User talk:Ihcoyc/archive 8

XChanging===========

Why do you keep reverting edits made to the Xchanging page. These are all facts and are not vandalism. It just seems that you don't want to hear anything negative about this company regardless of whether it's true or not. The comment about Xchanging's dubious accounting practices were reported in a numbe rof newspapers and are true so why not leave them in? I guess you must work for Xchanging.

Request for translation double-check

Hi,

Would it be possible for you to check a translation I'm trying to make from English to Latin? I'm trying to translate the phrase, "You asked for it!". Not literally, as in, "This was something you communicated a request for!", but more as in "This is your just deserts!" At the moment, I have: 'petivisti id'

From 'peto', which straddles both 'request' and 'demand'. I'm not sure, however, that I have conjugated it correctly -- would it be a bit rude to ask you to double check it for me?

Regards,

Rory H P0rq (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion of Pervasive Data Integrator

Hi, I'm fairly new to editing wikipedia, so please forgive any procedure faux pas. An article that I refer to got deleted recently. I didn't have a chance to contribute to the discussion. It was gone before I had the free time. I read the discussion and the objections seemed to be a lack of third-party references to verify notability and a possibly advertisey tone. I re-wrote the article with a neutral tone and third-party references and posted it. I thought this was the correct procedure? The article was deleted again immediately. Again, I didn't have a chance to ask that it be held for discussion. It was already gone.

Data Integrator has a long history in the industry, dating back to the old Data Junction for DOS days. It gets covered in integration industry magazines, both print and on-line, regularly, talked about in blogs in places like MSDN and ITToolbox, like here and here, etc. I won't say its notable to anyone who has no interest in integration, but it's very notable to those of us who do. Just since it's deletion, it's popped up on my radar a few times, in a BEye (Business Intelligence site) article, an Intelligent Enterprise article, and of course, the 2009 Gartner Data Integration Magic Quadrant. There are a dozen similar articles like BusinessObjects Data Integrator and Oracle Data Integrator that are just as notable, and have not been deleted.

if I read the instructions correctly, you are the person to ask for undeletion? I believe I can make a valid argument for notability given the chance. And if there is any remaining objections to the tone, simply let me know what needs changing. --KotetsuKat (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

prods

It might help your deletion rationales if you modified the sentence"Non-notable, non-consumer niche market software." non-notable is one thing, and a good reason for deletion. But being non-consumer or even niche is not a valid reason. Everything is notable (or not) in it's own field. DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Targetprocess

I've no objection to deletion, but... "Agile project management" is just a description of a well recognised type of software development/project management. It's not puffery. Fences&Windows 04:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kuhn's Quality Foods

Some references have been added to Kuhn's Quality Foods You may wish to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuhn's Quality Foods -- Eastmain (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nCircle Page Reveiw

I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the page found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rpelton/NCircle I have extensively reworked the page since your nomination for deletion and hope that you can give me some feedback on any parts that can still be improved before I move this to the mainspace.

I appreciate your time in looking at this! Please pass the page along to anyone else you think could give me constructive feedback. I really am trying to make it work!!

Thanks Rpelton (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vendormate

Re: the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vendormate_(2nd_nomination), what level of "general notability" is necessary? Aren't many articles on Wikipedia only notable within a niche? I'm surprised to see your vote of "delete", given that you advocate "inclusionism" on your user page. 72.66.75.215 (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectInsight

I read your essay The presumption of non-notability for Internet related, computing, and services businesses and I understand why you may believe the Project Insight may not meet your interpretation of the notability requirements. I would like you to reconsider the new references I recently placed on the article. I noticed that you had recommended deletion of a similar article AtTask, but reverted it. The AtTask article appears to have its references from IT-Related publications as well. Can you explain the difference between the AtTask references and the Project Insight references so that I can improve it? Thanks--SurfAndSwim (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

for that cite for the Inner Temple library article. I've just now folded it in, somewhat modestly.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Bless (Hip hop artist)

I have nominated Bless (Hip hop artist), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bless (Hip hop artist). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Joe Chill (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Sorry about that. Joe Chill (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death of John Lennon

