. Likewise French, Hungarian and German language sources. It all seems increasingly odd, except for the recurring issue of consistent Wikipedia citation and source styles, but it is proving to be rather a laborious and sadly fruitless process, overall. Please advise what you recommend, VQuakr, regarding further action to be taken on this article, if indeed there is any further action to be taken at all. Thanks. Oulipo Oui (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Attempt to address VQuakr's continuing objections regarding Wikipedia article subject and content on biography of Janos Nyiri/Notability, Verifiability, Objectivity, etc.

Thank you again, VQuakr, for your detailed guidance and help. Here is Wikipedia's policy regarding Notability:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4] "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.[5]

I think these matters are satisfied by the following 116,000 hits on Google: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=janos+nyiri&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Likewise, the verifiability and sources issues. If however, these sources are not satisfactory, and the publications listed within the article as well as in the references and footnotes do not suffice, I beg to know what, if anything, will be considered satisfactory. Please do not hesitate to let me know if you feel that your objections simply cannot be overcome, or that the article itself is a waste of my time, or yours.

With thanks.Oulipo Oui (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you have also posted at Talk:Janos Nyiri; let's centralize our discussion there. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Too Soon
Sorry, will be slower to do that next time! Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh....can't an editor have a bad day? :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm not claiming any superiority here. :P NPP's just gotta keep each other honest; it can get tempting to over-speedy. VQuakr (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the warning. However, I am not sure how to proceed with the issue: I had explained the cause of my edits, carefully choosing to use NPOV terms, but another user finds this unacceptable. Unflavoured (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting discussion on the talk page is a good step; I see you have done that. Additional steps you could consider, particularly if talk you feel you have reached an impasse after a good faith effort, would be to make a post at the NPOV noticeboard or to pursue dispute resolution. Please let me know if you would like help. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Arpaïs Du Bois
Hello VQuakr, thank you for your welcoming words and patience with my beginners mistakes. I didn't realize I removed maintenance templates, it wasn't my intention at all, sorry for that. In response to them I added several references to third-party sources (national and art press). What else would you recommend ? Also I have seen that a picture would be requested for the quality of the article. Should I engage in this lengthy quest at this point ? Dubgaet (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I still do not see any references in the article, except from Arpais.com (a primary source) if these are reprints, we should reference the original publications and can mention that they are archived at the artist's site. For the photo, yes, we like images. To be usable on Wikipedia, the photo would need to be licensed under a free-use license or released into the public domain by the copyright holder (usually the person who took the image). VQuakr (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. My references refer to pdf's of the original press articles I only found on the artist's site and that aren't online anymore. I will reread the instructions for proper source citation and will then mention they're archived on the artist's site as you suggest. Then I'll start searching for a picture of the person. Thank you for your advice.Dubgaet (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubgaet (talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can use the   template to cite sources if you wish; it has an archived=... function that would simplify the citation and archived location data entry. VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr, I used Cite web template to cite sources as you recommended. I hope I did it the right way. Cheers.Dubgaet (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

David Muhlenfeld
Hi VQaker. Thanks for letting me know about the David Muhlenfeld article, although at the time I was not finished. I have made edits to the article accordingly, in regards to what you said. Hopefully enough has been done for the removal of the deletion proposal on the article. Thank you! Connormlh (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I removed the BLP Prod since there is a source now. I am not really convinced that this person meets WP:CREATIVE, though. VQuakr (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Key
Hello, VQaker--My article has multiple issues, and I would like to know what I can do to correct these issues! Thank you so much for your assistance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyesofbabylon (talk • contribs) 17:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I suggest starting with the page on creating your first article. Given your obvious WP:COI with the subject, you may find it very difficult to write a neutral article about something with which you are so close. The next thing to do would be to purge out all the peacock terms that compromise the article, and reference statements in the article. Contentious or non-neutral statements should be referenced in reliable, secondary sources (which are needed anyways to show the subject is notable. The other items in the multiple issues tag can wait until those are resolved. VQuakr (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Legbourne
I wrote in the summary when I saved it that it was UNFINISHED and I was still working on it. dont be so quick to jump on people please. Panderoona (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is just a tag, I am not jumping on anyone. If you are uncomfortable with people tagging articles that are incomplete, feel free to work on it in your user space and move it to article space when it is ready. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been here a while now but only worked on very small articles and been relatively undisturbed. Im annoyed because I had written a fair bit and lost it all because of the edit conflict. I dont know how to resolve that because Im new, hence my irritation. I have found a ref template to say Im working on it - theres more to say about this particular village than I have worked on previously, and I dont want to get it wrong, or lose it. Thanks. Panderoona (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear you lost some work, that must be frustrating. When the edit conflict window comes up after you press "save", your contributions can be found at the bottom of the screen. You can just copy the portion you added and paste it into the appropriate section above to save your work. The work you lost might still be available in your browsing history. Please note that even if you just created an article, you do not own it, though. VQuakr (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Im well aware of that - I just wanted to be able to work on it without losing info. I rewrote it. Its finished now if you want to add /change/discuss please do. Panderoona (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, but ...
You wrote, welcoming me (thanks), "one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media."

