This is an archive of past discussions with User:Czarkoff. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I want to thank you for all your hard work at DRN lately, Dmitrij. I haven't seen you around DRN until recently, but your hard work has helped many Wikipedians resolve their disputes, and I thank you for it. Hope to see you at DRN for the forseeable future :-) StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!22:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with having a talk page for an AFD; just copy the content into the AFD and leave the page in existence. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
As I said, you're free to copy the content over there. Deletion of the page will not resolve the fragmentation; it will only make it worse, because nobody will be able to go to the talk page to see the original comment that you copied. Nyttend (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a note: the next time when you are going to request third opinion, please, don't make drafts. It is nearly impossible to decouple current problems from previous threads and specifically to decouple differences in drafts from disagreement over original. Putting out arguments in plain English also helps to reevaluate both your own and your opponent's positions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI: there is a great AFC helper script (or better saying Gadget!) which does most of the reviewing stuff including many cleanup jobs! mabdul23:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly I was trying to install it right now. It just didn't work for me (neither with my beloved Cologne Blue, nor with Vector theme). It may be incompatible with my browser... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I assume that you still using xxxterm? Does it have something like a error console (and if, what does it say)? I have multiple reports and it is working everywhere (with some known bugs, but working)! Heh, you did you simply oversaw it because it is hidden next to the !move button?
Yes, I use Xombrero (new name of xxxterm). It doesn't cache on disk, so I did a "cold" restart to make sure I'm not using cache. Still, even if I didn't, switching to Vector would have solved caching-related problems.
It has WebKit inspector, which shows no errors. It also outputs some DOM/JS-related errors to stdout, and nothing interesting there also. BTW, inspector shows that pages source "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&502166909". I checked the drop-down menu in Vector skin (where "Move" resides), and "Move" was the only element. In Cologne Blue the tabs of Vector are the links at the bottom of the page, and nothing from AFCH there also.
Hell, it works! It attaches to a sidebar ("Special pages" section), and it only gets there once the whole page is loaded, so it simply wasn't there when I looked it for. BTW, the Gadget's body is placed under the text (in terms of depth), which is quite irritating. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I fixed worked around the layout issue by setting position:fixed in my custom CSS (the sidebar was displayed on top of the gadget, so moving it left helped). May be this can be somehow implemented in the helper itself? In fact the fixed position of the gadget seems more of feature then of workaround to me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC) (updated 00:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC))
I will check if this a problem on the side of the script, or the skin itself should be changed - I tested the script in moder, vector and in monobook and it works fine. Maybe the div tag for the JS-code 'jsform' (the stuff included by scripts) should be "moved". Alternatively I can include a workaround for 'Cologne Blue' - although this is very irritating (esp. your problems with vector). I will check this and trying to investigate what's causing the problem. mabdul17:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I am going to study this issue with more care, as I have some bad side effects with my solution. BTW, why didn't you implement this in Twinkle instead? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems to be a problem with the skin itself: "mw-js-message" should be attached to "siteNotice", while it gets attached to the <body> instead. Do you know a proper place to report this? I filed T40794 for this issue. Hopefully this will get fixed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, great checks. I'm rather busy so I hadn't the time to investigate into that problem/responding. Yes bugzilla is the correct way to address such problems. mabdul17:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Eventually I switched to Modern skin and altered the color scheme to match that of Cologne Blue. With this skin I have no problems with AFCH, though I would love to switch back to Cologne Blue once issues goes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, actually I commented because I think you arethe right person for MedCom. It is not a favor or something, just my honest opinion with no prejudice. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
You declined this article on the grounds of needing additional sources for notability. I remind you that all verified institutions of higher education are considered notable at Wikipedia. The article does indeed need a good deal of proper formatting. But that's a reason for editing--if its good enough to survive afd, its good enough for mainspace. I did the necessary editing and accepted the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, could you please link relevant policy or guideline? All I found was a bunch of essays, based on common AfD results, which didn't look quite convincing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:COMMON. Not one article on a verifiable university has been deleted in the last 3 or 4 years, unless its a copyvio or hopelessly promotional. The degree to which an essay is authoritative depends upon the actual consensus on whether to follow it, and this is one of our strongest. The guidelines at WP are what we do. Test it if you like, but expect a snow keep. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I have added some extra info on this with relation to its notability being Europe biased with some english (UK) review links listed so I'd appreciate if you could take another look, Thanks. Ezekial 9 (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Just checked and I think you're right -- PC Magazine seems to be partnered with ZDNet in Germany, whereas PC Magazin is an independent publication of WEKA Publishing. It's still a reliable source, though (it's not a knock-off magazine). -- BenTels (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm full of doubt regarding its reliability: the other media are also borderline, and the magazine seems to be run by two contributors. And yet it tries to mimic PC Magazine, which is specifically a very bad sign. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not saying it's great literature or anything. It's a dime-a-dozen computer magazine with an editorial team that produces a couple mags at a time (and the website stinks). But it's been in print for 25 years. They're not unreliable, they're just... tacky. -- BenTels (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, that was my point: if a magazine that earns its living by copying others' design doesn't find this software worth separate mention, this source says nothing about this program's notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't disagree with you there -- right now I don't see any claim to notability for DVBViewer. But you seemed to be saying that PC Magazin is not a reliable source period, and I don't agree with that. -- BenTels (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Why did you revert my comment? I did not open discussion with it, but saying to wait for the others before discussion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report11:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it isn't marked as open, because you reverted the bots change too, the bot will not try to re-insert. I saw these discussions, but DRN volunteers still say to wait. ~~Ebe123~~ on the go!12:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I was offline and couldn't respond. Indeed I reverted the statements so that it is not opened now. As the comments on the page state (and as is implied in WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering, the dispute becomes open once the opening statements are made and volunteer opened discussion. Though there was an implicit consensus that we don't require statements from all volunteers (it recently became explicit, BTW), still the case should not be opened unless there is reasonable hope that someone will come to DRN case and make his statement. Then the DRN case is opened.
Your comments "Hi, I'm ready to hear you, but please wait for others" in fact open cases and (per docs and comments) allow participants start the discussion of the case, which is contrary to the process as stated above.