Can you help me out a little here regarding "unverified" quotes from police and media? I know he denies saying "Mr. Lennon", but that isn't the point. The "Mr. Lennon" and "combat stance" remarks were hardly isolated. In the talk page, we have got an audio clip with police chief Sullivan's report including those remarks. Now, would this be allowed as a reference in the main article, or would it be considered heresy or something? --Bluejay Young (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC) etc. etc.[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicevenn

Thank you for creating Queen of Elphame and including this section after I opened this AfD. Your work and research are much appreciated. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shovelware notability

I'm not going to link to it because I do not want to be considered canvassing. The work you've done on software notability makes me wonder what your opinion is on shovelware as an indicator of notabilty if a major magazine publisher includes the shovelware CD. Miami33139 (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Queen of Elphame

On December 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Queen of Elphame, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Oahspe: A New Bible

An article that you have been involved in editing, Oahspe: A New Bible, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oahspe: A New Bible. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 05:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of P2ware Planner - request for help

Hello. My name is Antoni and I am the author of the current article on P2ware Planner. I am very sorry that the article is somewhat victim of some terrible misunderstanding. I understand that you are doing your job to make Wikipedia clean and valuable and that it means that a lot of articles have to be deleted. However I am certain that deletion of this article is unfortunate misunderstanding, partially due to the fact I didn't manage to react to initial deletion request and din't write anything on a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/P2ware_Planner. But now I cannot edit it and give reasons why it should stay. Please read my explanation - then everything is clear :)

As written on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pm_expert on 14 December 2009 article was deleted because of "I can't find significant enough coverage in secondary reliable sources, to demonstrate the notbaility of this software.". It didn't appear in Google News. And that's OK. I understoos the problem after discussion.
There were not problems at all with the article structure or tone. I read guidelines on creating articles about software and tried to make it be in the same style as MS Project article and any other articles there were on project management software.
As soon as I read about the problem (difficulty with finding out notability of the software) I recreated article (similar content) by adding more hyperlinks to actual sources and adding a lot of inforation on notability of the software I wrote about in the discussion page. I wrote a lot of on original article discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pm_expert/P2ware_Planner and there was no further problems with notability of the software, I notified the admin who added again tags. I did Internet search for magazines, trade fairs, conferences etc.
However article was still on some deletion lists.
Two days ago it was deleted under G4 of WP:CSD. Please note that it was initially marked for deletion because lack of notability not a style. On deletion discussion page it was disputed that style of sources that could be found via Google News were bad in style, which I agree. So the new article is similar in content (and similar to other articles). I added a lot of information on notability and I think that's very good for article quality and notability.

As you see there is some misunderstanding which may have occured. I am aware that there are a lot of pages on Wikipedia that have to be review and somtimes deleted. Please let me know what to do to restore the article in circumstances I wrote about above. I will be grateful. Thank you. Pm expert (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Looks as if your signature has promted this. --Hu12 (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

The page for Expressor has been submitted for deletion review. Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Expressor.--Hu12 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Play Misty for me

The author was neglecting to write the article first, and seems to be okay with the situation. I'd rather you userfied it to his userspace rather than a full-blown restoration, but will not oppose whatever step seems to you to be fairest (your record is quite solid). I still don't see anything there that I consider a credible assertion of notability (shared a stage with somebody famous?), but then I'm one of them evialllll deletionisty folks. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for restoring the article to allow me to work on it, it is much appreciated.Travisharger 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs)

Not only was an AfD current on this article,but I had already declined to speedy it. Unless you have an objection I intend to restore it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International House of Prayer

Question - I thank you for your support of the Misty Article..i will be working on that again when i get a chance. Another article which i had a big hand in was the International House of Prayer. It also is being marked for AfD, Big question being notability, and another challenging my interest...which I understand, but I dont wish to write a biased article. I was wondering if you have the time if you could read the article and suggest any changes to me. It would be greatly appreciated. If you dont have the time..i fully understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs) 22:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Software notability guideline

I just want to say that I’m sorry your Essay on the notability of software is not gaining more traction. I think you have a very noble motive: Let’s keep the spammers out of the Wikipedia.

