User talk:Wperdue/Archive 1

CBA Cable
This article has terrible sources for the same reason that you have never heard of CBA cable before, and wouldn't know that this is the ubiquitous coiled cable found on everything from keychains to telephones to keyboards, without a resource like Wikipedia. I just found this out today while searching for a method of untangling Bell Knots. I discovered the sparse information which I have submitted. This information is not common knowledge, but belongs on Wikipedia because CBA cable is common enough to be worthy of admission to an encyclopedia and unknown enough to need that encyclopedia to be Wikipedia.

I am going to create another article about Bell Knots. Have you honestly ever heard of these? Again a ubiquitous but unmissed phenomenon that affects us every day of our lives.
 * The problem with your assertion is that a subject needs significant coverage BEFORE it can be submitted to Wikipedia. If reliable, third-party sources cannot be found which proves a subject's notability, then it does not belong here. I hope this helps. Wperdue (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue

I dislike Mediawiki's talk interface
But mostly wanted to know why you removed my Mother's Day link. Did you go to the link or just removed it because I wasn't logged in and there was no context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgifford (talk • contribs) 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also find the interface clumsy. I removed the link per the policy on external links specifically reasons #1 and #5. It does not provide any substantially new content and it seems designed to sell a product or service or solicit donations. Clicking on the "give cards" link requires credit card information and a "gift". I hope this explains why it was removed. If you dispute this removal, please read the linked information regarding external links and discuss the matter on the article's talk page to gain a consensus from other editors as to whether or not the link is acceptable for Wikipedia. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Solarmer Energy, Inc
Can you please let me know where there is a bias on the Solarmer Energy, Inc. article because I do not see it. The content on the page is nothing more than facts on the industry and the company. Let me know what parts I need to make neutral and I will. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarmer (talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the advert tag after reading the entry again. I have left the conflict of interest tag as the username of the editor and the name of the entry are the same. Wperdue (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Twinkle
Re this warning you need to check what appears on the screen when you're using Twinkle - what happened here was I moved the page (thus creating a redirect) while you were nominating it for speedy deletion. Result being that you nominated the redirect page for speedy and warned me about it! pablo hablo. 11:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So noted. However, I was nominating it because it has no independent sourcing, questionable notability, and has a mass of unverified "success stories" tacked onto the bottom. Wperdue (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)wperdue
 * I wasn't taking issue with your nominating the article, it's still badly referenced and a mess (I think it has potential to become an article one day, but if you disagree, go ahead and nominate it again). I was just letting you know that your warning was misplaced. pablo hablo. 14:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. I just put a couple of other tags on it so that, hopefully, it will get cleaned up and won't need to be deleted. Wperdue (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)wperdue3

Sorry... we got crossed up. --Rrburke(talk) 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too. I was trying to revert the blanking. Sorry. Wperdue (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)wperdue
 * We were both trying to revert at the same time, but the server lag made me reverts your edit rather than the vandal's. --Rrburke(talk) 21:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It happens. I'm new at this and still trying to get the hang of everything. Thanks for the followup. Wperdue (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Noe Serrano
I undid your revert to this article, as it was done by the original author and it is essentially contesting the PROD (which anyone is entitled to do for any reason, with or without comment). He/she added references and some more information to the article, which I need to look at a bit and decide if it can be salvaged or taken to AfD. I am adding back the problem tags though. Cheers! § FreeRangeFrog 17:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My original intent was to restore the problem tags, but I managed to screw that up in my edit. Wperdue (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue

IRBSearch
Hi, I don't see a deletion discussion for IRBsearch. There isn't any Articles for deletion/IRBsearch. Is there one under another name? —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it was speedily deleted just a short time ago. It was copied from the users page, posted, marked for deletion, and then gone shortly thereafter. I apologize, if I am mistaken. Wperdue (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue
 * It was. But speedy deletion isn't deletion following a deletion debate, which is explained at WP:Articles for deletion. Once an article has been deleted pursuant to an Afd discussion, if it's reposted without changes that substantively address the problems that were laid out in the discussion, no new arguments need to be brought forth to justify summary deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I thought that tag was also for any deleted material that we reposted. I'll just use "blatant advertising" the next time it invariably shows up again. Wperdue (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Intervision Network Corporation
Hi Wperdue. I wrote the Intervision Network Corporation article. Can you provide some direction as to how I can give facts about the company without making it seem like an advertisement? I thought that I went out of my way not to talk about product lines or anything else, even though some of the other competitors in the CDN space do exactly this. Check out some of the others which are much more sales-product-service oriented.