I'm not aware that any of my few edits to articles, which have only been to Energy Catalyzer, violate this policy in any way, everything was sourced, and I only restored reliably sourced material that had been removed, to my knowledge. Could you point to what you are seeing? --EnergyNeutral (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Given your lack of response, shall I assume that it was simply an error? Thanks. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took me a while to get back to you. Again, welcome! The specific edit that led me to give you a greeting that included reference to the NPOV policy was this one. Extraordinary claims should be support by strong evidence, particularly since at least one other editor had expressed concern about this section. The one source supporting this section was more or less reporting news, and this section did not, in my opinion, adequate reflect that. Also note that there are, globally, many things reported in reliable sources that, for various reasons, still do not need to be included in a Wikipedia article (ie - consensus on what content should be included for editorial reasons, established on the talk page, is also important). Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are making a complex judgment here. I was simply reverting another editor who had removed standing text, with this edit summary: (→18 hour test: removed this section -- it is sourced to an online newspapery source, this test was explicitly NOT peer reviewed.) My edit summary was (Undid revision 429963649 by Moishe Rosenbaum (talk)Peer-reviewed source not required, Ny Teknik is reliable source for news.) There is no "science" in this section, only a news report, including the attributed opinion of a physicist. So removal of text on the basis of lack of peer review was improper. (And "newspapery source" was not accurate, this is a technology magazine, with highly knowledgeable reporters -- and skeptical, overall, to boot!) With media sources, we rely on editorial review. There were indeed problems with that section, and I went on to edit it extensively, after it was restored by another editor. See if you like it better now, but do first read the section before it, which I also just revised to balance and clarify, which establishes the context for the February test. That prior section had a lot of interesting material that wasn't reliably sourced, which I removed. Thanks for working to maintain Wikipedia neutrality. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please bear in mind that the "welcome, here is the policy on NPOV" is very mild way of letting a new editor know about a policy. I did not know if you were aware the policy even existed; I think it is safe to say that you are now aware of it. Happy editing, and let me know if you have any questions! VQuakr (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, appreciated, thanks. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page
I realised that, I will fix it, but what criterion is it under? --Sonez1113 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, it is web content right? --Sonez1113 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably best to slow down, for example there was no need to contest the PROD when you nominated the articles for speedy deletion. G3 as a hoax is an option since I do not believe Hollyoaks is an animated series by Seth MacFarlane, but I am not sure if that was just the user copying the template from Family Guy that planned to change it so it might not be unambiguous. I am not familiar enough with the show to verify if these are actual characters from the show; if they are then these likely do not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Hollyoaks is a real TV show, so again if these characters actually are not the show then not a db-web. VQuakr (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I apologise, but other editors (i dont remember who) said the show was on youtube, thereby making it web content, I will check the truth of that.

Nope, real show, I will fix that by changing the deletions I made to proposed.
 * Real show, fake characters I believe. G3 would be the best speedy deletion criterion here. VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, It is the past now because they were deleted under G3 already, thanks for your help though, can I ask for advice here later? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonez1113 (talk • contribs)
 * Of course. VQuakr (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Sonez1113 (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Question
How do I automatically archive a talk page? I'm not entirely sure. --Sonez1113 (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are pretty good instructions here. Let me know if anything is unclear. VQuakr (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks.--Sonez1113 (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice
I've resisted the 1987 Mecca page for a move. Since you participated in the last discussion, I'm hereby notifying you of the new discussion at Talk:1987_Mecca_riot. Kurdo777 (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear profileration in pakistan
I can't see that as a copyvio of the link you've given. It looks like a copyvio of something, but I can't find it. Could you check that link again? The article might be better prodded as an essay. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the follow up! Yes, I will have another look. VQuakr (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Claim
Your warning for Advertising. If you are going to accuse me of advertising, please let me know what advertising you believe I am doing. I have spent most of my day researching, editing and adding content to make this reference material more accurate and thorough. So please, tell me what advertisements I have been doing.

Please note, this is not an attempt at being confrontational, but rather a request of further information of an accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKnight2B (talk • contribs) 19:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome! You might not have been aware that there are rules here against using the encyclopedia for advertising; please read WP:ADVERT and WP:COI. Several of your edits (ie, ) violate these guidelines. Feel free to let me know if you have questions, but please do consider editing topics in which you have no personal interest instead. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

reply could you please tell me which of these violate the policy, as I had read through it after your first comment. There is nothing on those articles which is not factual and taken from other sources, primarily governmental sources. Could you please specifically tell me what I had placed which was an advertisement, and therefore in violation so as we can ensure nothing like this ever happens again.

thank you AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Both the edits I linked in my last post constitute advertising. "Factual" does not mean that it warrants inclusion. Again, avoiding articles with which you have a conflict of interest would be a great way to avoid issues. VQuakr (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

reply could you please inform me of the conflict of interest? If you were to read what I had posted on your request to delete, you will see that I merely added the information, as I could not find anything on companies that I was researching. I have copied and pasted my comments below:

Undisputable Facts

 * As per your note about Knight Communications being deleted as spam. This was simply because I had not formatted the references properly and therefore did not show correctly in the article.  By the time I had seen the notification, the article had already been deleted.


 * As for the statement of no notable sources, nor reliable sources, the Government of England and Whales, as wells the The British Parliament, as well as two different states within the United States Governement have all been cited.


 * The reason why I placed this here to begin with, was due to a hearing which was held in the House of Lords, where Knight Communications was asked to testify. I was present at this hearing and tried to research the companies on Wikipedia and could not find any mention of them.  I then decided to join Wikipedia to add these companies to the Encyclopedia.


 * I have requested a copy of the article written by the Parliamentary Press on this hearing, but have not yet been given this document. Once I do, it will be cited. AKnight2B (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC).

WARNING
As per Wikipedia's terms and conditions, I am giving you a warning due to you blatant Vandalism against the Wikipedia site. You have intentionally targeted my posts with the direct purpose of vandalising the website by removing, editing, or undoing proper and legitimate posts and articles. I have been advised to give you a formal written warning prior launching the formal complaint.

Please do not persist in removing legitimate content for your own personal motivation.

This is a system which was created to be a full and complete living research tool for the public, by the public. Please cease and desist in your actions immediately.