I think the Wikipedia needs a notability guideline for software, and I hope the hard work you have done writing this essay can become something we can more fully use. Samboy (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Auslogic Defrag Utility

I beleive the utility has gained much notability since the article was last deleted (2008?), it is now widly used, reviwed and sought after. How would I go about creating a new page for this application since the recreation has been locked? I tried to create a talk page, but it was deleted within minutes as "a talk page of a non-existant article". I've been fighting to create this article for a few hours and am about to give up. Any pointers? FourtySix&Two (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		To Smerdis of Tlön, For all of the admin tasks that you do around the project which rarely come with recognition. --Hu12 (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Hu12 (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see a really spammy article

Look at Cognizant Technology Solutions. Unfortunately it's not of the deleteable kind. I found it because in this story (from Indian Express Group web site) both CEOs of Cognizant and Proteans grovel for the honor to be Microsoft ISVs or some such. Pcap ping 02:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also Palmchip corporation created by the author of Proteans. Its AfD was closed as keep last year (wasn't delsorted). I'm going to remove the bold patent lists. Pcap ping 23:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wp:Notability (software)

I appreciate your efforts to revamp Wp:Software notability, which has failed becoming an guideline. I believe that the retry at Notability (software) stands to have a significantly larger chance of becoming a guideline as it was commented by both supporting and opposing editors that it is acceptable (with some technical revisions). I believe that most, if not all of your concerns, are addressed in the current draft (save for perhaps an explanation of "significant", but I believe WP:RS talks about Self-published sources, and "significant" is defined in preceding/superseding policies, so it is not necessary per se). The draft will benefit from your knowledge on promotion (put in the forefront to emphasize importance) and style. What are your thoughts on this draft becoming a guideline? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Ihcoyc! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 385 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Legendary Stardust Cowboy - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soliam

Just letting you know I've prodded this for consistency. Pcap ping 11:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Linux software development industry niche"

Re your comment here. It's a $5B niche just with what RedHat is worth and another for Novell SuSE. Add a sizable chunk of IBM to that. A $35B market if Wikipedia is to be believed, most of it in servers. So Redhat opening sourcing their server (farm) management software is big deal. Pcap ping 12:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

	The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
	Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue \| Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

Quickly / automatically identify non-notable sources

You mention on the page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Platformic "we need to be able to subject promotional articles like this to the Coriolis effect more efficiently and without having to examine every press release and blog review". I'm relatively new to wiki and have a number of online software packages. I receive about 20 requests a week from "independant review" / blog websites offering to write an article on their website in return for a recipricol link. I avoid them as I don't want that kind of review, i'd rather have a totally independant review with the findings published without my prior reading - a proper independant review.

Is there (can there be) a page on wiki which lists TLDs known to be setup in this way, so that References can be flagged as non-independant for notability review purposes automatically? Sendalldavies (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. WP:VG/RS has such lists for videogame review sites (heck, it's even marked as a guideline). There aren't any for software in general, but you should post what you have at WT:SOFTWARE. Pcap ping 22:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology of space

AfD for an article similar in prose to examples on your user page, and I mean the gibberish ones. Pcap ping 22:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inventive Leisure

Just to let you know that I've expanded the article since you commented at the AfD, if you want to have another look. Quantpole (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin 1490

Hi,
Nearly two years ago on Wikipedia_talk:Translation#Translation_from_Latin I had asked for a translation of a late medieval or early renaissance text. Apparently, of whoever saw it, no-one got in the right mood. Amongst WP translators from Latin to English, only you specifically mention medieval Latin... I'd appreciate your interest.
▲ SomeHuman 2010-02-14 06:34 (UTC)

Proposal: Merger of (most of) End time into Eschatology

Hi – I quite strongly feel that the majority of the content of the article End time is material that really belongs in the article about the broader subject Eschatology, and that the "End time" article should simply be a short article explaining the use of the term as it concerns the apocalytic beliefs of evangelical christians. Since you created the "End time" article and are still active on Wikipedia, I figured I'd notify you about my proposal to merge. The discussion proposal can be found here: Talk:Eschatology#Merge_End_time_into_Eschatology.