I believe that there is no problem. If you could, please explain what EXACTLY the problem is and be precise. I like to keep tabs on the CDN space and I ran into these guys with a revolutionary cell phone that broadcasts live feeds though a Mobile CDN. I think this is noteworthy. Check out some web chatter about it: Real Time Media Phone.
 * I will happy to try. When creating entries, one thing to remember is that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia so it should be written from a neutral point of view. So called peacock terms should also be avoided. As a specific example, using the terms "premier", "unparalleled", etc. makes the entry read more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic entry. If there are multiple, reliable, third-party sources to backup these adjectives you could write something such as "According to X, Intervision Network Corporation is the greatest thing since sliced bread". Remember that the source can't be something such as the corporation's website, a blog, opinion page, etc. If you would like further information, please see the section of entries written like advertisements. I hope this information was helpful. Wperdue (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Saasonomics AfD
Can you please review Articles_for_deletion/Saasonomics as an editor has added the author's article to the AfD. You should verify that your vote is still applicable to both. -- samj in out 06:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

removal of links
Hi there. your message regarding the meera sanyal page well taken. But the problem is sometimes you have to use common sense as well when the subject one chooses to write about has certain accolades that if mentioned might sound like excessive use of adjectives to promote that person. If one takes the effort of looking through the links I've provided as references, one would see that everything mentioned there is factual and hence deserves to be there. Hope you understand. Cheers Shahid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahidb (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did take the time to look through the links. As a matter of fact, I was the one who originally marked it for speedy deletion as an exact copy of one of said links. However, all entries must be written from a neutral point of view. You can write, for example, that a certain person has said that the subject "is the greatest person in the universe". You cannot write that the person "is the greatest person in the universe". Quoting reliable third party sources is perfectly acceptable, provided that an inline citation is added to backup what you have written. Since you are new to wikipedia, please take the time to read the sections on wp:neutrality, wp:verifiabilty, and neutral point of view. Thank you.

Understood. Thanks for taking the time to explain the logic. Am learning on the fly here and it is a working progress, I have a feeling it will take a few more edits to make it acceptable, but will keep trying. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahidb (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
for defending my talkpage. Soxwon (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I could help. Wperdue (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Gee, I've never vandalized a talk page before...
...I'm not even sure what to do! :) Seriously, thanks for the nice note.  You made my day.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhills,_Ohio#External_links

As far as the editing of the Greenhills Ohio pages goes, the link I submitted is the same category as the Pioneer.com link. We are both community based message boards. Junedale.com is a non-profit site that servers the Greenhills OH community by promoting upcoming events and neighborhood discussions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge97x (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you say used the term "we" to describe the board, you may want to have a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Surgical light
Just a friendly note on Surgical light. I declined the speedy deletion request because it's pretty easy to identify the subject of the article. If you think it's not notable, merging or AfD would be the way to go.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  20:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

School question
Good question. It used to be that even something as nearly useless as that substub was treated as sacrosanct if it was about a school. That seems to have relaxed quite a bit, especially as it applies to anything under the high school level. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

DJ BCA comments
Hello. Thank you for reviewing my page. I had a hard time in the beginning (earlier today) and finally I am getting closer to what seems to be acceptable. Thanks to another admin. who was a huge help! :) I understand what you mean about the peacock comment. However, its just the way the article was written. I am writing about this artist to inform the public of what industry followers have said about his music. Its just informative writing that doesn't mean to boast "the best" in the industry but means to excite the reader and be interested. I had explained this to another administrator that I'm not trying to advertise or provide false information. This is what I have so far on record for this artist, who does seem to have a huge presence in his industry. Its hard to compete with mainstream performers but i was hoping wiki would be a good place to have a bio. As for the references, believe me, I am hoping to see him on tv and in mainstream periodicals but these references are exactly that, references. He is breaking out and the references seem to be directly related to the content. I'm am trying to work with Wiki not against the admins! I just want to have my opinion heard. Music27 (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC) You are welcome, Wperdue

Elektron plc
Hi, I removed your db tag, since the article states that they are listed on the London Stock Exchange, which implies notability.-- Terrillja talk  20:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Jacob Ginsberg Article
I had four sited listed for the article I wrote for Jacob Ginsberg. However, many of my other sources are humans that have either employed Jacob with the Zephyrs, or his co-workers, and therefore do not have websites. How would I cite these people in order to have this article created? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrotal69 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Angelus - Angel Article
im the creator of the Angelus - Angel article and i would just like to say how dare you say i have made up that information that information came from a 65 year old bible and i would never have just put some random thing up there that is real so i demand that you take of the redirection to that other page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac136d (talk • contribs) 06:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

AfterWorld
Wperdue - Looks like it was already speedied, but just to followup on this. I agree that before speedy we should see if anything can be saved. I can't explain why the prior AfD focused more on WP:V than WP:Websites... perhaps the prior article asserted notability but couldn't back it up.

This article, as I read it, and the list of external references did nothing to assert notability. It's been userified now so as you said they can work on it there. Thanks. ((''I wish WP had a count of how many pages we simply patrol but don't tag or delete because I am afraid I might get a rep as a speedy-freak. ''))    JCutter  { talk to me }    23:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
 tempo di valse  [☎]  02:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert.lambton - hoax cholera
Hi Wperdue, re that hoax. user:Robert.lambton's account was older than mine, but looking at the deleted contributions as well as the remaining ones it was a vandalism only account since Dec 06. So I've blocked it.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am happy that user is blocked. It is much easier when they just graffiti a page, but some of his or her edits were harder to pinpoint as vandalism. Thanks. Wperdue (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Re:User talk pages:Robert.lambton
Sorry Wperdue, I did not mean to antagonize him. I guess I just really can't stand vandals at all. I won't do it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWizarrd123 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary. I share your dislike for vandals. Wperdue (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue

April 2009
I noticed the message you recently left to. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Abce2 (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I will let stand edits such as "piepiepiepiepiepiepiepiepiepie" in the future. I'm sure it was a good faith edit. Wperdue (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue