User talk:Nelson50/Archive 2

Re: Lean Manufacturing

Hello Nelson,

I notice that you had reverted/rejected my inclusion of Lean IT as an example of a service that employs lean manufacturing principles on grounds that the source is not reliable. I have now revisited this edit and found a stronger reference source i.e. Harvard Business School research. I hope you'll agree that this now meets the required standard. Thank you.

Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitawe (talk • contribs) 2359, 09/05/2009

Great, thanks. You might also want to look at Lean IT. References (13 and 39). 13 is the same CA white paper as above, with the same WP:RS issues while 39 is based purely on a CA promotional press release. Thanks Nelson50^T 16:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: WiFi & Propagation

Hello Nelson,

I see you had an issue with the paragraph about WiFi propagation under the heading 'Reach'. I looked over the deleted text again, and it does mention 'mapping' in a way that is rather off topic. For the rest, however, it does raise some valuable information about the nature of wifi signals; and since there is a long range wifi page but not really a corresponding page on short range wifi, it seems like the best place for the information is here at wifi.

If you would rather a university or research paper be cited as a source for information that is generally known among people in the industry, instead of a private company, perhaps we can find something? It seems appropriate to me as is, but perhaps I'm missing something.

Thanks for keeping up on this article and helping keep spam down.

Cheers!

Zgreycoat (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for registering and engaging here. As you suggest, I think the text has merit. My concern was (and is) the link to Alyrica - see both WP:RS and WP:COI. I suggest you find a reliable third party, published, non commercial source. It would be good if you removed the citation to your own company until you find a new ref, but please keep the text. Fair enough? Thanks Nelson50^T 21:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. Alyrica is (at least over here) a reliable source, since we are one of the leaders in this field. You're right about WP:COI, however. I'll ask around and see if anyone can point to a different source for this information. Zgreycoat (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Ballybunion & Rescue Unit

Hi Nelson,

not sure how user-talk works, so I hope its ok to post here.

I see that the info on the Rescue Unit & Leisure Centre were removed from the Ballybunion page. I understand the point about not posing contact numbers (for rescue) but I would think that the rescue boathouse is Place of Interest. Would it be possible to add the details back (without the phone numbers)? Perhaps under a different heading if its def not a Place of Interest? I think the Rescue unit is a very important part of the town and desirves to be mentioned on the page. Ditto for the Leisure centre (which locals have been trying t get for 20 years).

thanking you.

Luther1968 (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

signed now :-)

Hi Luther, thanks for your suggestions and questions. I have issues with the notability of the item, but to be fair, there are items on town pages that would not be as relevant as the content you posted. Have a look at WP: Notable#Notability_of_article_content and you’ll see what I mean.

Meanwhile, I have written a suggested text on the article’s talk page. This is a “just the facts” approach and avoids making it look like a fan item. Again, I can’t say if the boathouse is a real place of interest but if it really is then the item could be added there with a little re-writing. Take a look and let me know what you think. If it’s OK, go ahead and post it. Cheers Nelson50^T 15:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. A leisure centre is not really notable, nor unfortunately is a 20 year wait for one! ;)

Hi Nelson, yes, I have had a look at the suggested wording, and it looks fine. I will edit the page and put it in (soon). Thanks for the info & help.

20.138.18.50 (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Lean manufacturing

Hi Nelson,

Good to hear from you! Yes i'm still around, but I'm not nearly as active now as I used to be. For the most part I just monitor my shrinking watchlist now. Anyhow, from what I recall (and from the link below), the discussions referenced were a convoluted mix of snippits of conversations with one or more folks who seemed interested in promoting their own website/services. This occurred on the Talk:Lean_manufacturing page. The closest thing to a consensus that I can see is under the "Hi Paul, and Welcome to the Club!" section, in which I suggest pointing to a single dmoz-type directory entry. Of course, my suggestion was to use DMOZ itself. Apparently though my suggestion was construed as a blessing for one fellow to create a link page on his own site. The link itself isn't the worst I've seen, but it's still not ideal (and I think you could make a case that it should be removed and only replaced with a DMOZ or Y! link, if it exists). Also, he's overly promoting it, as you've pointed out in the links you provided.
My recommendation, if you're going to pursue the link's removal, is to stick to the fundamental guidelines (WP:EL), especially "Advertising and conflicts of interest". An alternative may be to leave the link in place (for now), but remove the promo cruft that's currently found in the hidden comments and such. WP readers don't need to know how to go about adding links to his link page, he can easily place a simple header at the top of that page to inform readers of such. Of course, the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam can always help offer further input too (I don't recall offhand if you're a member).