On another note, I think that the section on Native American eschatologies presently in the "End time" article is full of dubious material from unreliable sources. I've left a note about this here: Talk:End_time#Dubious_section_on_Hopi_beliefs.

Cheers – Peter G Werner (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cockle Law Brief Printing Company

I added this reference to Cockle Law Brief Printing Company. You may wish to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockle Law Brief Printing Company. When a company's name includes the word "company", you may get better search results when you search for the company's name without company or corporation, which is what I did with this search, since some references will abbreviate company to "Co." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mark eden bust developer.jpg

Having 'finally' read your comments on the images talk page, I've left a note saying this particular image should not be reduced further.

Perhaps there is a need for a 'Do not reduce images beyond the limits of readability' criteria when tagging with {{Non-free reduce}}?

The list being used to tag images for downsizing was the one at WP:DBR, and despite the suggestion it's a script, all images from that list have been tagged have been done so manually (albiet using TWINKLE/FURME), It seems that in tagging this one, I didn't recognise it as one that had been tagged previously. (I should check image histories more often.)

BTW If this image gets tagged for reduction again (by others) let me know, as given your comments that would be unreasonable.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

What follows are some images that are potential commons candidates you uploaded or helped add information to.

If the image information for the image in the list following this message could be checked,

and the images moved to commons if possible, it would be much appreciated:

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of images

File:Poorfisherman.JPG
File:Popelick2.jpg - Also do you have a higher res version?
File:Charlesx3.JPG

Afd Petrolsoft Corporation

I understand this policy has changed but it seems to me like biting the newcomer when time isn't allowed for an editor to address the problems presented when the newpage or construction tag is used. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems notable to me because their software was used by notable mainstream companies. I guess that's why there are Afd discussions. There doesn't seem to be anything for the creator to gain financially from promoting a defunct company. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thou's FAR

I have nominated Thou for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is self-improvement through meditation paranormal?

You added a tag to the Natural Stress Relief article saying that it was related to the paranormal. I'm not sure how you could have concluded that from its content. NSR is just a form of meditation that reduces stress and anxiety. It has nothing to do with paranormal powers, UFOs, abductions, after death experiences, or any other paranormal crap (sorry for my WP:POV).

I am not the author of the article, but I am president of the organization. Calling our technique 'paranormal' is incorrect and misleading. I am currently working to defeat a RFD, and your tag doesn't help.

Since you added the tag, I respectfully request that you remove the tag. I can't edit the article myself due to WP:COI.

Thank you. David Spector 19:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequently, I removed the Paranormal tag and added a Spirituality tag, retaining your intent in using Paranormal but changing it to the less outrageous and superstitious Spirituality tag, even though even Sprituality is irrelevant to a secular mental technique. I also provided a rationale for the change. Unfortunately, you have seen fit to add the Paranormal tag back to the article. I will not start a revert war, because that is not my way. But I do ask you to reconsider and not WP:PUSH your WP:POV in this way. Natural Stress Relief has nothing to do with belief or religion, and definitely is not 'Paranormal' in any way. It is simply a stress reduction technique! Would you call hypnosis or taking a bubble bath 'paranormal'? Of course not. Why insist on smearing Natural Stress Relief with your brush of pseudoscience? Your insistence is damaging to our reputation (is that a WP policy? It should be), even though you have not yet put that shameful tag on the article itself. I am watching here for your reply, if any. David Spector (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petrolsoft Corporation

New sources have been added and the discussion is coming to a close. Would you mind reviewing the article and discussion again and making a comment? - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petrolsoft Corporation

I'm concerned about the timing of the Afd. I had nominated it for speedy deletion under A7 because there were no sources initially. After the creator started adding sources A7 no longer applied and I removed the tag and put other tags on the page including Newpage. I explained to Mathteacher69 that this should allow 7 days to allow the page to be developed however you nominated it for Afd as a contested speedy deletion 38 hours later. No hangon tag was used so it wasn't really contested. It has been suggested I bring this to ANI. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your comment on my talk page and started a tread on the ANI noticeboard as well as per the suggestions on Jimbo's talk page. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Network 21 AfD