Hi, I'm new at volunteering at DRN. I noted this: [1]. Should I request that they fill in the opening statements before marking it as opened? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
So God created Manchester has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †
About your comment here. It's not your fault. Admittedly, it was a bad idea for me join DRN right when it was going through some major overhauls, and I should have more carefully read the instructions before commenting.--SGCM(talk)21:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
There are three things I have to admit:
It was my fault. (Though I didn't yet understand, where exactly I'm wrong; hope I'll sort it out timely.) And I apologize.
There's no such thing as bad idea to join dispute resolution! Hope this experience wasn't too frustrating.
I've seen you before of WP:3O, and (though my experience is no more significant then yours) I believe you are quite capable in DR. I hope you'll continue helping people on DRN.
Hi there. I see you recently removed a request for 3O. If the other editor won't comment on the article's talk page, what do you propose? The discussion is at a standstill (albeit perhaps a different one than you're used to seeing). The editor may not have replied but they have not violated 3RR. Seeking your advice... Zepppep (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Wanting to know what might happen if even after full protection is granted but the user still doesn't engage in discussion, what then might be the remedy? Admin intervention? Zepppep (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Sorry to bother you. I need to figure this resolution bs out. So I clicked your link (To res dispute, and first talk) and am learning. thanksMaryester (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Dmitrij, thank you very much for your suggestions on how to improve my article. It is very important to continuously work on the quality of the Wikipedia content. However the information that's presented in the SysIQ, Inc. article is thoroughly verified and compiled in order to comply with all of the Wikipedia guidelines including establishing notability of the subject. I do understand that there is always a room for improvements which of course inspires me to work on adding some additional facts to even deeper support the notability of the subject once the article will be restored. Thank you again and please don't hesitate to contact me with questions. Godzhesas (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I'm actually pretty sure that SysIQ, Inc. does not satisfy the requirements for a Wikipedia subject, as it's notability is derived from its partners and nothing suggests that it significantly differs from other similar businesses. I'm planning to nominate this article for deletion at the end of August, so you in your turn might want to prepare your arguments for keeping it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your comments. Before we'll get into a formal dispute I would like to present you with my motives on writing this article. It's my first article on the wiki and of course very dear to me. I'm planning on writing a series on notable ecommerce providers that are making history as it happens. SysIQ is not a commonplace company. It's one of the innovators in the industry. They do a lot of things first with the "first" being a keyword. Look - they developed first tool to evaluate UX. Now everyone understand the importance of user experience studies, A/B testing and so for but back when I was a student we did not even know what it was. They developed ROI calculator - a product that has no match on the market. They provide a lot of free seminars and trainings to expand ecommerce far beyond some particular Geo-targeting. Actually what inspired me the most is an article about one of their founders(http://ko.com.ua/igor_gorin_sysiq_nado_prosto_byt_lyuboznatelnym_53560) and since I'm originally from Ukraine I thought that this company would be a great start in my series (btw the www.shop.com is an acquisition of their original start up). It's like a story of Demandware's founder (an other of my favorite) - both inspiring and notable. I'll sure dig in even further to add some info re: notability and I'm sure that we'll hear about this company many times again. Thank you. Godzhesas (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
That's not my taste — it's that of Wikipedia. I would note that the section Ideology is composed entirely of quotes, which is not a good trait per WP:BLP. Still, I would prefer someone dealing with biographical articles more then me review your submission. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Jolla discussion vs lack of time (at this particular moment)
Hi, I will take part in discussion but to my time limitations I will be able to join at the end of this week only. I have discussed this subject with DA and B for about several weeks what has consumed some time and now I have to do other things. Important but consuming another time. Also my initial statemant ought to be with discussion shortcut, as those are my arguments and this also requires time. I haven't taken part with such a discusion so far so would like to be prepared and ready with arguments. So "yes I will" take part but because of my limitations I will not be able before end of this week. I completely got no idea what is procedure or what are consquences of this but from my side it looks this way. If this is acceptable and possible - I will be delighted. But at the end of this week only. I don't know if this can be located there so leave it here, also to not harm opponents fellings. Please give me some time if this is possible. Please confirm if or what is possible or not as I am just totally unaware, and have no time to read now about this. I appreciate the discuss effort and initiative, and also opponents so wouldn't like you all to have bad impression about my lack of time at nearest few days. Ocexyz (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I proposed closing this case for now and reopening it on Friday evening. Does this go in line with you schedule? FYI your opening statement is limited to 2000 characters, so you'll have to summarize your evidence instead of presenting it in full. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The thread got archived
Thanks for your comments. Bushranger responded and did the work before I could've done it. It was my fault there as I wasn't sure what were I supposed to do there (was thinking to perform a re-list first but then closed it) and then closed. I shall take care of it next time and not close such AFDs. Thanks! TheSpecialUserTSU08:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm absolutely OK with this. The case is long open, while the user was notified and is active elsewhere since. I take it as the lack of will to participate, which IMO removes his comments from the waitlist. Even if not so, he was only involved in reverting (no discussion), so his input may be assumed as not particularly critical for this case until proved otherwise. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Selfedit: I am sorry I have written For me it is OK. thx and night, will be put into article by Monday night, but not tomorrow. It was great pleasure to meet you! :) Ocexyz (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC) but that was the mistake as I was quite tired already after several hours. This part is for me OK: >>>Jolla Oy (commonly called Jolla Mobile) is an independent Finland-based smartphone manufacturer start-up continuing the development of the Linux-based mobile operating system previously known as MeeGo. Jolla intends to announce its first smartphone product, equipped with Mer project's <<< But in fact can't agree with last words, because, the Mer is not an operating system now yet, this is not the full Linux distribution what your proposal suggest - this is against WP:V and WP:SOURCES. Also there is no customer user interface by the Mer WP:SOURCES at all. Only the MeeGo UI/UX fork described for easier understanding as Jolla's own UI. There is no source which would state this way - "operating system" used here is ambiguous and suggesting to reader something what does not exist. I also have mentioned above already that the Mer this is not any Linux distribution so far. However the goal of the project is being MeeGo 2.0, but now only "the core distribution" is what is (1) confirmed by the Mer site and several loud and clear statements of them (2) declared by Jolla with "using the Mer core" or "based on the merproject" (3) clear and not ambiguous. The Mer in this Jolla context mentioned as "operating system" is strong belief and strongly supported of Dark Almöhi and Bahaltener but it is only the opinion not the fact. We are obligated for WP:NPOV Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. The article can't be biased to promote the Mer project as the full operating system when in fact and by confirmed sources it is not WP:SOURCES. Also WP:VALID While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There is no any hidden secret the Mer Linux as full linux ditribution with complete UI, only the Mer core, which is more Linux kernel with some basic libraries. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world. Also I have decided to say this as in consequence in future edits it could happen that wherever MeeGo would appear it would be long discussion "but we have agreed this in fact is the Mer operating system". But this is the Mer core WP:SOURCES. Dark Almöhi claims the Mer has the text console so this is Linux operating system full distribution. But no normal customer would be able to make any single call or SMS check having only Linux text console with prompt, so s/he would have to call libraries one by one and define a phone number as a parameter for libraries, etc. etc. So we can assume we have agreed the first part but the last part have not been solved. Sorry, but I see no other solution, to avoid future problems. Ocexyz (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Ocexyz (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to notify you that I've gone ahead and fixed a link in which you've added above. Hope that isn't an issue for you, have a great day. =) Kurtis (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Re: your edit here reverting my edit, it appears as if you don't understand what that template is used for. By default, categories should be deleted if they are empty. There are a couple exceptions to this, that being categories that are intended to be empty (for instance, Wikipedians looking for help, protected page edit requests, etc.) A category for Wikipedians who use a particular browser is not intended to be empty at any point. If this category became empty, I wouldn't hesitate to delete it per WP:CSD#C1 if it remained empty for 4 days. Thus, the template is inappropriate for that page. I will be removing it once more. If you still disagree with me, I suggest getting a third opinion. VegaDark (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
This category is populated with userbox, and IMO should exist as long as the template itself. I believe that WP:CSD#C1 doesn't apply to it, as categories populated by template "by their nature may become empty on occasion", and this {{empty category}} belongs there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm the person who came up with that wording for the C1 criterion way back when, FYI, and I can tell you right now that's not the correct interpretation of it. Being populated via a template (in this case a userbox) has absolutely no bearing on if a category is C1-elligible or not. VegaDark (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I believe that templates should not populate the empty categories. On the other hand, if there is a userbox for this browser, there should be a category for this browser, as well as for any other having a userbox. So I think that such deletion is controversial regardless of the meaning you put in C1. As speedy deletion is supposed to be non-controversial, I think C1 is inappropriate here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, guys, I'm here from WP:3O. It definitely looks like VegaDark's in the right about the template. The category would qualify for C1 if it were empty; the exception in the C1 criterion isn't just for categories that may become empty, it's for categories that are intended to be empty. Also, note the wording carefully: it's for project categories, not user categories. So, it could potentially qualify for C1 (although obviously it currently doesn't, since it's non-empty), and even if it didn't, the template certainly doesn't apply, as it's definitely meant for project maintenance categories that represent backlogs and/or tasks, not user categories. Writ Keeper⚇♔15:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why the speedy deletion of one should depend on the deletion of the other. You can still use the userbox even if the category is deleted, and vice versa. If a deletion discussion (i.e. CfD/MfD) were started on one of them, then deleting the other should definitely be taken into consideration, but I don't see why it needs to be involved at the empty-cat CSD level. I mean, the way I see it, it's basically the same as saying "Well, we shouldn't delete this empty category because it could be used." Well, any category could be used, just as every category could have a template userbox that uses it. but the whole point of C1 is that it's not being used, and so it's not useful as a category. Template userboxes can be useful to provide options and suggestions to users, even if they're not currently being used, but categories not so much. Writ Keeper⚇♔16:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The point is that this category is only used by userbox, so if one places this infobox after category gets deleted, the user will be placed in empty category, which goes against WP:TEMPLATECAT. Not that I would oppose deletion of both the category and userbox, but the situation when userbox places user page in non-existing category doesn't make sense to me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Right, so if the category gets deleted, it should be removed from the userbox. It can always be recreated if necessary. Writ Keeper⚇♔16:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The necessity of such category is in categorizing particular group of Wikipedians, so one can tell whether recreation of category is necessary or not only from transclusions of the template count. At the same time, the very purpose of categories placed by templates is to allow access to this information without using transclusions count, so the very purpose of such categories is defeated if they can be deleted once empty. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
If they're empty, they're not categorizing anything, so they have no purpose: I think that's the point of C1. This is probably more of a discussion for the speedy deletion talk page or something, though; it doesn't really matter whether C1 is a good criterion or not with respect to the empty category template being inappropriate for this category. Writ Keeper⚇♔17:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Thanks for your 3O help with RWD / Problem with 3O page
Thanks for your 3O help with the RWD article the other day.
A not-quite-related question: It appears that User:Steven Zhang requested that this 3O page be moved, and then he went off on holiday. The link near the bottom of the page to add a new request is broken, and there is no section labeled "Active Disagreements"—clicking on the link gives an error message.
However this page works OK. If you can easily figure out how to fix the broken link (it appears to be transcluded, but it's not immediately obvious to me how) then it would be appreciated. I have notified both Steven Zhang and User:PeterSymonds (who made the move), but the page is still broken. LittleBen (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Re. the 3O page: Wikipedia is lucky to have a knowledgeable person who can fix problems caused by other people—it is not so good if Wikipedia interns don't respond, and don't try to fix problems that they apparently caused.
Some explanations of how to use features of Wikipedia's Media Wiki are very poorly written, with no examples. I've just been fixing up Interlanguage links here, and here, to better explain inline interlanguage links. But I notice that there are redlinks here, and there are no examples showing what the inverse pipe trick section is supposed to mean. If you can work out what the inverse pipe trick is supposed to do, and have time to supply examples, then it would be very helpful—I really can't work out the meaning.
I will look to it later today — sorry, have no time right now. Just wanted to note that Steve is actually good guy, and I'm pretty sure that he would help you if timely noticed your message. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 06:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together
Well, I would have waited, but I needed somewhere to let the parties know that they should stick to their own sections and not argue with each other. :) Discussion seems to be the best place for that, no? I'm not crazy that it makes the bot mark it as "opened", though, to be fair. — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)01:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I reacted on IP's comment, not on yours. Sorry for not making that clear enough — I just didn't want to point at particular editor to avoid prior judgment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Any chance you can continue the mediation on the talkpage? I don't understand why it was removed from DRN due to a technicality nor am I able to tolerate repeatedly going over the same matter in the discussion. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK)14:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
So, by closing the dispute in a way you are confirming that whoever spends more time in WP and does more edits, his/her content goes. This is against the spirit of encyclopedic, reliable and validated content isn't it?
