User talk:Stustu12

Welcome!

Hello, Stustu12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan pictures

I hope you find time to upload some of your Kazakhstan pictures to Wiki. The best way to do so is to create an account at Wikimedia Commons - pictures uploaded there can be accessed on all Wikimedia Foundation wiki's, whereas pictures uploaded to a specific wiki (like English Wikipedia we are on now) can be accessed only at this wiki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Shulman

If you are still around, the article needs some improvements. DGG 23:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dgsna logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Dgsna logo.png. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of DGSNA

A tag has been placed on DGSNA, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Ridernyc 01:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the article is now at Digital Government Society of North America and DGSNA is just a redirect.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. [1] [2] [3] --Ronz 18:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK regarding your recent edits. --Ronz 18:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Those links are useful in related contexts.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not if the links are useful, but if there's a WP:COI. --Ronz 19:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion started at Talk:Qualitative_research#Stustu12.27s_external_links.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy"

Copied from Talk:Qualitative research: "As a fairly inexperienced wikipedian, I can assure you this 'controversy' is a deterrent to future engagement. My real curiosity is why the other external links are considered legitimate? User:stustu12 —Preceding comment was added at 02:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)"

I've copied your comments to here for a more private discussion than would happen on the article talk page. I hope you don't mind.

First I'm very sorry how this situation has evolved. For me this started as just a very simple and straightforward case of spamming with a conflict of interest. Piotrus intervened for you without understanding the issues at all in a manner that's potentially embarrassing for you (and him).

I think Wp:spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer pretty clearly explains the situation. My concern has nothing to do with the quality of the links, but how you added them. Piotrus apparently doesn't understand this.

As far as my dispute with you is concerned, that's about all there is to it. I'm happy to explain the situation further, answer your questions, or point out good ways to get others involved to help. I recommend you follow the suggestions in WP:COI closely, especially in using the talk pages when you want information added where you have a coi.

As for Piotrus, because he's persisting in claiming these problems do not exist, I feel it's best if I take his complaints to a forum where they'll be handled by experts in these matters. I don't think you need to be involved, though others will probably ask for your response to the suggestions in WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:Ronz: You are certainly strident. is it Wikipedian philosophy to scorn all compromise in this manner? Please cite the page source for this if so. Are all Wikipedia rules clearcut? If so, please site the page that states the rules are not subject to interpretation, discussion and collaborative problem-solving. Is COI the most clearcut of all wikipedia guidelines, or is there some debate about this? Finally, your history of interactions with 'violators' is anything but cordial; it has an unmistakably imperious tone. Please cite the Wikipedia guideline or principle that enables you to adopt this tone with impunity. Frankly, you give the collaborative enterprise an awkward and offputting feel by behaving like a general before his troops instead of a peer in a great collaborative effort. User:Stustu12 5 December 2007

I'm sorry that you've responded in such a way. I've moved your comments here for discussion. In general, I ask that comments on my talk page follow WP:TALK.

I've taken a great deal of time to explain the situation to you, and to differentiate what you've done with what Piotrus has done. If you're unhappy with it, then it's time to get others involved. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I did remind you earlier about WP:AGF and WP:BITE. As the saying goes, you reap what you have saw. Now, both of you, please take some time for WP:TEA. There is no need to continue this any further (per WP:COOL and WP:MASTODONS and so on). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I've taken the issue to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Stustu12. --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also started a discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Need_additional_opinions_for_spam.2Fcoi_case --Ronz (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your contributions have caused some controversy, because you might have gone a bit beyond the rules. I know you acted in good faith. Also, personally, I believe the links you provided are very valuable. Perhaps putting a couple simultaneously was not the best idea, but I understand you're new to Wikipedia (gosh, you don't want to know what mistakes I did when I was a beginner!). Don't get deterred by this "controversy" and please, do contribute to Wiki - it is becoming the supreme global encyclopedia thanks to the experienced users like you! Do remember, though, that you need to follow the Wikipedia rules - they are meant to protect Wikipedia from advertising and promoting particular products, and some users are more sensible to these rules than others. I'm sure you'll be able to make quality contributions without a problem once you learn about the policies! Pundit|utter 01:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you will be glad to know that at least five users have so far ended up supporting your side. While we should be careful to follow up COI/SPAM/EL policies (and I would highly advise taking one's time to read them), rest assured than we welcome contributions from scholars like yourself. Hope to see you around, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Information Technology & Politics

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Journal of Information Technology & Politics, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Journal of Information Technology & Politics. DGG (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest userfying the page until such time it is published and becomes notable. PS. If, however, the journal has a previous history - as noted at User_talk:DGG#JITP - I'd suggest keeping it (and expanding, as suggested).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest speedy deletion; it is the wikipedian way to get rid of content and users former user:stustu12

you need to understand that we do get a great deal of real spam, even from universities, and most of the time suspicions are all too justified. But the wikipedian way was designed by people who think WP:BRD is a polite way to do things, so any civilized person venturing here just needs to put on armour. DGG (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On balance, I think the article is supportable (but needs to be expanded further), so --I've removed the PROD tag. DGG (talk)

I have prodded many articles and have several of mine's prodded. The solution is usually simple: expand the article to prove it's notable. If it cannot satisfy notability criteria, merge it into an existing larger article as a subsection. Giving up is unfortunately the worst choice, as it often mean that the article will not be saved.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't go

Hello Stustu12, I'm a rather new user myself, and I noticed your comment from your last edit. Please don't leave us; I would feel upset if I was in your position as well, and you're a very valuable editor. It's unfortunate this has happened, but there's so much more to do here, and if you stay, you can always edit in other areas. How about it? Red rocket boy 23:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I join: please, stay. Without experts like you Wikipedia will never develop. The process of writing articles in a democratic environment is definitely stressful and, occasionally, irritating. Still, it is definitely worth the effort. Many scholars find it also rewarding that they can persuade other wiki-peers basing on the argumentation and truth themselves, rather than drawing on their formal authority. I strongly encourage you to edit Wiki and extend the warmest invitation to keep up the good work, in spire of conflicts, which are natural and will always occur. Pundit|utter 23:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I was told you might be leaving? I sincerely hope you don't - you've been with us for 2 days shy of a year, and you've one of the few people who actually contribute valid, usable content to our project, as opposed to just 'tidying and cleaning' like many of us do! I'm an administrator here, with a fair bit of experience - if I can be of any help at all, please, let me know Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry XMAS

Image:DSC00732.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DSC00732.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lawrence Shulman

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Lawrence Shulman, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Tomdobb (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Qualitative Data Analysis Program

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Qualitative Data Analysis Program requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dgsna logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dgsna logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of DiscoverText

Hello, Stustu12. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, DiscoverText, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]