User talk:Pmedema/Archive 1

Your problem with Ulteo

I don't understand why you are removing Ulteo everywhere from Wikipedia. You have removed the Ulteo entry from the web desktop page. I don't undestand why. Ulteo has currently no Wikipedia page, this doesn't mean it can't be cited in an article about web desktop. Please stop that, this is not acceptable. Vautnavette (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ulteo deletion... why???

I've spent hours to write a documented article about Ulteo with many links from the press and you just delete it???

It's *not* a repost of what was previously on this page. Ulteo is notorious, just look the number of Ulteo entries in Google, and the article was fully referenced with really a large review of press links.

Please undelete my article about Ulteo, I really don't like losing my time and I don't understand why you are doing that. I'll warn wikipedia about you if we can't agree on that.

RegardsGetupstandup1 (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the article content is the same although it has a different layout. The article has a big problem with WP:RS and WP:N. I suspect that you have a WP:COI regarding this issue as well. The account your using seems also to be a WP:SPA.

BTW, I don't have a problem with the speedy delete being overturned and it going to AfD. I'm pretty sure that the outcome will be the same. Please be WP:CIVIL Thanks. --Pmedema (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Technical Support

Why did you consider this link spam? tech support edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.28.217 (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm, When I went to the site before, I had the destinct impression that it was someone trying to sell a book about IT with no further information. I looked at it again now and it says "Donate" (wants money). I followed the link to where the information is now and I've re-added the link to the page but directly to the information instead of the please donate page. --Pmedema (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks, I am in the process of writing it and in my research stumbled upon the wiki page. My primary motivation for adding the link was to provide the information in the article as a reference. Of course, I also want to see visitors on the page to get feedback on the work in progress. The primary purpose of the site is not to generate revenue (I have a job for that ;) ) but to make information available online for support techs. The donate link and ads on the site are there to cover hosting costs, even though they are not performing well enough to manage that (around 10$/month are the costs and revenue is < 5$/month). I was surprised to see it considered as spam, so I asked. Nothing more. (Wouter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.44.150.153 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Delete!! Hello Mr. Pmeda. I am new to Wiki and I was working on an article, Roland Nicholson, when I suddenly lost it. Mr. Nicholson was elected chairman of the Fortune Society in 1997. I understand that he has taken a leave because he has been recalled to military duty as a result of the Iraq War. I saw you posting and I do not know where to turn. My students and those of other teachers in the Carribean will be a good made a bit easier if I can finish the work on this page and preserve this page from deletion.

Evoke engine

Please remove your deletion request from my article, the article is not speculation about an engine that doesn't exist, but real information about an open source engine that is going to have its source code made available via my website. I have added a screenshot Evoke engine. It is notable in that its open source, and I welcome comments and discussions on the Wikipedia from users. Eclectus (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nope... my opinion stands.--Pmedema (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Twenty First Century Science

Monozygotic (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Twenty First Century Science is something is not covered in Wikipedia, i just thought it was needed, since all current Year 10 and Year 11 students are being taught this syllabus. CheersLindaaaaa. (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• After reviewing it again and with the thought of not being a Deletionist[1]I figured it couldn't do any harm, so I left it alone.--Pmedema (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol thanks:)Lindaaaaa. (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Radiant_(software)

Hi there =) You added to the article that it needs some references and does sound like an advertisement. I rewrote it, was still in the process of doing so and i hope it's ok now, if you find the time, have a look. Would appreciate it very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinomade (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Space exposure

Please feel free to insert a lead section and remove the "needs a lead section" tag. Let me know if you are unable to insert a lead section.Suniti karunatillake (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Put one in that will suffice but the real problem is with the layout of the article. The facts and information have to separated. You can't have the history mixed into the statistics, etc... I've put this into the discussion portion of that page. --Pmedema (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the lead section and suggested revisions. I will restructure the entry by 05 DEC 2007 and alert you to review the changes.Suniti karunatillake (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I failed to make revisions on the planned date. However, it seems someone else has refined the entry somewhat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suniti karunatillake (talk • contribs) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Proton_card