Can you advice if there is any other recourse in this case? I've tried the request for comment, request for mediation and this last request, but the same tactic is keep re-appearing. The other editor doesn't come to the table, the request gets closed, and therefore their version goes. Do I have other options?
Unfortunately, we can't force editors into discussion, so any "gentle" DR process (3O, DRN or MedCom) will fail. Thus your only chance right now is to provide a compelling evidence and start RfC. Alternatively, you might want to restart talk page discussion and file another request for formal mediation (MedCom) once the new policy will come to effect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! What is the new policy - the link you sent doesn't seem to work. Also, I don't know what more compelling evidence to present. I've presented Encyclopedia Britannica and the United States Library of Congress Research Division... and really the matter is quite straight forward, just look at other countries like Czech Rep., Serbia, Croatia, Poland, Spain, Portugal, to name a few. They all have included the important dates or their history in the info box.
The fact of the matter is that the other side consists of two or three very active editors. The side that I'm on (681) even if more than 10 individuals (look at talk page to take a count) are not as active. Thus, if the other side evades the process, they can always assert their opinion, by the virtue of more edits... This is sad and contributes to bad content. Isn't there a binding mediation at some point? Ximhua (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
You may want to try again the link I provided — WT:MEDCOM#Draft of new policy — it leads to the discussion of the new policy (threads above and below also relevant). The draft itself may be accessed at User:AGK/Policy. Unfortunately, no date is there.
As to your question about the binding content DR process, there is none. Actually, how do you imagine enforcing any decision in the relaxed anarchist collaborative project like Wikipedia? That said, MedCom's decisions are normally considered to have a long-lasting effect, so within year or so you may sabotage any discussion with a statement:
"We had an epic war over this issue, and it even made to MedCom. The current wording is the result of careful high-profile dispute resolution process and reflects the consensus."
Ha ha, I love your comment: " Actually, how do you imagine enforcing any decision in the relaxed anarchist collaborative project like Wikipedia?" It probably describes the situation best :) Thanks for your help! Ximhua (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The dispute resolution notice on Assam was closed because the other party had become inactive temporarily [2]. The other party has since come back and has become active [3]. How may I reopen the notice? Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. You are familiar with the article Mixed breed dog. Are you interested in working with us on improving that article? There are several talk page sections that could be responded to, and, needless to say, feel free to edit. Chrisrus (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I suppressed text that might have been difficult to read on the first line and that I guess that you qualified as bullshit, but at the price of being maybe a bit too much technical. I have added some extra references related to AwoX's notability. I would appreciate guidance on this question of notability. Is the fact that article are in French the problem? What are the references that would better underline AwoX's notability? Please let me know.
You should demonstrate that this company has made an impact on the industry. This has to be done with no regards towards its products, partners, owners, employees and investment trivia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I will add the relevant link to articles citing AwoX. However, I'd like to note that you can be crucial to the industry without having press talking of you, for instance, AwoX is key in open home networking standards, but do not invest in public relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.188.240.92 (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your comments. This submission is 100% no-go, as there is nothing to suggest it is worth mention. As Wikipedia is built on principles of Verifiability and No original research, something that was not considered worth significant mention by independent reliable sources just can't become the topic of an article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I am unsure to understand. You meant that independent reliable sources confirmed that this article is not worht mentionning. Right ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.188.240.92 (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
So the list of articles provided and from industry source are not considered as relevant. So nothing else is possible for that topic to be mentionned. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.188.240.92 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Of the current references first four derive company's notability from collaboration with other companies, and the rest of references go to press releases (primary sources). You were referred to WP:NCORP for details. RTFM! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Understood and Agreed. Apologize but understanding the concept of primary sources even by RTFM is not trivial. I have to say that Wikipedia WoW does privilige companies that heavily invests in PR over those that invest in other field, such as standard body in the case of AwoX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.188.240.92 (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Need help with DRN
Haven't done this in awhile and I'm not familiar with the templates you are using nor how to close the dispute. Can you help me? Please respond on my page if you don't mind. Thanks in advance. M Jobberone (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I take it I erroneously resolved the mixed-breed dog dispute and should have closed it as you did?? Thanks again for your help. Jobberone (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Just so you know - my posy was an edit conflict with the close - thus was writing in the section before it was closed. Just FYI .Moxy (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Its no big deal...if the talk is closed my comments are useless - just wanted you to know that i was not trying to avoid the close.Moxy (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Not actually, as the voting is closed not on head counting; and even if it did, this comment is easily identifiable as going against the model of poll. I think it is a mere misunderstanding, and I contacted MichaelQSchmidt with a request to move comment elsewhere. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Czarkoff, I wanted to say thank you for responding to my request for a Third Opinion. I appreciate your input. Please also let me know if you have any advice for how I handled the situation, as I have never run into an issue like that before. Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
You made a good decision to go to WP:3O, as it is a good way to handle disputes with small amount of participants. I would only advise you to avoid using several dispute resolution processes simultaneously – such practice is generally known as forum shopping and is discouraged on Wikipedia. Try to avoid this, as it may end up lowering the weight of your position. The right course of action would be to wait for third opinion, and only go further (to WP:DRN in this case once it fails to help). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This dispute has been going on for over ten years and there have been over 1,300,000 words posted on the article talk page (by comparison, all of the Harry Potter books together total 1,084,170 words). Over the years the dispute has been through multiple noticeboards, mediators, and even the Arbitration Committee without resolving the conflict, so a lot of wisdom is needed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Does not grant you any special status above other editors.