Hi, sorry to interrupt your normal programming, but I'd appreciate it if you could take another look at the Network TwentyOne AfD. Your comments on the AfD were primarily about style of writing rather than notability, and the article was locked for edit warring until shortly before the AfD was placed and has now been substantially rewritten - including hopefully addressing your concerns. You're one of only two uninvolved editors to have commented, and the only one to have "voted" and I'd appreciate it if you could take another look at the notability issue, as well as, separately, any concerns on the writing style. I've outlined all the sources currently used and my position in a separate section at the bottom of the AfD. Thanks. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thou

Hello. The Featured Article Thou is currently up for review, and needs some active editors to help restore it to a high-quality. I noticed from the history that you were active there previously, and so thought I'd let you know. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey on quality control policies

As part of a project funded by the European Commission (QLectives), we are collecting and analysing data to study quality control mechanisms and inclusion/deletion policies in Wikipedia. According to our records, you participated in a large number of AfD. We are currently soliciting editors with a long record of participation in AfD discussions to send us their feedback via a very informal survey.

The survey takes less than 5 minutes and is available at this URL. Should you have any questions about this project, feel free to get in touch.

Thanks for your help! --DarTar (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Network as a service

I've withdrawn my AfD nom for this article after being accused of having some unexplained conflict and then of canvassing after the author derailed the consensus gathering process. I've got other "as a service" fish to fry but you're welcome to nominate it again if you want. -- samj _in ^out 14:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Dimensional Signs

"and won a non-notable award."

According to you.

Do you realise the effort that goes into becaoming First place - in the world?

Please do not dilute the efforts of others.

If you are a world leader in becoming first place then maybe you are in a position to judge. In the mean time, please go and get yourself a first place in anything.

That comment "and won a non-notable award." dampened spirits and made the award almost non notable.

A great motivator you are. NOT.

"Let's all kil the human spirit" - Smerdis of Tion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.85.91 (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

124.188.85.91 (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever been as proud of myself as I am now. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving you a slow round of applause over here. :-) Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Dimensional Signs

Is this getting closer - removed all "marketing" and now contains only FACT -

Would like to get to a point where deletion can be removed.

Many thanks

PS there are quite a number of "signage Companies" in Wikipedia and I have followed their guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimaki (talk • contribs) 00:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bram Dijkstra

The article Bram Dijkstra has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No coverage found. He was a professor, but I'm dubious that he was a particularly influential one. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Horrorshowj (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TechExcel

Just for information: you salted this after its third AfD; I have just re-userfied another version after this request at WP:REFUND, and told the author that he will have to get agreement from you or go through DRV before it can go into mainspace. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I read through the links JohnCD sent to me; those were useful, thank you. What do you suggest I do for this particular article? Get approval from you to re-create it under /TechExcel, request that an independent editor write it, or send it through deletion review? Please see /User:Fjabbour/TechExcelDraft for a draft of what the article would look like. Thanks, Fjabbour (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response. Regarding the sources, before I make the necessary changes to the draft article please let me know if the following sources would satisfy the criteria of being independent and include readership outside the computing and IT industry:
http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/08/03/smallb1.html
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=22865784
http://www.newsguide.us/technology/enterprise-software/TechExcel-Announces-ServiceWise-and-CustomerWise-8-5/

Yes, I am an employee of TechExcel and wanted to make that known in my profile. I'd like to include an objective and factual article on the company in Wikipedia. Thanks, Fjabbour (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Your feedback definitely does help. Thanks for the info. I agree, waiting and letting things take their course is probably best. Thanks, Fjabbour (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

WP:CB and essays

I've seen you comment on some of my essay nominations over the past week or so. If you didn't know, there's a discussion about possibly creating CSD reasons for essays. If it's something that interests you, feel welcome to comment! — Timneu22 · talk 14:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delsort

It would be great if you could substitute this template, {{subst:delsort|foo}}, rather than just transcluding it, per the recommendations at {{delsort}}. Thanks for all your help! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I was entirely unaware of that, and shall do it that way in the future. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PlaneShift article