Best of luck, and have a great 2009! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL link removal

What's the specific reason for the recent spate of scientificamericanpast.com extlink removals? Scientific American seems WP:RS and the ones I noticed all point to SA articles on the topic, so they are appropriate references for the articles. If the problem is just the sap.com site, then why not just delink? Again, the ones I first noticed include biblio info to the level of various {{cite}} styles. DMacks (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I don't see how removal of these links are justified by WP:EL. older ≠ wiser 13:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by. I agree that SA is a reliable source, but these links are to a separate, private website. I had noticed these links before but did nothing until I saw the conversation at this talk page where two other editors reached a similar view to me, namely, that as images only, the articles cannot be accessed. Also, they are links added to the editor's own website (contributions), which raises WP:COI issues. I know some of them were included as references, but as the article cannot be accessed, it means the source of the reference cannot be verified, although, the suggestion to just de-link is probably a better course if the original SA reference data is available. Obviously, I'll hold off any more removals until we get some level of consensus. What do you think? Thanks Nelson50^T 14:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The three I tried, the ones removed from Beach Pneumatic Transit, Grand Central Terminal, and New York City Subway all resolved fine and point to content that looks consistent with how the links are given. But looking closer, they would indeed need to be flagged as "archive, fee required" or somesuch if the link is to remain linked, to clarify that this is not the original SA site, etc. The articles are "old" so I don't think there is a "linking to copyvio" problem. But the article can be verified to exist and be on-topic just by seeing the free first-page in the link, and the whole thing by forking over a couple of bucks to this archiver. DMacks (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading more the discussion, they do seem problematic, but the presence of actual biblio in every case I spot-checked makes me lean "keep with perhaps removal or annotation of link" rather than "delete RS cite". Link-adder seems good faith regarding the SA articles themselves, so I don't suspect the actual refs are bogus (unless he also forged the SA article scans that are visible:). I see about 150 links added by that user (are other users involved?), and the links have been removed gradually over time, probably not worth bot-editing a correction. Won't be hard to revive the cite sans link though, I don't mind helping with that. If others think the links are good, then let them help with adding annotations about their status. DMacks (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I still think I'm missing something - Were any of the links I deleted used as citations? If so, I probably should not have removed them. It's the External links I was after. The three you mention above are not used as citations, are they? I don't doubt the veracity of the material just don't like all the links. I don't see any other users involved, just himself and he seems to have given up the effort in March, based on the talk page discussion. I suppose the bottom line is -should the purely external links stay or go? Regards Nelson50^T 16:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your many edits "WP:EL", came to your talk page to make a request & found this discussion already ongoing. Edit summaries that simply reference WP:EL are vague; WP:EL has a long list of, and discussions of, reasons to not link. Other editors, wanting to verify your edits, need to know the specific reason(s) leading to your deletions. "WP:EL payment required", for example. Thanks, 69.106.231.38 (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - I'll make sure to observe that in future. Nelson50^T 13:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Munster Rugby

Nelson50, you are clearly a more experienced editor than I, but it was disappointing to see that you reverted this edit to Munster Rugby and then warned the IP editor User_talk:140.203.210.236 about vandalism as his welcome to wikipedia when a discussion had already been started on Talk:Munster Rugby#2009 Lions. Twinkle seems to be quite a powerful tool but it also seems to sometimes remove the presumption of good faith. This isn't meant to be a dig, more a friendly nudge, and I look forward to working this out on the talk page. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure - thanks for the note. The comments you make on WP:TW are understandable, but it's up to the editor (in this case me), to observe WP:AGF. If I had taken better note of the editor's other edits, I might just have reverted the unexplained deletion, rather than labeling it so harshly, which was undeserved, and disappointing as you say. In my defence, the talk page discussion was started after I reverted the entry. ;) Still, see my retraction on the user's talk page and I'll see you over at the discussion in due course. Thanks Nelson50^T 18:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I tried to work out who did what first but I think that sometimes the times are a bit scrambled (maybe my brain gets a bit scrambled!). I've been caught out before by a lack of edit summaries before, so let's crack on with more important things... Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

surnames associated w/ Munster section?

Sorry about adding just O'Donovan there. It's really not a very prominent surname, and hasn't been for 800 years, but the article covers more than any other Munster surname article at the moment, so it's something for the page-creators to look at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.152.234 (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)