You should probably also read WP:PROTECT, since this user privilege deals largely with page protection. As the requirements for this privilege are still in a state of flux, I would encourage you to keep up to date on the WP:REVIEWER page. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Derogatory slurs injected into NFL fanbase and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
I think your third opinion was fine, but what is the alternative to reverting a bad nomination if the tag is incorrect? The first tag clearly was incorrect as a rationale was provided on the file, contrary to what the template said. ToaNidhiki0501:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Normally no action is needed, as there are perfectly valid fair use rationale tags. Once the tags expired they would get deleted by administrators. Another likely scenario could be that another editor could delete the tags. You may even ask a user in good standing to review deletion rationale and act accordingly. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing my article. Please pardon my ignorance, I have read the notability requirement but I would like some guidance as to what I need to provide to get the article accepted. The late author Vu Ky was a very well-known academics and dissident in Vietnam. Documents of his achievements had been lost or are not accessible after the Communist take-over of Vietnam. I have copy of interviews by French and Belgium magazines which are not on-line. His 2003 Nobel nomination will not be made public for 50 years after the nomination according to the Nobel rules.
Your submission should demonstrate that multiple reliable sources independent of topic (not he himself, not co-workers, not people dedicated to reviewing Vietnamese writers, etc.) consider him worth mention. Instead you reference introductions to published books and Yale trivia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Added references to two Straits Times(Singapore) articles and one video from Channel 8 news(Singapore chinese language) supporting the other references. Gmon32 (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Minor references don't show the global notability. Specifically the references to local newspaper's blog. Probably this thing is notable somewhere in Singapore, but definitely not outside. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The references are not from a blog of a local newspaper, but multiple scanned articles of the the printed edition of The Straits Times. The Straits Times is the paper of record in South East Asia, widely read across the region, similar to the New York Times in the U.S. I've also included one more reference from the Jakarta Globe, as well as a video from DEMO, a U.S. tech conference. When did the criteria for notability become global? 90%+ of the content on wikipedia achieved notability in one country or one region only. Save22 has multiple printed language, TV, Radio, references across South East Asia.
Gmon32 (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
It took me for a while to guess the "ticket" you refer. Actually the AfD pages are not the discussions that are supposed to be conducted – the dispute is a discussion on article's talk page, not elsewhere. If you need an opinion on the tags though, I can provide one: they should remain, each of them is true, and "no consensus" closure doesn't mean that this article satisfies the inclusion criteria; in fact it only means that with current sources chances are it will be deleted within a month. Furthermore, the tags are needed to engage other editors in searching better sources for the article, so it is in your best interest to keep these tags and secure there presence unless sourcing of the article can stand at least the mild critics. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. "OpenBSD component projects" section is not a place to tell about market share (it adds unnecessary prejudice, subjectivity and dis-attraction to almost technically grounded section). In addition, telling "relatively low" contradicts "History and popularity" section where article says "... how widely OpenBSD is used is hard to ascertain". It is either "relatively low" or "hard to ascertain". Not both of them. Talk to me—Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
These statements don't contradict each other: OpenBSD is used "relatively low", though it is "hard to ascertain" the particular share. Partly because there is no reliable way to measure OS usage share, and partially because "relatively" is a huge exaggeration in favor of OpenBSD, which isn't noticeable in a big picture.
Ok. I'm giving up. However, to illustrate my point, compare these two: "Joe used to have a relatively small penis" and "the size of Joe's penis is hard to ascertain". Which one is neutral point of view?
You think like mathematician. But Joe isn't a mathematical model. He will not like you anti-promoting his stick. Being mathematically/statistically correct, doesn't mean to be psychologically neutral. You publicly name Joe's stick "small", people start to perceive it as small making Joe unhappy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leurk2 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you'd better raise this point at Talk:OpenBSD. I'm pretty sure it is all correct to make both statement, and they can be easily sourced both to primary sources (site, mailing list and even Theo himself mentioned these) and to secondary (nearly everyone writing about OpenBSD points out that BSDs are not all that popular). Still, I may end up being in minority, and I am definitely not going to push this point forward if it is rejected even by borderline majority of editors.
This is not necessarily true, to perceive "the small usage share of OpenBSD as its major benefit", for other people (which, in fact, aren't you). Try to think as a researching guy looking for Unix-like platform with strong community. What will be your first impression after reading that questionable sentence? "Small team"... "Relatively small usage"... Will that guy like such an anti-promotion? I doubt it. That guy will be dis-attracted by a learning curve being too high. Omitting unnecessary subjectivity neither attracts or dis-attracts, but will leave a chance for that guy to decide himself.
Hello Dimitrij Czarkoff,
I added some third party citations to my article on "Edward Marshall" and a section Edward Marshall (Canadian Author), with the same content to help with disambiguation from other Edward Marshall's in wikipedia. Edward Marshall is a psychotherapist who has recently gained notoriety, in international conferences in Toronto and Vienna. He recently published a textbook "Logotherapy Revisited", and has offered interviews in Canadian media. I added the citations I could find online for verification and a public domain picture in flickr. I hope this would help to publish the article.
Thank you,
He made his professional debut. That's what editors tell me when they review a page or article I should say. Why is this not accepted? I need a explanation. 24.227.93.118 (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
ARE you serious!!? First of all, How are you going to me that to wait until he plays in the professional level. Then change tunes on me. This ain't music chairs. What's up with the flip flop. 24.227.93.118 (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC) One editor tells me to wait until he plays a game professionally on one of the submitted articles. Then I got you telling me another thing. 24.227.93.118 (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually everybody is telling you that the subject should play professionally to be a candidate for encyclopedic coverage. The problem is that he doesn't – he just signed a contract, which is nothing on its own. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Whom are you talking to? I didn't mention media coverage yet, but if he played, then this fact must be mentioned in submission. You propose the article, and it is your task to convince everybody that this article is worth inclusion. The different perspectives come from the fact that there must be a good reason an individual makes to encyclopedia. Please, make yourself familiar with Wikipedia:Notability (sports) before engaging in further discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I put his statistics in his infobox. Why would I lie about that.24.227.93.118 (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC) You can easily click on his NFL.com or ESPN profile to see he played a game. 24.227.93.118 (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I don't see what's the problem. 24.227.93.118 (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
My articel on 'Physical Identity and Access Management' was rejected with the reason 'subject appears to be non-notable'. I believe that I have provided reasonable references of industry reports as well as the websites talking about this term. I'd really appreciate if you could help me by telling me the speicific changes which i need to make.