Hi, the article of PlaneShift video game has been moved to the Incubator for improvements as suggested by other admins. Many new sources have been added, including scanned magazine articles, computer programming and open source books. I think it's ready to be evaluated and moved to the main space. Please review it and move the article to the main space if you think it's ready. Here is the article Thanks. Xyz231 (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Lady

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lady, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title 15 Code of Federal Regulations

You are a participant in the AFD for the article Title 15 Code of Federal Regulations. After you expressed your opinion on the article, a new article, Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, has been created. Please review the new article and, if you would like to change your opinion on the AFD in light of the article, revisit the discussion. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion - VisualMediaWorks

The article VisualMediaWorks has been re-edited with more citations from independent sources (Broadcast, newspaper, books, magazines). please re-consider it not to be deleted. thanks. Lwxmagix (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixing in the Food Industry

You commented on a similar AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixing in Consumer Products. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VisualMediaWorks re-opened

I have re-opened the above AfD, as references had been added to the article since the last comment was left, and no one had addressed these new references.

Your input at the discussion would be most welcome! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Killed me

It's rare that I actually laugh out loud at a comment: this did it. Well done. — Timneu22 · talk 17:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia seems to be missing an important article like List of left-handed writers. — Timneu22 · talk 14:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP RFC endorse

You might want to reconsider your endorsing my view, it seems to be the opposite from what you commented. Gigs (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soap opera character in AFD discussion

I've found the answer to your question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenwich Education Group about the soap opera character. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis Men and Women's Work Release Program

FYI: I noticed that you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indianapolis Men and Women's Work Release Program, so I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indianapolis Men and Women's Work Release Program (2nd nomination). Location (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would love your opinion...

... on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James C. Mulligan. — Timneu22 · talk 14:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

edit

I was going to ask you to do that. I hesitated when I noticed how many of the links were coming out naturally as part of the prose of the article. I suspect that several more of the business/politics articles can be linked as the discussion of philosophy is expanded. The world hasn't treated the notion in isolation.

Of course the ships, songs, television programmes, and others probably won't get linked in, and the case for a disambiguation page stands strong. ☺

It looks like someone in the Cold War Kids read Royce, though. … checks … Someone did indeed. The first source in Cold War Kids confirms this. Do you feel like editing Loyalty to Loyalty? I've worked on Loyalty (AfD discussion), and, I've just discovered, Fan loyalty (AfD discussion). It must be someone else's turn to write about this by now. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

The AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Tits Zombie, seems to be worth keeping, now that the article is completely rewritten. If you agree and change to keep, I'll speedy close. — Timneu22 · talk 18:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ecbasis captivi

Hello, Ihcoyc. Would you have the refs for "the oldest example of a European beast fable to survive" and "the first medieval European example of anthropomorphic animals", please? I thought these would be WP:DYK materials for your Ecbasis captivi article. So some inline citation(s) would be nice in there. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the footnotes! I've nominated your new article for DYK. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swinggeek

Hi Ihcoyc, As a programmer, I try my best to recommend the excellent GUI software TWaver. Please let me know what you think, I will do my best to save my first article. Swinggeek (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone once said...

"Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire"... killin' me. That's all, no reply needed. Enjoy your day. — Timneu22 · talk 16:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

overreaction on proposed deletion a little bit ?

how is sxc health solutions non notable ? it is talked about at hoovers, something that obviously helps its case as outlined on the article about notability. sxc health solutions returns over 60,000 results on the search engine more than most of the other healthcare companies it's grouped with that have articles. it is also receiving viewers. in the last 2 years its annual revenue increased from about 100 million to 1.5 billion so there's nothing small about it either. there has to be some other template you could have added instead of proposed deletion. if you don't like the references just delete them many of the companies don't even have references. it seems a little suspicious that after being worked on by active users (some administrators) you're first response to the article is a proposed deletion tag. I'll look aver the references and try to find some that don't sound too promotional but it won't take much to convince me that the deletion tag is not only an overreaction but inappropriate.Grmike (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Nonsense

My thoughts on patent nonsense are more in line with your interpretations of it than they are with the general Wikipedia definition. Well done! — Timneu22 · talk 15:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ecbasis captivi

On July 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ecbasis captivi, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

edit
edit

Stop making me laugh! ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I-DEAS AfD

You commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-DEAS. I have revised the article since by removing spammy and unverifiable content and by adding two references. There are more references on google books that could be added to the stub. In light of this, you may wish to comment in the relisted AfD. --Karnesky (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The ansestorial gods

LOL, I needed a laugh today - thanks for that :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Constructive Communication, Inc.]