Hi, I have a question about the entry Proton_card. I understand it can be seen as blatant advertising when I mentioned the owner of the copyright. I removed the link to their website (I'm not employed by them btw). I then assumed it would be ok to leave the mention of what it is and where it is used, much like the entry on Mon€o. Granted, that one is more elaborate, but as it is, I haven't even had time to put more text on the page before it was deleted. Isn't wikipedia about making small edits and letting other people add stuff? Anyway, since this was one of my first additions to the pedia, I'm a bit miffed :) cheers, --Repo stef (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

edit: Ah, but I understand now I think... There was someone who created the backlink without a page on the smartcard entry. That one has been removed as well. There was never a stub article in the first place. Anyway, my remark about mon€o still stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repo stef (talk • contribs) 08:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've been a user of Wikipedia for a long time and have started doing some editing and learning the ropes, etc. I can understand that having an article that you have written is removed. In future, if you do make another article, as a suggestion, look through some of the articles about writing an article. If you are finding that there is not alot of content right away and that you are "working on it" I would suggest going to Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance and use some of the 'inuse' templates.  :) --Pmedema (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That should be a great help in the future. --Repo stef (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Academy of Learning

Hi. It should be OK now. Check again and clarify what's wrong if it isn't. Thanks. Visor (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification tag removed - Thanks --Pmedema (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

XPress_Telecom==

Hello, regarding XPress_Telecom new article, i have expanded the article after it was completly deleted based on the speedy-deletion request you made, please leave a message on my talkpage if you have any concern

Sincerely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basem (talk • contribs) 16:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

XPress Telecom Article re-written

I've re-written the article from a neutral perspective as close as possible to Wiki's articles guideline with original wording using the same Company article template, I've requested a copy of the company's Logo from the company itself.

Sincerely

Basem —Preceding comment was added at 08:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dewan Mokham Chand

The ref have been provided please remove the banner you have put .
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Pmedema (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Magical DoReMi Songs

Yeah, it's a dumb unencyclopedic list, but I'm afraid that CSD A7 is very specific about the topics that constitute grounds for speedy deletion, and as this section explains, anything not explicitly listed is not A7. IceKarmaॐ 05:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looked into it more and I think this article will be best served with a merge to the parent article that points to it. I've tagged the proposal.--Pmedema (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sanjay Ghose

I removed the speedy deletion tag because the article has several indications of importance/significance, which is the test for WP:CSD#A7. If you read that criterion it specifically says "this is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources". Lack of sources may qualify an article for deletion by AfD, but not for speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Ghost Marriage

Hi, just to let you know that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on this article. It doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and certainly not the 'patent nonsense' of CSD:A1, though it definitely needs proper sourcing. You might like to take it to AfD if you still think it needs to be removed. Regards, — BillC ^talk 02:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I did take the time to read two or three of the pages I had discovered on Google, here, for example. The topic certainly appeared to be of questionable notability, but that question is best resolved at AfD. Regards, — BillC ^talk 03:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

For reference... the article was one line that stated "Chinese Ghost Marriage" or "sprit marriage" is when two presumably dead Chinese people get married. Sigh...--Pmedema (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well subsequently, the article has been re-produced. This one very worthy of Wikipedia. Glad to see the system working.--Pmedema (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Deletions

Hi Pmedema, if a proposed deletion is contested, even for weak reasons, it should then go to AFD, not have the prod tag re-inserted (except in the case of blatant vandalism i.e. replacing entire page with gibberish). Thank you for your vigilence. --Sajendra (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

*When a known disruptive anonymous editor is removing a prod with no reasoning, that is a vandalism. When they add a header to an article when there is MUCH more to do and then say that it is wiki'd, is disruptive and counter productive. To use that to circumvent the prod is also vandalism. Please don't come to my talk page and advise me about a 'even for weak reasons'... I am fully aware of the policies involved...