Thank you AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Please review WP:VANDALISM, which defines vandalism as "addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." I assure you that none of my edits have been a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of Wikipedia. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Romeo
I noticed you deleted this while I was in the middle of creating it. Does the listing of it on the List of notable songs not make it notable? Gnu andrew (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is established by significant coverage third party sources, not by Wikipedia lists. Per WP:NSONG: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." If there are reliable sources written about this song that show that it meets the guideline, please feel free to undo my redirect and add them. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read that and agree that it may not be worth adding if it's not going to be expanded beyond on a stub. It just seems confusing to have such articles in a list called 'notable songs'. Gnu andrew (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose ubiquitous consistency and agreement is not a trademark characteristic of a massively collaborative project. But I agree, having a page where anyone can list a song as notable is pretty confusing. Requested articles seems like a more logical place to organize a list of most wanted song articles. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion: Utility Player
I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Utility Player, as it fails one of the primary criteria for A10, specifically that the title is a plausible redirect to the page it duplicates. I have redirected the page to Utility player accordingly. Cheers! &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. I frequently see redirects due to this kind of capitalization deleted per criterion R3 so thought it was not a useful redirect; now I know. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

PlanningForce considered for deletion
I'm working on the page to make it fit Wikipedia's guidelines. I will make by my best for references and notability. Regarding "close connection", what should I do? I'm not here to make advertising, just want to objectively complete the information provided by adding PlanningForce to the list - any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millinet (talk • contribs)
 * Please carefully read WP:COI. It is very difficult to write neutrally about a topic with which you have a close connection. Please also understand that you cannot make a non-notable subject notable; either reliable secondary sources exist, or they do not. I suggest avoid adding your company or product to any lists until the issue with the notability of the main article has been resolved. While that discussion is ongoing, have you considered editing Wikipedia in areas with which you do not have a COI? VQuakr (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I contribute in french ^^ http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/Millinet - PlanningForce has been accepted ;). Regarding non-notable subject, Pmworldtoday talked about us - it-administrator.de, the Wisconsin university (.edu) also talks about us, I can add these links rather that the others, maybe it's more relevant/objective.
 * Not so much "accepted" as "not yet deleted," but of course the different language encyclopedias have different criteria for inclusion, as well. If there are better sources out there feel free to add them to the article and I will have a look, though. VQuakr (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just added some more sources - more relevant I guess? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millinet (talk • contribs) 08:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, in my opinion none of the links at the bottom of the page contain significant coverage in reliable sources, as defined in the notability guideline. Forums and summaries that appear to have been submitted by the software company are not reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

SockPuppetry Case
Hello, My name is Albert, I am new to this whole Wikipedia thing. I notice a message connecting me to some sort of SockPuppetry? I do not know what this is referring to. I create my account and look to further my interest in history and I go find notice. Anyway what is it you want to know for me to prove my credibility? Please, explain. Thank you, Albert Arbertie55 (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Albert! I included you in the sockpuppetry investigation primarily because of your editing history - your account, along with two other accounts, edited at Articles for deletion/Lucifer Valentine. Per WP:SOCK, editors are not allowed to use multiple accounts to attempt to influence the results of a deletion discussion. All three accounts were created within hours of each other, and all three edited at the AfD within their first few edits. It is very unusual for new editors to contribute in this way unless they are somehow related; I started the sockpuppetry investigation to draw attention and request further investigation. If you are not the same person as holder of the other two accounts or have any insight as to why all three accounts might have chosen this particular article to edit first and within such a short time frame, please say so here or at Sockpuppet investigations/Rmartino873. Feel free to contact me again if you have any questions. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Piggyback
Fair enough, I'll restore  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  09:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm aware that I tend towards the deletionist end of the spectrum, so I try to be positive in terms of feedback (or restoration if I've been too trigger happy).  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Very much likewise. Balancing being open to newcomers with vetting new pages is possibly the biggest challenge of NPP. VQuakr (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Youtab (electronics)
Since you put a PROD on Youtab (electronics), you may be interested to know that it is now at AfD: see Articles for deletion/Youtab (electronics). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! VQuakr (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Improvisation
i disagree with your deletion of the section I added re "improvisation in the Classroom." if you want to delete the reference to the Canadian Improv Games because of my affiliation with it, so be the case. But I am not affiliated with any of the other referenced programs. More importantly, improvisation is practiced in the classroom more than all of it's other uses combined. I am an expert in this field; you are not. Your deletion of my entry leaves a gaping whole in the subject matter of this article. My contribution adds to the thoroughness of the article; your deletion detracts from the article. Your use of Wikipedia politics does not change these facts. Once again, I would ask that you restore my section with a deletion of the reference to the Canadian Improv Games. I can have a neutral person restore that reference, which will nit to difficult given that the Canadian Imorov Games are the biggest improvisational program in the world measured by involvement and the number public performances it produces every year.