Thank you for your review of our article. We have made the necessary changes and we respectfully ask that you remove the flag from our article.

Thank you. Amynumbers (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland Manufacturing

Having discussed this with other administrators for the Scotland Manufacturing page, I am aware of the issue pending for more notable sources and appreciate your review. In an effort to improve this article to be more encyclopedic, I request an extension on time to make the edits until August 13 2010. I am in the process of gathering sources and conducting research to navigate through the lack of sourcing. Thank you in advance Wendyfables (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IC Manage

Hello, you previously proposed the deletion of the article IC Manage, which has been restored at the prod was contested on my talk page. If you would like to pursue the article's deletion, please initiate an AFD discussion. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 01:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IC Manage questions

Hi lhcoyc,

In the past I had the discussion on page changes with the admin on the admins page, so I do have questions on posting for this discussion if you don't mind.

Do I notify you here to let you know when I post my discussion on the proposed deletion? It may take a few days to get my information together for the discussion to show noteworthiness and audience size of the publications, and make some modifications to the actual page, e.g. delete 'solutions' and other changes.

Also, are you the same person as explicit or has this been turned over to you? (e.g. I thought explicit was a musician and you are an attorney? )

Will you always respond back on my talk page when I post something or do I keep visiting the IC Manage deletion page?

Thanks, Mukis (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IC Manage again

Hi Steve,

I know you said I didn't need to post on your page, but I have a question for you.

What is involved in becoming an Wikipedia administrator. How many hours of volunteer time and can you post your own content and improvement?

I am considering this, because the electronic design automation industry I am in has had a lot of content, but most doesn't meet Wikipedia standards plus we have a lot of need for more content.

Any direction to links or personal insight is welcome. I do appreciate you and others helping Wikipedia meet its standards. I use it all the time - my first resource stop for research.

Mukis (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fir Tex

Hi, I have re-written the article following comments in the AFD debate, please look at the new version, and change your vote if you feel that your concerns have been satisfied. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Maudgonne.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Maudgonne.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hill Philipp & Associates Corp.

I notice a very odd thing about this hoax. Four IPs contributed to it, adding text, removing PRODs or db tags, adding HPAC to lists of banks:

80.190.200.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
62.2.182.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
87.236.194.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
82.113.145.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

All four have also edited the article Bodo Sperling or its talk page, or added Sperling to lists, or joined in a BLP/N discussion about him. I have no idea what to make of that: his bio doesn't read as though making up a fake bank as a "conceptual art" project would be his style. Any ideas? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure. I know it's part of the spammer "best practices" manual now that would be spammers are instructed to make some innocuous edits to random pages before unveiling their spam, to avoid being flagged as a single purpose account. This isn't a very good explanation here, and I haven't a better one that doesn't sound paranoid or odd. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peine forte et dur -- Question about a very old edit

Hi there! I was wondering if you could help me with a question about a very old edit you made (2003). [1]

"The common law courts originally took a very limited view of their own jurisdiction. They imagined themselves to lack jurisdiction over a defendant until he had voluntarily submitted to it by entering a plea seeking judgment from the court. Obviously, a criminal justice system that only punished those who volunteered for punishment was unworkable; this was the means chosen to coerce them."

I realise that this was seven years ago, WPrehistory when we could all get on jolly well without too many policies :). However, I have to say I find it surprising, and I was wondering if you could find a source for it. Did the common-law courts really only try those who entered a plea in the old days? Where did you hear that? I see you're a lawyer, so I'm not minded to remove it without checking, but ideally a claim like that needs to be substantiated.

Cheers, BillMasen (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. I should point out that the text has since been moved to Crushing#Crushing_under_common_law BillMasen (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]