Hi Dmitrij,
Thanks for your feedback. Apart from the wikipedia rules and guidelines, I was following an already existing article 'PSIM' on wikipedia which is also a terminology used in the world of physical security just like 'PIAM'. Do you think PSIM article on wikipedia is in accordance with the wikipedia rules and regulations? Apart from Gartner report there is a white paper which I have referred to and few other blogs and websites listed in the external links. Don't you think the information mentioned in all these links justifies the notability of the term PIAM?
Hi Dmitrij,
Thanks for taking the time to review my page. I've reviewed the links that you sent regarding the subject's notability and, with a slight exception, I'm unsure where exactly I fail.
According to the Golden rule, a subject is considered notable if it has;
Received significant coverage: And The subject has.
Been covered by reliable sources: Among the references, I included the Inc. Magazine and Knox. News which fit the requirements.
Independent sources: I realize that I added a few press release wires. Those were largely redundant, but I felt they were relevant. Upon a reread,I have however removed them.
I also read the link to the article you sent. It makes for an interesting--although less authoritative--read. Regardless I still fail to see where my article fails. The article clearly states that "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary."
Being sourced by the Inc. 5000 as the 60th fastest growing retail company in the country, with over 4000 employers working and close to 500 stores spread across every contiguous state would surely qualify.
Still, these are just my opinions. I recognize the fact that you're a lot more qualified than I am, and may be privy to details I've missed. I also know that, with so many articles to edit and wade through, your day must be a very busy one.
But I would really appreciate it if you could give me a more direct explanation when you have the time of how my submission is wrong and the ways I can improve it.
Hi. Please keep in mind that the whole concept notability is not about counting sources, but about delegation of deciding on inclusion to reliable sources. That said, problems with your references (each number corresponds to the footnote number as of this revision):
Profile page; doesn't say anything on subject's notability unless all other profiles make the respective companies notable.
Profile page; doesn't say anything on subject's notability unless all other profiles make the respective companies notable.
HI Dmitri. I already deleted the press releases in my references before your reply so those aren't an issue. I'll change the blog link however.
Regarding your comment--Doesn't say anything on subject's notability unless 4999 other list members are also made notable--
I might be wrong, but I think you only looked at the top overview and missed out on checking the trophy case (which is also) on the Inc page. You'd notice that the company was ranked the 60th fastest growing company in the retail industry. And no, all the other 4999 do NOT have similar awards. Only companies within the first 100 are ranked. I believe that establishes the company's notability.
As regards the other references, not all of them were added to demonstrate notability. They were added to support the information within. Adding a link verifying that Bill Gates is married doesn't make him notable. But its necessary. Carlang (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
60th means that there are at least 59 that did it better that year, not to mention all the other years. That said, this fact might demonstrate that this company is successful, but being successful doesn't necessarily mean being notable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
HI Dimitri, The fact that they're the 60th fastest growing company in the country is just one of their achievements. They're also the largest Verizon wireless retailer in the country with stores in at least 45 states. I'm really confused. How is that not notable? That's like suggesting that Barnes and Noble, despite its high commercial success, is just a successful book store but not notable. As regarding their performance in other years, if you check the page you'll see that the company has been consistently listed in the INC 5000 for the last FIVE years--including this one.
You're actually making my point. Verizon Wireless is the largest wireless communications services provider in the United States with over a 100 million subscribers, and cellular sales is their LARGEST retailer. Cellular Sales has over 450 stores servicing millions of owners across the store.
If Cellular sales were to disappear and the hundred of stores across the country folded up overnight--people would notice.
Hello Czarkoff,
Thanks for reviewing my article. However, I did not get a clear reason why you felt the article /company lacked notability.
The company has been around for more than 20 years, owns IP, has ranked in Deloitte's Fast 500 Asia Pacific twice, was ranked in the Global 100 by Red Herring in 2009 and has been covered by NASSCOM in its list of Innovators. I have included links to coverage in national level newspapers and online coverage, which are independent of the subject.
Will appreciate if you can review it again. Thx RM (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Existing for 20 years, as well as being included in any list whatever number of times, doesn't help with establishing notability.
When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.
Thx Dmitrij. I have added references which cite the company's impact in the field of eLearning, and names some of the customers. Is this sufficient? RM (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I am resubmitting "Higitals" for Wikipedia. "Higitals" is not only a dictionary definition since the article goes into term's history. If this were a dictionary article, I wouldn't have bothered getting into the history of the term itself. But since it is not a dictionary article, I have included the term's history in the article. "Higitals" is no more of a dictionary term than Generation X. I am happy to make changes so it seems less of a dictionary deffinition. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higitals (talk • contribs) 15:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello there! Thanks for reviewing my submission on D&H Distributing. I have questions as to how to revise it to your satisfaction. Forgive me, this is the first time I'm making a submission so I'm not sure of the process. Your comment was that I needed citations to validate the information in the submission. However, I included many links to independent articles for just about all of the references made. Did I not format them correctly? Are the links not apparent on your end? Please help as I'm somewhat lacking in figuring out how to do this. Thank you Suzcommun (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC) SuzComm a.k.a. Sue
Hello! I see some problems with footnotes (numbers correspond to the footnotes' numbers as of this revision):
Membership in the TOP N list doesn't indicate notability of company.
Membership in the TOP N list doesn't indicate notability of company.
Interview, primary source.
Again TOP N list, but this time not even about this company, but about its staff.
Interview, primary source.
This source is a marketing wire, it simply rewords press releases. Also fails "Audience" criterion of WP:NCORP.
Composed entirely of quotes, primary source. Reliability also questionable.
This source seems to provide paid articles as a part of advertising services. Also fails "Audience" criterion of WP:NCORP.
Reprinted press release. Also fails "Audience" criterion of WP:NCORP.
Re: "Sorry for interjection", I am of the opinion that we don't interject enough at DRN. There is a tendency to think that if another volunteer has responded, commenting is somehow stepping on his toes. I think that commenting on a dispute another volunteer is working on is working as a team. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I generally try to avoid jumping into cases where I can see volunteer trying to lead parties through step-by-step process. In this case I thought there is an opportunity to settle thing down without saying "you are wrong" to some of the parties, so I wanted to try it.