Thank you for your attempt at giving me guidance but I fear that you have to look into matters further before you start to issue warnings to people. Thanks.--Pmedema (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Daniel Case has put Babies in Toyland up for AfD. The prods should not have been removed and it was a vandalism by an anon disruptive editor. BUT... I digress, and apologise to you for my hothead... I will consider AfD's more often then the prod process as it does not seem to work with disruptive, anon editors.--Pmedema (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why

Why is the Dragon Ball OF article being deleted? User:DrVonDre —Preceding comment was added at 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please attend Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball FO to discuss the article. In the future, please don't remove AfD tags.--Pmedema (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD and voting

Hi there! Before I start, I'd just like to thank you for participating in the AFD process; the more the merrier to develop consensus and hopefully save some articles. Now, in your recent edit summary here you referred to AFD as a vote. That isn't inexcusable, but I'd just suggest thinking about it differently; instead of a vote, think of it as consensus. AFD is meant to be less of a vote and more of a discussion process, like RFA, where instead of straight-out declaring their opinion, people can present evidence for or against an article and have it discussed by other editors. Anyway, cheers! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 18:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you - At an attempt to not be verbose in my summary, I use the literal dictionary meaning of the word which is "a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals.[2] I know that in WP:AFD it says that discussion is not a vote, but my statements will never say ‘vote’. I will take into consideration what you’ve said though and omit the word vote for the reasons that you stated. Happy New Year!--Pmedema (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

True, true. I usually just go along the track of "commenting" or "my opinion". Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 19:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD question: Recombinant text

I have very little experience in AfD matters, and am asking for your input before nominating an article for deletion, because, quite frankly, I do not want to be seen as someone who capriciously nominates articles which do not meet AfD standards.

If you have time, please take a look at this article. It was created by the person who—as the intro asserts—is the very person who coined the term. Most of the edits are by that person. Most, if not all, of the sources link back to this person. I mean, at best it appears to me to constitute OR, at worst, self-promotion. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. What do you think?

I selected you and many other editors pretty much completely at random; I picked one day's AfD archives, and clicked on the talk pages of the first two or three dozen editors' talk pages I came across. I hope that in using this selection method, I will get editors who are well-versed in AfD policies, yet who also represent a good cross-section of AfD philosophies. I will monitor your talk page for your response. Thanks. Unschool (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

CSSE

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSSE? I changed CSSE into a disambiguation page with the organizations you mentioned. They're all redlinks, but are potentially notable enough to have articles write about them. --Eastmain (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perfect!--Pmedema (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Measurement causes collapse

You wrote, "What a learning curve... had fun trying to figure this one out. I seem to come down to the one statement at the start of the article which says "measurement by a conscious observer" which directly puts it as an article that is already covered by Consciousness causes collapse."

Actually, "measurement" is the very thing that CCC doesn't require. And really what you're stating is a simply clarification rather than a merger or deletion. Remember, those supporting deletion never made any attempts to improve the article, which is not in the true spirit of Wikipedia.

I respectfully ask you to reconsider.

Lordvolton (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I, by no means, am not an expert in this scope, but I am a thinker, a person who likes puzzles, the universe and everything. Lordvolton stated "Actually, "measurement" is the very thing that CCC doesn't require. And really what you're stating is a simply clarification rather than a merger or deletion. Remember, those supporting deletion never made any attempts to improve the article, which is not in the true spirit of Wikipedia.

I submit that what you are separating CCC and the act of measuring by a Conscious mind... but that is the same as a CCC is inherently measuring all things, contextualizing, spacializing, etc... therefore the act of measuring is already covered by CCC... am I wrong? --Pmedema (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just responded to you in the discussion section of the article... I also made an edit to the opening paragraph of the article that I hope will better explain the intent of the article. That being said, it's still a work in progress.

Lordvolton (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality and Space

Hey Pmedema, I've made a large revision to the Sexuality and Space article. It's very much not the article it was when it hit AfD and I'd like you to take a look at it and see if you feel differently about it now.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Roland Nicholson text

--Roland Nicholson-- Good day Mr. Pmedema, I was working on an article, Roland Nicholson (a/k/a Roland Nicholson, Jr., Roland Nicholson, Jr.Esq, Ron Nicholson and Nick Nicholson) when I suddenly lost it (the article, that is) I am a new Wikipedian and students in my class, who are working on a project involving American government have asked why they could not find Mr. Nicholson in Wiki, when those who worked on the same project in the fall semester had no such problem. I am not the only teacher in this part of the world who assigns such work so I am certain that I speak for others. I understand that Mr. Nicholson, who is listed in the last Fortune Society Annual Report as chairman and who I know to have held this office because I have seen him on CNN, Fox News, Talk News Television in tht capacity. If you do a search of the New York Times and Amsterdam News websites there are numerous references to him holding this office. Also the same link was cited when Nicholson was a candidate fot Congress or The State Legislature (See all New York News Outlets,NY City Board of Election 1982). I also understand that Mr. Nicholson is on leave from Fortune because he has been recalled to active military service because of the Iraq war. That should not be held against him nor should it inconvience students. Thank you. Guyana Barrister

