User talk:X1987x/archives/2006

HEY THERE
If you are reading my talk page, leave a post!! Afraid of bloating my talk page? Relax, I'll delete them some day. The talk page is for talking, so please, talk to me! --x1987x 02:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You have unused archives....strange... Eggman64 (talk)

Euclidvision
I can see that you have made many helpful edits. However, I'm not convinced that technology announced only a week ago should have a Wikipedia article. Gazpacho 01:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If a discovery of a new species of animal is announced it is immediately made a wikipedia article. So why not a phenomenal (although unknown) video compression system. I believe it is encyclopedic, who knows - it might be "the next biggest thing." Just because it's new is not a good reason to delete it?! --x1987x(talk) 01:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if it is a lie, it's a really big lie. --x1987x(talk) 01:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This has definatly caused controvercy in the codec forums and video forums. Maybe more sources will arrive shortly. This 640% compression will be tested by other researchers. The article is not too small, it's mostly NPOV, and it has citation. :/ --x1987x(talk) 01:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, people might wonder (as I have) whether a system can really make such a splash in one week of publicity, or you just want to publicize it for your own reasons. I would contrast it with Segway, which made headlines in several major news sources. If you believe the article as it stands is encyclopedic, you can remove the prod tag and I'll sleep on it. Gazpacho 03:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I wanna publicise it so that it becomes standard and saves my bandwidth. Literally. I realize it has one source and the only source is from the makers but I'm sure more reviews and such will start rolling in, this is just a "temporary article" or a "placeholder." We'll all see if the claims are valid or void. Which I'm sure everyone is curious about. --x1987x(talk) 01:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sea World Photo
I have answered your question on my talk page. - Cybjorg 10:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Chumby
The problem isn't that it's a bad article, it's just that it's on a subject that doesn't merit inclusion here. See WP:N if you'd like to know more about this. Also, please don't let this incident scare you off. I'm sure you have plenty of ideas for articles that would be acceptable and great additions. (|--  UlT i MuS  00:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Chumby AfD

 * No worries :) --D e on555talk Review 01:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia's help channel

[12:19]  is an author allowed to vote on a AfD? [12:19]  certainly. [12:19]  defense is allowed [12:19]  well, not vote discuss [12:19]  :) [12:19]  and encouraged [12:19]  thx
 * I don't see any problems. --D e on555talk Review 02:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose as this week's WP:AID winner
Davodd 17:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Chumby
No, my opinion remains the same. I've already given my opinion based on policy and I don't know what else you expect me to say when you ask me to explain my position. Having a small number of brief articles containing product information does not meet notability or justify its inclusion in an encyclopedia. The product/company website is irrelevant. It is not a reliable source. Please read reliable source and verifiability guidelines. For me to change my opinion, one of the two criteria clearly set down under CORP:products and services has to be met. So far neither have been met. Also, I do not consider it appropriate to spam people who said delete, asking them to change to keep. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats fine. How does "spam" count as sending 3 requestss. I thank you for not ignoring my request. I am trying to figure out what those who are requesting delete are looking for in the topic, and see perhaps if it was already met. "...Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias." It's a good - but bias source, therefore there are many other independant sources that are in agreement with the company information. --x1987x(talk) 14:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)