I actually prefer to act as a single volunteer in the thread. That said, I don't really care volunteers' (including mine) comfort on DRN, as all of us came here to waste our time, albeit helping others. The most important aspect of DRN is getting disputes resolved, so if one's interjection helps to achieve this goal, it is surely a desired interjection, regardless of whether it voids all of my prior effort or not. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
(I am sorry if I talk to you on the wrong page, but I can't find 'my talk page'.)
I have written a page on professor Ruut Veenhoven, but your comment says he does not appear to be an important academic.
I checked on the relevant page in Wikipedia what the requirements are.
Veenhoven meets without further proof the points 5, 6 and 8 (and alle the other point too, but I did not include the references for those): point 5 he is professor at the highest level at the Univeristy of Rotterdam (Erasmus), point 6: he holds an academic chair with a name (Piet Thoenes Chair at the University of Utrecht),he is editor of an academic journal (Journal of happiness) and president of the Research Committee ‘Social Indicators Research’ of the International Sociological Association.
Up to now I have only inserted references in English. Does it help if I insert Dutch references? I wouldn't think so, since readers (and editors) do not read Dutch. Please let me know, and thank you for your time.
Willy Hemelrijk Willy Hemelrijk (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see reliable sources supporting these claims in your submission. In fact I see no single non-primary source, and primary sources can't be used for the purpose of establishing notability. If reliable secondary sources providing information on any single criterion of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) § Criteria exist, they must be explicitly cited in submission. Otherwise this academic can't be considered notable enough to be worth encyclopedic coverage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Question Regarding Notability
Hello Czarkoff,
You reviewed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MobileBits and cited lack of notability. Could you please clarify more since I believe everything is cited and they are a sizeable public company.
Notability should be established with non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Your sources provide exactly trivial coverage – profiles and routine acquisition announcements. Demonstrating notability means showing that this company is different from the generic company of a kind (mobile ISV in this case), and neither your sources, nor even the article itself demonstrate that. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to notify you that I have accepted this AfC submission that you recently declined. As usual with tennis tournaments, there is insufficient content because the tournament hasn't occurred yet and it is likely that there is going to be content afterwards. Cheers! SwisterTwistertalk04:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I am unclear as t wy the article was declined. Could you give me some advice on what I need to do to get it up to scratch?
Many thanks
Barney
Hello! Your submission relies too much on unreliable sources. The only source I'd consider reliable is Timeout article, which qualifies as trivial coverage and thus doesn't make your submission compliant with WP:BIO. Also consider reading WP:BLP – we have quite strict standard of sourcing on Wikipedia, so blogs and linkedin entries make the submission a no go. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RfC which will bring the matter to some ending. If Moxy is changing DAB to article out-of-process, you may want to request conduct dispute resolution (I'm not sure where you should request it currently). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I would propose to add Media, the arts, and architecture (append "|media" to the rfc tag), but you should keep in mind that bot is not very fast in notifying editors. Wait, may be more people will arrive. If no, you may propose a clean RfC on a subpage with an agreement that no involved party would comment there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
New At This...Sorry for delay in getting back to you....
Hi Czarkoff,
Am a bit new at this (have congestive heart failure) and not at the pc every day. Am trying to write this article regarding my old boss Rick London and I realize I don't have the skills to get it right.....
Also have some dyslexia (vertical) which makes all the Wiki symbols etc NOT-user friendly for me (not your fault or Wiki of course) but just mentioning it as it may take me a bit longer to get this right...
I'll keep trying. It's a good human interest story (I think) so please let me know how I should approach this.
I've read the "tutorial pages" (or tried to) and am not having much luck comprehending them (again not your fault or Wiki's but my own brain/eye disorder).
I see your point. There is more to the story; which is easily verifiable.
During the beginning of the Arab Spring, The Jerusalem Post chose his two color cartoons that ran a month in their Internet paper and a third one in their hard copy paper (regarding Egypt and Libya). I can send you the JPost editor's email. That's never happened; as they've always had in-house cartoonists so the cartoons (in Jposts mind) were better than what they had. That's world notoriety.
In addition, Google has shown him notoriety. Simply type in "offbeat cartoons" and you will see they rank him #1; not only that but he "owns" most of their 1st-3rd search pages. It has been #1 ranked since Jan 2005 (rare for a cartoon am told).
Please let me know if that is "notable" and if so I will add it to the story with appropriate checkable references.
Thanks Czarkoff...I see your point. I have color images of the cartoons that were
chosen by the Jerusalem Post for the beginning of the Arab Spring. Should those
be uploaded too? And if so, is there a page/tutorial on how to do that?
Thanks for reviewing my submission.
It was rejected and I am not sure why.
The artist was a leading teacher at the Slade School of Art for forty years.
The Slade School of Art being one of the finest school of arts in the world.
He taught at a time when Andy Warhol was studying.
I have no viewpoint on his notability; though if I had one, I wouldn't rely on it, as it is as unimportant as anyone's else. You should refer to WP:ARTIST for list of inclusion criteria. Note, that there should be a reliable source stating any of that. Otherwise, multiple reliable sources independent of the subject should cover him in non-trivial manner. Demonstrating that any of these criteria are met would suffice for passing notability check. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, plowing through AfCs can be a lot of work, the backlog has gotten so HUGE! I can easily see why using maintenance templates would be a labor-saving device for any of us Reviewers. I dunno though... using them seems maybe a little bite-y to newcomers, that's all. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't think so. These templates are worded quite friendly and supportive, imply that the issues can be solved and welcome editing. I actually wanted to propose embedding of a multiple issues template into AfC template in order to specify a set of common problems instead of current quite limited texts. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the article-Notices could look kind of bite-y to a new editor..."multiple issues" and exclamation mark and orange and all that... It's funny, the Warnings for Vandalism/etc have gotten quite friendly in their first-level versions...maybe there could be multiple-issue AfC notices with something of a similar tone. What can happen is that AfC editors will fix the one issue they think is wrong and then get all bent-out-of-shape when it is rejected for something else. Besides, with the backlog being over 1100 Pending Submissions, anything to make the task go smoother, to get new Reviewers in the mix and to help keep new editors around Wikipedia who are trying their best would be a great thing in my book. I wonder how hard it would be to add a multiple-issue notice with the only difference being the first line going "This AfC submission" instead of "This article"... Shearonink (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
It requires minor changes to {{Multiple issues}} (I'll try to draft a sandbox version for this tomorrow, if I find time for this). Still I would prefer using AfC submission template as a shell for maintenance templates in AfC submissions anyway, as that would make the whole thing more integrated. I just wanted to draft another (Twinkle-based) AfC review tool with support for these together with proposal. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Done. I changed Template:AFC submission/declined, so that "{{AFC submission|ts=20090625202232|D|{{refimprove|submission}}{{notability|company|submission}}{{citation style|submission}}{{linkrot|submission}}}}" produces:
Yeah, that is looking pretty good. (And I have no idea how to change 'article' to 'submission') Is it in the Reviewer's Menu yet? (don't know what it's really called, but you know....the Menu that pops up when one is Reviewing/Accepting/Declining an AfC Submission...) Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dimitrij,
Thanks for reviewing my article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Charles_Noke. It was declined due to an issue with Related Sources. I have read the articles on Related Sources, Citation and Referencing for Beginners. So was the article declined because the references were all from web sites?