• Sorry... too late. You can see the descussion here [3] or speak to Daedalus

Publius Enigma possible solutions

I don't see why you had to delete the whole article I wrote. Please tell me what was different than the two above it? And mine makes more sense and is easily verifiable by the pictures I included. I just don't have a source to include, because it was destroyed by hackers (Publius Enigma.com) I guess the "opinions" of Wikipedia will always prevail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 938HBOM (talk • contribs) 21:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Back garden

Why is "back garden" unencyclopedic, whatever that means.

Your picture depicts you against a snowfield. If I look up that in wikipedia is rhere such an entry.

You bet there is. Chasnor15 (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise for this guy - he's taken against me for proposing his 'back garden' article for deletion (have a look at the talk page on the article if you want a laugh), and seems to have taken against you because you agreed with my request for deletion - he (or she) seems to be someone who can't take criticism - so apologies for having been dragged into a somewhat pointless argument :-) CultureDrone (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a a funny bone... it's lower then most other peoples but... nvm... :) anyways my answer to Chasnor is that I'm on a FROZEN LAKE and no there is no article for frozen lake.

Here's what I posted on the AFD:

my answer - No... Im on a FROZEN LAKE. No there isn't an article called Frozen Lake. I still say, how can you make the general term "Back Garden" notable (not to exclude all general terms). I might as well make an article called "Desk sizes". There's lots of WP:N there and lots of WP:RS trust me.... you will get a million ghits... Lets remember everyone... this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Back Garden is un-encyclopedic. --Pmedema (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

New Messages

Hello, Pmedema. You have new messages at Dustihowe's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the kind words. At least someone kinda agrees with me on the AFD's. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Publius Enigma

It would be rather difficult if not impossible to cite all of the changes that were necessary to keep the article properly organized and accurate. In fact, it's very much a work in progress. The reasons for most of the edits should be pretty obvious, unless you really want me to break it down bit by bit and explain each and every one of them. 'Citing' them would take quite a lot of this. The only reasonably citable edit that was made was the addition to the 'Clues' section which states the fact that the word 'enigma' appears on page 13 of the booklet. It clearly links to an image which proves this to be true.

Other major changes I will attempt to explain so you can see where I'm going with this:

1. Storm Thorgerson and Nick Mason are not 'known' desigers of the enigma. There was no reference for this 'fact' because it isn't conclusively true and was therefore removed because it was not only unproven, it was misleading.

2. The quote by Nick Mason was reorganized to include the same information, but without being redundant.

3. The 'Clues' section was formed from existing information in the article because that's exactly the subject matter of the bits that were categorized under that header. The information is not about the Current Status of the Enigma, it is about the clues associated with it. Therefore, a new section was necessary.

4. 'Possible Solutions' are NOT solutions. They are partial theories. It's as simple as that. When it comes to enigma discussion, 'theories' are groups of ideas which follow a single direction and usually lead to significant results and discoveries but do not qualify as being a complete solution. While there are many other theories that need to be included in this section (and in time, they shall be), neither of the two that are listed (let alone any of the others) meet the criteria for being a complete solution. When it comes to the Publius Enigma or the music of Pink Floyd, nothing is set in stone unless it is confirmed by the band. Therefore, the author of C.D.C. has not "found exacting relationships," he "CLAIMS to have found" them. You can also see that Theory 1 is listed in bullet format with a title but the second is just a paragraph. I edited this so that the second theory matches the formatting of the first. It's all about organization and logical flow of information.