Jwyllie (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I replied on your talk page. I would prefer to keep the conversation there if you do not mind; otherwise feel free to contact me with any concerns. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how to use all of the features of Wikipedia. More importantly, I don't understand why you would remove the page as I amended it to meet your concern that it referenced a program with which I am involved. The entry I made would not be controversial to anyone who knows anything about improvisational theatre. I included sample references, and could have included dozens or hundreds more. If one is to assert "vandalism" on Wikipedia, I would think that should refer to someone who us not an expert in the subject matter editing the good faith insertions made by someone who is an expert in the field. I get the distinct impression that expertise is not something that you respect or encourage, notwithstanding your own impressive credentials. The upshot of this will be that the page suffers, an expert decides it is not worth his time to try to lend his expertise to the project. I feel vandalized by this whole process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwyllie (talk • contribs) 02:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can be a confusing place, and I hope that that will not discourage you from editing here. I have tried to be specific as to what I saw as issues with your contribution to that page, and I certainly do not consider any of your contributions thus far to be vandalism. I do respect academic credentials, though it is important to note that WP:OWN is a pretty important tenet to this project and your edits do not carry more weight than mine within your field of expertise (just as mine carry no extra weight in an engineering-related article). VQuakr (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say this baffles me. I would never go onto an article about science or engineering and edit content placed there by scientists or engineers.  My uneducated opinion should not be equal to the opinion of an expert.  That leads to content that meets the lowest common denominator.  Every other significant encyclopedia in the world is written and vetted by experts.  It's sad to know that an uninformed person carries the same weight as an expert.  Unless and that changes, everyone is going to keep on saying, "you can't trust what you read in Wikipedia".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwyllie (talk • contribs) 03:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I addressed this in a little more detail in my reply on your talk page. In practice, the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" compares reasonably well with a traditional encyclopedia, albeit with several high-profile failures. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * VQuakr, thank you for directing me and others to the useful summary of some Wiki procedures on the discussion page of CharlieGrammar Jwyllie (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. If you find it convenient, you can add the same menu on your talk page by starting a new section and typing (including the brackets). VQuakr (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your concern
I actually never included you in the remarks about rude editors. "I'm sorry" if I did not make that clear and you felt that i did. You were actually the only one that was civil and wanted to discuss topics and actually seemed to want to include me in the decision making. Your reverting me tonight over my revert of Luisarfs bringing out some of the archive, is rather surprising... This guy is not an editor and doesn't deserve the title. He has only been obsessed with this one article for many months but not contributing just deleting and making accusations on the talk page. He has not had any other contributions since March 2011. You know and I know he would be considered a vandal elsewhere but you guys have indeed treated me as the vandal instead. And I do include you in this, as you are the one who reverted my backing up the archiving that you said you set up when I reverted his edit. I didn't even read it - just noticed it was from the archive. I think that you should reverse your decision there under the circumstances. Agadant (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC) There you go - excluding you Agadant (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * as you are the one who reverted my backing up the archiving that you said you set up when I reverted his edit. Sorry, I do not understand. Can you rephrase? The revert I did on the talk page earlier (restoring a comment by Luísarfs) was clearly correct as it was not a large scale copy of material back from the archive but meant to specifically address your concerns that the 3O was not being adequately heeded. VQuakr (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Operator of proper-time-derivative for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Operator of proper-time-derivative 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/Operator of proper-time-derivative 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. Izno (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. VQuakr (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? Can you explain about "unsourced content" and where it is? Fedosin (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The page needs independent sources for verification. VQuakr (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from Einstein85
Hello! Hope you are well. I just wanted to stop by and say Hi because you live not far from where I live! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einstein85 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings! VQuakr (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about deletion proposal
Hello, I've found that you've proposed the deletion of an article I've created "TechyV". Reason is a non-notable site. I added some external ressources. WOuld you please recheck the article ?

Thanks. Boucetta (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings! Unfortunately, I do not see any indication that this website meets the requirements outlined at WP:WEB. The references in the article are trivial listings in web databases; these do not help show that the subject of the article is notable. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I understand that if I manage to find at least one reliable reference, my article won't be deleted. Is that correct ? Boucetta (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ultimately that will be determined by consensus at the deletion discussion page. The notability guideline states sources (plural); in practice it really depends on how much depth of coverage exists in that first source. VQuakr (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Speed of Light in Vacuum
Not wanting to resort to tit-for-tat edit warring, at the Mass–energy equivalence article, over which is the correct terminology – "speed of light in a vacuum" or "speed of light in vacuum" – I'll instead refer you to these two websites: Speed of Light in Vacuum; Is The Speed of Light Constant?. — IVAN3MAN (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But of course there are multiple academic sources that use "in a vacuum," as well. In fact, the ucr.edu site you mention says it both ways. I suggest that if you still disagree, then per WP:BRD you start a discussion on the article talk page and let a consensus emerge. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. I've decided that it's just a style thing, so it's not important to pursue; I think (and I'm sure you'll agree) that it's more important to pursue the vandals who have nothing better to do than to vandalize pages on Wikipedia! — IVAN3MAN (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination at MFS 2000 Inc
Why would you put a speedy deletion tag on a page that I created only FIVE MINUTES before??? This is the first page I have created and I just started it! Your thoughtless action feels like a slap in the face. It happens that I've been around Wikipedia awhile, but had I been new to it, there's a very good chance that your rash and thoughtless conduct would have dissuaded me from further participation. You may call what you do quality control, but I call it a petty power trip. Why don't you create instead of destroying?

Look (for the first time?) at my first few sentences. How is a 59 year manufacturer of military and civilian ammunition not noteworthy in the context of firearms? Why don't you go post a speedy deletion notice on Prvi Partizan or Lapua? They are in the same situation - smaller European manufacturers that have begun selling increasingly to European and North American markets. (As a matter of fact, why not just go clean out Category:Ammunition manufacturers?)

Incidentally, I have no affiliation whatsoever with this company; I have never even purchased one of its products. I was simply searching for information on them, saw a complete lack on Wikipedia, and decided to begin to remedy this so that others would find at least something on the subject in a Wikipedia search. [Note here the difference between bold, constructive action and your own rash, destructive action!]

In future, I would suggest for you more a moderate and balanced approach, perhaps some friendly and helpful advice instead of a knee-jerk delete tag.