I hardly see it necessary or efficient to include this much information in the Edit Summary, but if you insist upon my presenting an entire essay when the appropriate changes are needed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinagreenelvis (talk • contribs) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

*Citations are not needed in the edit summary but in the article itself. Any "theories" are more then likely a violation of WP:OR and will not pass WP:N and most definately violate WP:V. Wikipedia is not a blog or forum but I've been lenient with not saying much if these "Theories" are in the discussion portion of the article. If What you say is true about the sourcing of the article then perhaps it should go up for AfD because, what you are saying is that the article does not pass WP:V as a whole... PS: don't forget to sign your talk page entries. --Pmedema (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Conversation moved to Talk:Publius Enigma - Please continue conversation there.

WP: SPA (possible vandalism)

Not to flog a dead horse or start any kind of war, but I noticed that your original revert of the changes I made to the Publius Enigma article contained those words and phrases. I know I've already discussed with you the changes that I made and the reasons for those changes and that subject is finished entirely, but I would like to point out my initial offense taken from those phrases. I read the article on WP:SPA and wanted to make sure you were re-exposed to the following segment:

While a new user who immediately participates in a discussion without an edit history in the area may be an illegitimate sock puppet, the editor might instead be someone who has seen something of interest and wishes to contribute. For this reason, statements regarding motives are not recommended without an examination of the user's edit history. The term should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a specific non-neutral agenda is clearly established. Users should be informed of relevant policies and content guidelines in a civil and courteous manner, especially if a tag will be applied to their comment.

You were pretty quick to accuse me of possible vandalism, and to me, that just makes it sound like you didn't even read the edits that I made before reverting them. Whatever the case is, it's done, it's over with, I don't want to turn this into a fight. I just don't want people going around suggestfully accusing each other of things which are very, very off the mark. --Chinagreenelvis (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you feel that way. It was not my intension. Lets move on and work on the article as per Wikipedia policies and proceedures. It's interesting enough that if it gets wiki'd enough we might be able to get it as a featured article. --Pmedema (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your NPWatcher application

Dear Pmedema,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I am on AOL as WeWachoviaMoney, and I spend a lot of time on the #en-wikipedia channel on IRC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Chill (Rapper) Deletion Request

Peter, I understand your concerns and would like some guidance about how to clear up any claims and provide proof. Would not uploading album artworks (proving both the label (Sony/Epic) and sponsorship (Pepsi) be a copyright infringment? I was not sure on how this could be done. The same with the Comic Book issue. It would stand to reason that a picture/scan of the cover would be proof. But again would that be an infringment? Please provide guidance, as I am very new to article submission. Thank You. Dd studios (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply is at User talk:Dd studios--Pmedema (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ejscript

You removed reference to Ejscript from the ECMAScript page and said it was uncited possible. spam.

Ejscript is a new implementation of ECMAScript. The discussion asks for references about the new ECMAScript 4 standard -- this is the first one to be released. Citations were provided: in terms of implementation: in Appweb see Appweb Web Server. Other references include www.ejscript.org but I could not see where to put that.

Can you advise why this new implementation is not relevant to this page? Michael O'Brien (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• As you said, it is a new implementation that does not assert Notability because there is not reliable sources for it. Please see WP:N and WP:RS for policies regarding this. --Pmedema (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be on a campaign to remove all references to Ejscript from Wikipedia. I object to this. I understand the language may not have the profile to warrant its own page yet in your opion, but to remove all references is unreasonable. Please read up on the current ES4 and ECMAScript literature to understand where Ejscript fits into the current trends. It is relevant and reasonable to mention it in some pages on Wikipedia. Michael O'Brien (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate, if you read the ECMAScript page, you will find references to iCab, MaxMSP both minor implementations. They were deemed "notable", why not Ejscript. Further, a prior edit about Samba 4 already mentions Ejscript under the name Embedded Javascript, but has the link wrong. If that was deemed notable, why is the actual implementation of Embedded Javascript as it is really called Ejscript not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mob590 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• First off, there is no campaign. Ejscript was found to be not notable and without reliable sources by consensus. By then adding references to other articles without citing and referencing is also against policy and tantamount to vandalism. You may object to this as much as you like but the removal of these uncited and unreferenced additions to articles is well within policy. I have left the references alone in certain contexts that seem to warrant the inclusion of the references. As for the other stuff, I am going through them as I come across them. Thanks for the note to look at those software/languages as well. --Pmedema (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. There were references and citings in my posts, just insufficient due to the newness of the technology. Please, lets get the facts straight. I think you need to understand the technology and issues and not just count the number of citings. Please spend some time understanding ECMAScript and the background before coming to judgement. Have you participated in any of the standards (ECMAScript) bodies or processes to enable you to make these determinations? Michael O'Brien (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I have a sufficent technological and programming background to know what's going on. I'm quite sure that you will be more knowledgable then I on the subject at hand... BUT, I'm not just 'counting' citations. As you have explained yourself, that the "newness" of the technology has not passed WP:RS yet. I am not a deletionist, but I am a realist in that the technology is moving fast and that it is constantly changing to a degree that standards are hard to form... These little "in betweens", unless they are notable unto themselves do not warrent an encyclopedia article.

I am systematically going through all the web related software and languages (I'm only one person) and keep an eye on some key articles for changes and additions of "new" stuff that fails the policies. I can understand that this is important to you, but I suggest that to step away and understand that a WP:COI will only hinder the development of an article. IF/WHEN, there is WP:RS that denotes WP:N then by all means, I leave you alone.

If the redlinks are not removed from the articles then that will look bad. I will call in a review of the additions/removals of the redlinks if you wish? --Pmedema (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • BTW, see THIS[4] to see about AfD arguments... Now on to the next one... See, we're improving articles with references from like the NY Times!--Pmedema (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for improving articles. But I do value consistency and accuracy more. You initially reacted and removed the Ejscript links by saying they were spam without taking the time or do 1-2 minutes of research. Then, you changed argument and said it wasn't notable. Now you change again and say I have a conflict of interest. That is 3 different reasons for rejecting edits as counter arguments have been raised. Seems strange to me. Michael O'Brien (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, the initial removal was construed as spamming. When it was argued by you that it was not spam I WP:AGF to that and then argued that the consensus was that it was not notable. I still argue that it is not notable. That has not changed. The idea of a WP:COI is in addition to notability. Do you wish a third opinion? Check out WP:THIRD if you wish to bring it up. If not, I will. --Pmedema (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Krozilo deleted? - please delete iGoogle etc

Peter, You marked the Krozilo page for speedy deletion, and now it does not exist any more in wikipedia. This page was about one of the web services, i.e. personalized and customized start pages, like iGoogle, Netvibes, MyYahoo, Pageflakes etc. All the above mentionned services have their wiki pages. When I wrote about Krozilo, I intended to broad the list, because wikipedia is not a place for advertising, but a fair encyclopedia. All relevant services were mentionned in the Krozilo page, and one could read about the variety of the new phenomena of web 2.0. I tried to describe Krozilo in the same manner it was done for other services. If you delete Krozilo, and do not delete iGoogle etc, it makes me believe that wiki becomes the place for unfair competition, and ends being what it intended to be. I suppose you have also marked the other pages, including iGoogle, for speedy deletion :) If not, I would appreciate recovering the Krozilo page in en.wikipedia.

• First, It would help if you signed your post. Second, iGoogle passes the policies regarding WP:N, WP:WEB, WP:V and the big one, WP:RS. Unfortunately, I can understand that you feel that Krozilo may be worthy of Wikipedia, but Krozilo does not pass these policies. If you can find references and citations that pass WP:RS then there won't be an issue.--Pmedema (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what about Netvibes and Pageflakes? --Sunnyspeck (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)--Sunnyspeck (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FluxBB

Peter,

can you please give us some hints, what exactly is wrong with the FluxBB article and how to solve this issues.

There are several translations of this article, but only the english original seems to be inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.19.108 (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• When an article regarding a topic has all the citations and references pointing to the it's own home site, it violates WP:V and WP:RS. I'm trying to avoid brining this article to AfD by giving a chance to provide. This is as per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. In short... "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".--Pmedema (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi, I've tried to rewrite the article to sound less like an advert, and I've included some more 3rd party sources, could you give any guidance as to if I'm going in the right direction here, and if more is needed, how much more? Regards --Connorhd (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