Heavenlyblue (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings! I see an admin agreed with you that there was an adequate claim of notability already in the article and declined the speedy deletion. I understand you are upset; please review WP:CIVIL for some suggestions on how to communicate your concerns in a more productive way. I never suggested that you had any connection to the company or otherwise questioned your good faith in creating the article.
 * When I reviewed the new page, I did not view anything in the article as a credible claim of significance as defined at WP:CSD, which is a reason for speedy deletion. If you need to save the article in the first few sentences, please consider using a Help:Userspace draft, developing an article in your user space until it is ready to be an article. This article is still very borderline as far as notability; you may want to review the criteria for inclusion or use articles for creation if you are unsure about whether a subject meets the criteria for inclusion. VQuakr (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If I can jump in here: I am the admin who denied the speedy. VQuakr and I, apparently, draw the line a bit differently, and that's fine. I certainly wouldn't hold this nomination against them. Heavenlyblue, you, however, have no reason whatsoever to start bitching here on this talk page and the article's talk page. VQuakr, you'll see I left a similar message on their own talk page; I'm here to support you and your response and to make it unequivocally clear to Heavenlyblue that such insults and lack of good faith will not be tolerated. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologise if my tone was a bit aggrieved, but I strongly resent the accusation of lack of good faith! This was an honest, if vigorous, protest against what I - and many others - see as an unjustified, arbitrary and heavy-handed approach that in the long run hurts Wikipedia by punishing, rather than supporting, new writers.  As far as I can see, there is nothing in particular wrong with the form, format, tone, or content of the article (considering that it is as yet a stub).  The only real question is notability, and that could not possibly be established five minutes and two sentences in.  VQuakr, I will take your advice and develop future articles in my userspace first, but remember that this was intended only as a relatively quick remediation of a noticeable gap.  Next time I will be far warier of trying to improve Wikipedia with new articles!


 * Incidentally, Drmies: "bitching" "make it unequivocally clear... that such insults and lack of good faith will not be tolerated".... Where I come from that counts as an insult, an accusation and a threat.       Heavenlyblue (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please point out where I accused you of lacking good faith. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that was unclear VQuakr; that was not referring to you.   Heavenlyblue (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Your nomination for deletion of Hungry For Music
At your convenience, please refer to: Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_September_1/Hungry for Music regarding the nomination. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a look; the NPR article probably will be adequate to drive the discussion to a No consensus despite blog posts online about the personal connections used to get the article written. The whole thing seems too circumstantial to merit discussion in AfD, but the single article is not enough for me to feel driven to withdraw my nomination either. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Your nomination for deletion of The Full Armor of God Broadcast
Opps, wasn't trying to post a new article. Was re-writing the formerly deleted article for possible future submission. No affiliation, but that I am a fan. My mistake, a little rusty on Wiki. Thank you for doing your job well. Blessings. Armorbearer777 (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No contest. I have deleted article and moved it to my sandbox. Any suggestions on how to re-submit the article? Thanks Armorbearer777 (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

At your convenience please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Armorbearer777/Full_armor_of_god_broadcast.

Sorry again for the mistake and any inconvenience caused by it. Blessings! Armorbearer777 (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest sending it to Articles for Creation and being straightforward about the AfD history on the submission's talk page. Before you do that, to have any chance of acceptance the article needs content based on secondary sources. As it exists now, it is just a list of radio stations and music groups with no real content. VQuakr (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Will do, thanks! The real trick is going to be the interpretation of digital audio or "electronic" self published sources as it applies to this radio programs credibility. We are not dealing with printed publication sources but with produced audio sources. There are many digital audio reliable sources availible to verify the programs credibility, but in past deletion discussions it always seemed to come down to subjective interpretation of wiki policy on reliable sources and  self published sources. It seeems to me that according to wiki policy, this radio program can be adiquately sourced with "electronic"  self published sources and/or reliable sources. I may be wrong. However, I will keep digging and do as you have advised. TY! Armorbearer777 (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, an article cannot be based on self-published sources, audio or otherwise. Sources to determine notability need to be independent of the subject. VQuakr (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Regards, hope to see you around! VQuakr (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

SeaTwirl
Hi, My first article "SeaTwirl" on Wiki is proposed to be deleted by you for "General notability". Could you take some time to point me in the right direction to correct this? Is it "Significant coverage", "Reliable", "Sources", "Independent of the subject" or "Presumed"? JHansson (talk) 09:05, 06 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For a subject to be included here, it needs to be notable. This means it needs to have been written about by sources independent of the subject. Do not worry too much about the "presumed" part, but the first four are all related to one another. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Warm Cookie Welcome
Thank you for the warm cookie welcome (belated or otherwise). Thank you also for the helpful links... hope to see you around. Ijil RHG (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ditto on the tips & welcome. --CharlieGrammar (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And ditto from me! Sfiteditor (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy to help you both, let me know if you have any questions. VQuakr (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

relisting
Just so you know, there is no need to wait for an admin to relist if an article has been accidentally dropped from the logs, just go ahead and do it with an explanatory note. Thanks for noticing and doing something to help :-)Spartaz Humbug! 13:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finishing with the relist; I figured something else was needed. VQuakr (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Warning: Edit warring on Slovene dialects
Please review the edit history of the article and its talk page. I have refrained from reverting the changes to the article since 8 September and have sought consensus on the talk page with other editors. Doremo (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the template was based on your edits up to the 8th. Based on the editing history from last week I thought both of you could use the reminder; this is a tough one because of the highly specialized nature of the topic. Did you get any response from uninvolved editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Slovenia? VQuakr (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. (The topic is not really as specialized as it seems.) The user TechnoSymbiosis offered constructive commentary after my request for a third opinion. The uninvolved editor Yerpo ‎has also contributed positively to the discussion after my request for additional input at WT:SLO. I've been the only party to the dispute to seek a 3rd opinion or commentary from WikiProject Slovenia. So far, the contributions from TechnoSymbiosis and Yerpo have supported balanced (non-POV) treatment of the dialects and restoration of the deleted reliable sources. Doremo (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Heat
Re your latest addition, it might be useful to indicate who you were responding to. From what you've written, it's clear your edit is a response to ; but unless this is indicated, somebody might initially assume from how it's placed that you were responding to me. You could remove any confusion by adding a "Damorbel," to the start of your comment. Cheers, Jheald (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Great point! It looks like someone refactored the comment to make my intention more clear, so I am leaving it as-is but feel free to bring it up again if it still looks confusing. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem
This article is incredibly long. I removed the texts form the old page and I cut it out the unimportant ones into a new page. I am going to separate the pages by year and I will make it much simple. Such as make a new page as "2008 terrorist incidents in Pakistan" that makes me simple. That will make me really easy for me and because of the article is too long but, Thank You. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Breaking a very long list of events out into individual articles by year is fine; you just need to include an edit summary in the new article that says where you got the content. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you but the TW notice says "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject. (May 2011)", so I'm trying my best to fix it but thank you! Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, splitting the article is a great idea. Just be sure to follow the instructions at Copying within Wikipedia so that the history is clear. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Like, just you write the edit summary about why you are coping this from WIkipedia. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And more importantly, where you got it. You can see an example in my edit summary here. VQuakr (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Pledis Entertainment
Hi VQuakr, I declined your speedy nomination of Pledis Entertainment. Their signing of notable artists is an assertion of notability, even if the artists' names were initially misspelled and unlinked. Please note that English is probably not the author's first language. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch, sorry and thanks for the heads up. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for on-line ambassador
Hey VQuakr, I know it's not part of your usual work on Wikipedia, but I was wondering if you would be interested in being an on-line ambassador in my Comp I classes at Georgia Southern University. I have approximately 42 students who are actively writing on Wikipedia. I'll totally understand if you say no, but you've been so helpful in the past that I thought I would ask.Georgiasouthernlynn (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, cancel that request for an ambassador. I've just had somebody on campus volunteer for the job.Georgiasouthernlynn (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Suckers (band)
Me again! This article shouldn't have been deleted as a test page. Please see User talk:RHaworth. Melchoir (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ...Oh wait! Ha, wrong person. Never mind, I'll go knock on Prioryman's door. Melchoir (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nguyễn Xuân Minh (Wikipedian)

 * You have my re:talk at my talk page.Trongphu (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also give you the explainable on Articles for deletion/Nguyễn Xuân Minh (Wikipedian) about your idea of merging. Hope you are reasonable enough to discuss with. Not mean to offend so don't think about that i'm trying to offend you.Trongphu (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will have a look, thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I left a re talk on my talk page.Trongphu (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And continue to debate with me in Minh AfD page if you would like to until we can reach some kind of agreement.Trongphu (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling
Thank you for patrolling  new pages. I'm just  letting  you  know that  I  have deleted Garibala Tobacco which contained only  the two words Garibala Tobacco, as CSD A1 (no  context) and not  G11 (unabiguous advetising). please see WP:NPP for details and descriptions of CSD criteria. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the author may have changed the content after I posted the template; I distinctly remember the word "we" in the article when I nominated it for deletion. Thanks for the reminder! VQuakr (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you were right, I've just  checked the earlier edits :) "Our function is to provide a link between manufacturers and retailers in the Duty Free sector and already for years and very successfully in essential Far East and Middle East domestic markets." Keep  up  the good work.! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Our, we... meh, I was close. :) VQuakr (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Youn Wha Ryu martial arts
I've declined the speedy G4 on the article. There was no previous AfD on that exact title or any that I could intuitively think about. Feel free to re-tag, but please add a parameter to the db- tag to link to the previous deletion discussion, like this:  Alternatively, you may want to start a new AfD. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I had posted a link to the AfD page on the talk page. VQuakr (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Wu
Hello there. I just created a page for Sarah Wu and I know it's rough. I really need help with the formatting and citing sources. If you could offer me your knowledge, I'd greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkit585 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I seem to have overlooked your post, hence my delayed response. Welcome! I see you have added more content at the article in question, and the citations look better as well. Great job, and please let me know if you have any additional questions (I will try to notice them sooner next time). VQuakr (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for submitting an article to Wikipedia. Your draft submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Articles for creation/The American Psychological Association's Stance on Repressed Memories. If there is no response within seven days, the request may be declined. If this happens, please feel free to continue to work on the article. You can resubmit it (by adding the text   to the top of the article) when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you.  Chzz  ► 05:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will copy this over to the article creator's talk page. VQuakr (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Mellanox Technologies
See also Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion

I saw you are still very actively involved in article removals so thought I would visit here again to ask you some questions. I hope it is OK? The following speedy deletion really took me by surprise. Mellanox Technologies is a public company listed on NASDAQ. I don't know where to start to look for guidelines regarding the speedy deletion of companies. Can you help? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are welcome to ask questions here. The speedy deletion reason here was A7, for limited subjects (including companies) that have no credible claims of significance in the article. One could probably make the case that being listed on a major public exchange is a credible claim of significance; if you think that is the case then you would want to take bring it up with the deleting admin.
 * Looking at the Google cache of the page, deletion under this criterion was probably a misclick, as the page was nominated for speedy deletion per G11 (advertising). This fits better to me, since the page had only a single reference (a press release), and is written in a promotional tone.
 * Either way, there is nothing wrong with simply restarting an article at that location provided the subject meets the criteria for inclusion at WP:CORP. VQuakr (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like it has been restored for an AfD discussion. VQuakr (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mellanox was restored and then removed again, and then someone else re-wrote the whole article, and then again someone tried to speedily remove it, and... as it stood until a couple of seconds ago the article still exists. I wish the rules at Wikipedia were clearer, so people would not waste precious time doing and re-doing the same thing over and over. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, this was a fairly unusual sequence of events. The article was speedily deleted, then restored for an AfD discussion, which was in turn closed early since that entire version of the article was a copyright violation. After a new, quality article was written, another editor noticed that it had recently been deleted at AfD and asked that it be deleted because of the AfD, which was correctly declined since the new version of the article addressed the reasons for the prior deletion. Each step was performed within the established practices here, but summed together they make for a confusing sequence of events. I can think of a few takeaways from the whole thing:
 * If an article has been deleted in the past for "fixable" problems like spam or copyright violations, consider submitting to Articles for Creation to gain some peer review prior to initial creation. VQuakr (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I must say the "copyright violation" bit took me by surprise - I was not even aware this was the reason for the removal of this article. Must go back and try to check what history is left to verify that this was the reason for the removal? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In this edit, I mention that the article appears to meet the criteria two speedy deletions: G11 and G12. G11 is spam, G12 is copyright violation. The content of the article was copied and pasted from a press release.
 * Newpage patrollers should verify if an article addresses the reasons for its previous deletion prior to nominating for a G4 speedy deletion.
 * A new article should meet the criteria for inclusion from the first edit. If it does not, save it to user space until it is ready to go "live."
 * The existing practices for determining what content should be deleted are not set in stone; they have been developed over the years by the community in general and can (in theory at least) be changed. If you could change three specific things about the existing system, what would they be? VQuakr (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I can answer this question intelligently because I still I have not mastered all the possible ways articles are removed, but let me give it a stab: (I have other ideas which may or may not have merit). Ottawahitech (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ALWAYS notify the wikipedian who initiated the article, and others who have contributed to the article of a proposed deletion. Then give them enough time to respond.
 * Make it a requirement that those who propose articles for deletion, and especially those who make deletion decisions, are Wikipedians who themselves have started new artciles
 * Don't wipe out the history of articles that have been deleted.
 * I would suggest that any idea has merit as it can be used to encourage discussion. The four processes by which an article could be deleted are as follows:
 * Speedy deletion (frequently referred to by a symbol such as G12): Articles that appear to unequivocally fail the criteria for inclusion can be nominated for speedy deletion, or deleted by a patrolling admin instantaneously. Common reasons for speedy deletion include: housekeeping, articles without content, articles containing only gibberish, articles without enough context to identify the subject, certain types of articles with no credible claim of significance, vandalism, attack pages, advertising, and copyright violations. Applies to any article that meets the narrow criteria defined at WP:SPEEDY. The process can be stopped by contesting the speedy, by anyone except the article creator.
 * PROD (proposed deletion): A lightweight deletion process meant to reduce the load on AfD for deletions that are likely to be unopposed. The article may be deleted 7 days after nomination, and the process may be stopped by anyone including the article creator. Can apply to any article that has not been nominated for PROD or AfD before.
 * BLP PROD: All new articles about living people need to have at least one independent source. The deletion proposal remains in place for 10 days, after which the article is deleted if still unreferenced. Applies only to biographies of living people. The process can be stopped by adding an independent source about the subject and removing the nomination.
 * Deletion Discussions (also called AfD or Articles for Deletion): The "heavyweight" deletion process for discussions that are likely to be contentious and require higher visibility and discussion from the community. Discussions normally last for at least a week (though they can be closed early as either keep or delete in a variety of special cases). Can apply to any article. The determination on whether to delete is based on a review of the consensus formed during the discussion, by an uninvolved editor (usually an admin).
 * As for the ideas you have suggested so far, I agree that notification should be practiced more uniformly. I think where it gets missed is in cases when an admin speedy deletes an article instantaneously. I would support addition of a recommendation at WP:SPEEDY that if an admin deletes an article, they should still send an FYI to the article creator with an explanation of their reasoning. Please let me know if you want to propose this idea. I would want to discuss the second suggestion in more detail, because in practice admins have all created content; and by definition anyone who has nominated a page for deletion is a Wikipedian. The history of deleted articles is preserved, but is only visible to administrators. Deleted versions can be restored to a user subpage by requesting at WP:REFUND; requests for userfication are generally granted unless there is a good reason not to do so. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The lack notification is one the worst problems at Wikipedia in regards to deletions IMO. I have had several, if not many articles I started disappear and only found out they were missing long after they were gone. I am sure this happens to many wikipedians. A recent  incident I came across is this: Articles for deletion/Celia Ross Ottawahitech (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, notifying an article creator that you have started a deletion discussion is good practice. If the nominator chooses not to notify you, monitoring your watchlist is probably the best way to tell if an article you created is up for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me that notifying the article creator is not something that is supposed to always happen. I did not know that, and finally after looking for sometime finally located it, but only in Speedy Deletions. If you are interested you can follow the discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
 * There is similar instruction at Afd. I think it is unlikely that the community would support making author nominations mandatory for the reasons outlined at the discussion linked above, but I think on both the CSD and AfD pages the normal practice of notifying the author unless there is a reason against doing so should be more clearly noted. VQuakr (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Mellanox
Many thanks for moving it to the full name - I tried to do that myself but couldn't - I see now that it was somehow protected (?) and you removed the protection. Jeff Song (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was create-protected after a copyvio version was recreated a few times. Good work on the new article! VQuakr (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The new article has just been nominated for speedy deletion. Your input would be helpful. Jeff Song (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like the CSD was already contested, but thanks for the heads up. VQuakr (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion
I noticed you are behind a very large number of Articles for Deletion, and wonder if you would care to comment on this discussion. Thanks Ottawahitech (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting link, though "a very large number" is probably an exaggeration. It would appear the consensus is that the current system is functioning as intended, albeit with room for improvement (particularly from an approachability standpoint). VQuakr (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did take a few minutes to inspect my own AfD record. It has taken me 15 months to initiate or participate in my last 250 AfD discussions, a count which is generated every 3 days or so by the community in general. Restated, I have been involved in roughly 0.6% of all AfD's since June 2010. Of those 250, I have !voted Delete (often as the nominator) or Speedy Delete 203 times (81.2%). Of those 203 discussions, the community has disagreed and kept or merged the article 6 times (3.0%). If you would like to discuss in more detail my reasons for !voting delete at Articles for deletion/Randall Denley or things that I could do personally to make article writing in general and AfD in particular more approachable, I would be happy to do so here. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time for this discussion.  I also left a message for another Wikipedian in this matter, but so far only you have responded. I must say I am amazed and impressed that you remember me from Articles for deletion/Randall Denley, but in any event this was not the reason I thought you should be aware of the discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion.


 * Even though I have been a registered Wikipedian for several years, I still consider myself to be a Newbie here. I still have not mastered all the policies that make this place run so well. I particularly have difficulty with the jargon other Wikipedians master seemingly with no effort. I am also constantly running into deletions of articles that I start at Wikipedia when I think the topic is deserving.  I have had more articles removed than articles that survived . Unfortunately, some of those articles have been removed without a trace, no one left a message on my talk page – so at least when it came to User_talk:Ottawahitech I was made aware that the article I spent time and effort entering into Wikipedia was being considered for removal. Where as the article I started about Maple Batalia simply disappeared within hours of my contribution. Ottawahitech (talk)
 * One thing you could do is request review before the article is created by posting a draft at WP:AfC. Articles that have been created through this process are, in practice, not usually speedily deleted because the concerns that generally would result in a speedy deletion are corrected earlier. You may not like the wordiness of inclusion guidelines, but the first section of WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN (four short paragraphs) are worth reading. In deletion discussions, arguments framed in the context of policy tend to carry more weight. As for Maple Batalia, you can request a copy be posted to your user space by either asking at User talk:Mattgirling or WP:REFUND. VQuakr (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the practice at Wikipedia has changed and that articles, even ones with notable references can be speedily removed and require the intervention of a admin just to see the material that was removed? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The practice has been, as long as I have been familiar with it, that the an administrator may delete an article that meets the speedy deletion criteria on sight. Looking at User:VQuakr/Maple Batalia, the only claims about the subject are that she had aspirations and is a murder victim. Neither of these claims indicate significance, or more generally give any impression that this article meets WP:BIO or WP:VICTIM. In general, if a person is only written about upon their passing, they are generally not notable. VQuakr (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is obvious you have spent a lot more time studying the minutiae of speedy deletions at Wikipedia than I have. I  prefer to spend my time adding and improving material, and with time being in short supply I cannot do both. The end result is that material that I painstakingly add to Wikipedia is being systematically removed by other Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Having said that I thank you for bringing back to life the article about Maple Batalia, which I understand was removed for:
 * "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)". I am not sure where you come from, but murders in Canada are not common occurances especially not on University campuses, but to be honest I feel a bit awkward discussing this article openly here, while her family is still grieving. I just brought this up as an example of the type of contribution that many Wikipedians make that disappears with no notice and with no trace in the contributors contributions history. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have found something of a niche at new page patrol (NPP) and other technical portions of the encyclopedia. Being successful at NPP requires knowledge of the inclusion criteria. NPP is also an inherently bitey process, and I am 100% open to feedback about how to be better at it. The reason I wanted to follow up with you here is because I hope to help you contribute here with less frustration. My impression is that your frustration stems from creating articles without understanding the criteria for inclusion. Without that understanding, the fate of your contributions must seem arbitrary and unpredictable, but I believe you are mistaken about there being any systematic removal specifically targeting your contributions. You cited Maple Batalia as an example of an article that was deleted without explanation, but after looking at it I agree with the deleting admin that it is a valid A7. Please let me know if you want it to remain in my userspace for a while, otherwise I will request its re-deletion.

At same time, I want to reiterate that your edits are clearly in good faith and the articles you have created about notable topics are excellent examples of quality contributions. Sincerely, thank you! If there is any way I can be of assistance, please let me know. VQuakr (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood what I was saying: did I say that there systematic removal specifically targeting MY contributions? I actually believe there are others here who fare much worse than I do, and that bothers me. It bothers me because those people who lose too much of their contributions  will eventually leave, and Wikipedia will be left with a lot of contributors who only know how to destroy (using all the right rules), but not how to build. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For example I did not write the Mellanox article which we are now discussing below. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope you keep this section alive: I have linked to it from my user page. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this page is communication; old conversations are automatically archived to keep this section brief. I suggest just updating the link on your user page to the same information on the archive page after it is moved. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do - if I remember to keep checking to see if it has been archived, and if I can figure out how to link to it once it is archived. Come to think of it this is something machines do much better than humans, I wonder why it has not been done on Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and I need help already!
Hi VQuakr, Thanks for the greeting on my talk page! Do you mind giving me a little feedback on a new page? I decided to try cleaning up the Teradata page by adding citations and a little more information. Then I decided to add pages for some of the executives in the company (I noticed that other companies have short pages for their executives). The page Darryl D. McDonald got a note that he might not be notable. He has a bio on Forbes, so I thought that would be good evidence. The other citations are related to the company. Do you think I need to add more citations? Thanks! ElaineJS (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings! I think the other users might have a point with respect to the notability of Darryl D. McDonald. For example, the "Forbes profile" looks more like a social networking site. You may want to read WP:BIO for more detail on notability of people, but generally they need to have been written about, in depth, in reliable sources independent of the person. The "History" section on Teradata looks pretty overlong and probably should be pared down. Again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)