TopoSys GmbH

First of all, I know that Wikipedia does not send the articles to someone who is explicitly an expert in the article's subject area. I can see this by the way you say that TopoSys GmbH is a non-important company, and this obviously tells to any person who is into the remote sensing field and airborne laser-scanning surveys field, that your knowledge about this issue is simply non-existing. I repeat myself once again: TopoSys GmbH developed the first and only airborne laser-scanning to make use of fibre optics technology. This equipment was and still is a revolution at the airborne laser-scanning field. In fact, this equipment, which is half-dozen years old, still surpasses in quality any other LIDAR system available on the market in what concerns gymbal and swing modes usage when performing scanning actions. The fact that it's the only push-broom scanner to work with non-side shawdowing effects in parallel line acqusition, makes it unique in the world. Let me as well just suggest you some (yes, some) peer-reviews articles concerning the use of TopoSys GmbH equipments and/or software, or provided services. Also, a neutral link: http://web.ges.gla.ac.uk/~gpetrie/Petrie_INTERGEO_2006.pdf Be my guest to check these articles, and please understand that your accusations are empty:

Chauve, A., C. Mallet, F. Bretar, S. Durrieu, M. P. Deseilligny and W. Puech (2007). Processing Full-Waveform LIDAR Data: Modelling Raw Signals. ISPRS Workshop on Laser Scanning 2007 and SilviLaser 2007, Espoo, Finland, IAPRS.

Forlani, G. (2006). "Complete classification of raw LIDAR data and 3D reconstruction of buildings." Pattern Analysis & Applications 8(4): 357-374.

Heurich, M. (2008). "Automatic recognition and measurement of single trees based on data from airborne laser scanning over the richly structured natural forests of the Bavarian Forest National Park." Forest Ecology and Management In Press, Corrected Proof.

Lemmens, M. (2007). "Laser scanning technology challenged: Shortcomings in spatial documentation of heritage sites." GIM international 21(3): 25-29.

Lohani, B. and D. Mason (2006). "Extraction of tidal channel networks from aerial photographs alone and combined with laser altimetry." International journal of remote sensing 27(1/2): 5-25.

Lohr, U. (1996). "Pushbroom Laserscanning - First operation results." Geo-Informations-Systeme 9(4): 12-15.

Lohr, U. (1998). "Digital elevation models by laser scanning." The Photogrammetric record 16(91): 105-109.

Lohr, U. (1999). "Trasses data collection with the TopoSys Laser Scanner [Trassenbefliegungen mit dem TopoSys Laserscanner]." Geo-Informations-Systeme 12(2): 3-5.

Lohr, U. (2003). "Digital true ortho-imagesand LIDAR digital surface models [Digitale lagerichtige Orthophotos und LIDAR-Höhenmodelle]." Geo-Informations-Systeme 15 (3): 26-29.

Lohr, U. (2003). Precision LIDAR Data and True-Ortho Images. Map Asia Conference 2003: Photogrammetry and LIDAR.

Maltamo, M. (2005). "Identifying and quantifying structural characteristics of heterogeneous boreal forests using laser scanner data." Forest ecology and management 216(1-3): 41-50.

Næsset, E., T. Gobakken, J. Holmgren, H. Hyyppä, J. Hyyppä, M. Maltamo, M. Nilsson, H. Olsson, Å. Persson and U. Söderman (2004). "Laser Scanning of Forest Resources: The Nordic Experience." Scandinavian journal of forest research 19(6): 482-499.

Petrie, G. and A. S. Walker (2007). "Airborne digital imaging technology: a new overview." The Photogrammetric Record 22(119): 203-225.

R.Wack, M. Schardt, L. Barrucho, U. Lohr and T.Oliveira (2003). Forest Inventory For Eucalyptus Plantations Based On Airborne Laserscanner Data. Proceedings of the ISPRS Working Group III Workshop: 3-D Reconstruction From Airborne Laserscanner And InSAR Data' Dresden, Germany.

Riaño, D., E. Meier, B. Allgöwer and E. Chuvieco (2002). Generation of vegetation height, vegetation cover and crown bulk density from airborne laser scanning data. Forest fire research and wildland fire safety: Proceedings of IV International Conference on Forest Fire Research 2002 Wildland Fire Safety Summit, Luso, Portugal.

Riaño, D., E. Meier, B. Allgöwer, E. Chuvieco and S. L. Ustin (2003). "Modelling airborne laser scanning data for the spatial generation of critical forest parameters in fire behaviour modelling." Remote sensing of environment 86(2): 177-186.

Schmidt, M. A. R., J. A. S. Centeno, E. Steinle and R. M. Gonçalves (2007). Laserscanner Data Simulation Tool for the TopoSys System (In Brasilian). XIII Brasilian Symposium on Remote Sensing, Florianópolis, Brasil.

Swamy, A. N. and B. Parvathi (2006). Applications of optical remote sensing in biosciences with some emphasis on pollen studies. Pollen and pollination ecology research.

Wiechert, A. (2004). "Lidar data market still growing: TopoSys GmbH." GIM international 18(8): 54-55.

Wiechert, A. (2005). "Introducing a new airborne LIDAR sensor." GEO: connexion 4(8): 30-31.

Yu, X., J. Hyyppä, H. Kaartinen and M. Maltamo (2004). "Automatic detection of harvested trees and determination of forest growth using airborne laser scanning." Remote sensing of environment 90(4): 451-462.

Yu, X., J. Hyyppä, A. Kukko, M. Maltamo and H. Kaartinen (2006). "Change detection techniques for canopy height growth measurements using airborne laser scanner data." Photogrammetric engineering and remote sensing 72(12): 1339-1348.

Ziegler, M., H. Konrad, J. Hofrichter, A. Wimmer, G. S. Ruppert, M. Schardt and J. M. Hyyppä (2000). Assessment of forest attributes and single-tree segmentation by means of laser scanning, SPIE.

--Piodsys (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• The product may be notable, but the company is not and fails WP:COMPANY. I find your lecture uncivil.--Pmedema (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Indie Spotlight

If you are interested in doing a Shocker Toys page I am willing to help out a bit. Then maybe the Indie Spotlight article can be redirected.--JMST (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Russia RfD

My replying to you edit-conflicted with the RfD's being closed, but I suppose that it might be useful for me to observe that one should never undertake a cut-and-paste move; I gather from your striking out that suggestion that you appreciated that, but, inamsuch as the repair of C&P moves consumes time that admins might otherwise spend toward some constructive end, I don't imagine that it should hurt to restate the point. Cheers, Joe 21:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• {smile} - Yes... that was the purpose of the strike out... I trust I got the point across is a subtle way...

Rationales

• Talk page (AfD discussion)

What is your rationale for recommending that action? You haven't given one. Please add your own rationale to the discussion, making sure that it is well-founded in deletion policy and thus strong enough to withstand counterargument. Uncle G (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Two Square

Thank you for the information regarding the "Two Square" afd. I was not involved, but agree that a separate article is not necessary. All I wanted was to see if this was a game others had played, and if so, to have some mention of it in the article. I would at the outset mention that the information on the "Four Square" page about "Two Square" doesn't exactly jive with the game I played. I have no recollection of anything to do with 11-points or some such. It was just like four square but with two people on a tennis court with no net, as I mentioned in the talk section. Maybe I'm forgetting something.

Also, I'm not sure why you've suggested I visit WP:OWN. I never created an article Two Square. I've never edited the main article Four Square. Are you assuming I'm the anon who took out your "two square" stuff? Because I'm not. I haven't even looked at the page since I made the note in the Talk section. Anyway, I'll copy this to the Talk page. Feel free to continue the discussion there. Yeshuamyking7 (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I stand corrected. It was other editors that were exclusive editors for 4 Square and not you. I had created a general response and posted on what I thought were the relevent editors. I appologise as I should have looked at your past edits before I posted to your talk page with WP:OWN--Pmedema (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Just wanted to correct the record and let you know to be on the lookout for someone who isn't me. :-) Yeshuamyking7 (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one removing content from the four square entry. Four square and two square are probably a lot alike, but you haven't got any citation to back it up. This four square article has gone through lots of waves of users adding rules and variations that they played in their neighborhoods and none of it is cited. There was a time when the four square article was so full of uncited and unsourced contributions that it was flagged for removal, much like the two square article just was. Merging the two articles does make the uncited two square contributions any more viable. If you can cite something then have at it. --Sean Effel (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)