I have a published Doulton book at home that contains some but not all of the information in the article so I could reference this?
I used this article on Charles Vyse as a template for mine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Vyse, and I can see that this has web references as well but also a bibliography. Is the bibliography the main reason this article has been published?
Also I notice that this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Doulton only has web references. Is this because they are 'trusted' web references?
Thanks
Thall69 (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
One of the attributes of reliable sources is an editorial oversight, which seems to be lacking on the sites you've linked as references. Citing books is definitely good practice, and you are very welcome to add it (see {{citation}} or {{cite book}} templates for the information about formatting the footnotes when citing books) but you should try to find some mention of the subject in other sources as well. May be he was written about in newspapers? Or may be he was featured in TV and/or radio shows? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I just started an ANI on the IP editor for repeatedly restoring material that was removed per RfC at Long War Journal. Since you participated in the RfC, this notice is just an FYI. You are not mentioned in the ANI. GregJackPBoomer!19:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
So sorry! I am only a new reviewer, but one of the more experienced ones said that you needed some better sources. Please consider finding better sources and adding them so this article can make it! :)
Ritchie333 names SD Times as the only good source. While I can understand concerns about OSNews' rather short news item (though OSNews is generally considered reliable on Wikipedia, and in this particular case neither author nor editor of news item is known to be involved with 9front), but what is the problem with Golem.de? German language? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Sorry to be late to this discussion, but I felt this was a marginal case - the OSNews article wasn't significant enough, and seeing what a rough ride software and OS articles get at AfD, I suggested that the author finds a few more to help cement notability, which has indeed happened leading to the article passing. --Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Psychotherapies ArbCom
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Psychotherapies and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thank you for taking the time to review my article. However, I am very perplexed. With the addition of a few items and Internet Movie and Filmportal.de (which I am working to replace with better sources) are the sources are IDENTICAL to the German and Russian Wikipedia versions of this article. Those articles were acceptable. So, why isn’t mine and would it have been accepted had I only translated the German article (I must rely on Google translator for Russian)? This doesn't make sense that these sources are acceptable there but not here!
J R Gainey — Preceding unsigned comment added by J R Gainey (talk • contribs) 12:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I am also perplexed that you state "submission is unsourced or contains only unreliable sources" when the article includes cites from the New York Times and The Ministry of Illusion: Nazi Cinema and Its Afterlife from Harvard University Press. These source are reliable and the article clearly meets the guidelines. Please explain further. Thank you Span (talk)16:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for misleading comment, the reviewer tool doesn't show the messages it outputs, and the option I used was labeled as problems with WP:V. The actual concern is that described in my previous message. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your kindness! I am working to find a more viable source for Ohlsen dates. I have felt it needs more proof than just I cited, but, at least its a starting point. (Also, I am e-mailing the sources asking them what their sources are.) I have requested Inert-Libray Loans to clear up the films info.
15:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You recently declined an AFC for this corporation on the very reasonable basis that it fails to assert notability and appears to be about a non notable entity. I see you have just made the same comment at the AfD for the same named article. It looks likely that the article will fail to survive the discussion. Assuming it does, what happens to the AfC article? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Basically nothing. Currently there is no process to delete AFC submissions, and no such process is required, as they are harmless. If this company ever gets notable (guidelines tend to become more and more relaxed over time), the submission would be accepted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks like they are indexed, though they come about the end of search results. Google and Bing are known to index every page but keep the ranking of articles higher (typically on the first page of search results) and the rest of Wikipedia (including AfD discussion) lower (typically on one of the last pages). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. I know we can prevent the indexing of parts of WP (or the grownups can). Where would one make the suggestion that this should happen for the imperfect articles (by definition) in the AfC pipeline? I see a loophole for spammers to use despite the nofollow attribute. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
We can't. There is already a "norobot.txt" in place, and it requires indexers to limit the scope to the main (article, "") namespace. Search engines just ignore these directives. We simply can't do anything with this. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
citing books on multiple claims
Hi, first off, thanks for all the help with the formatting. I have little experience in citing books, and your edits has given me some help both in the work but also in showing how it should be done. But I do have a question (beyond praising the help). If a book is used to support multiple claims in an article from different pages, how do I handle page numbers in the cited source? Belorn (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hello Czarkoff. I see that you have closed the dispute resolution request for that article suggesting to take the issue to "Requeststs for comment". This is the first time I hear of that process and from the explanation it seems a bit unsuitable for our aims. Reading WP:RFC "Keep the RfC statement simple and succinct as possible. The longer and more complicated your statement, the more diverse the responses will be, and the harder it becomes to interpret the consensus." I see no way that the responses will be simple, on the contrary, I guess they will be very difficult to interpret. I hope I am not mistaken but just read the description of the dispute, it is nowhere nearly as simple as asking "if this photo is appropriate?" type of a question. The dispute contains three distinct points each may be solved with a range of possibilities. On the other hand, I am very sure that my edits will be promptly reverted, as has been before. Do you have any other suggestions? 14:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You may want to present RfC as three questions and suggest drafts for each of questions. The layout of subsections you'd create for each question would look like this:
Ok but this rather looks like carrying the discussion back to the talk page while it was already discussed there without any result. So going there again looks like a step back. When bringing this discussion to dispute resolution, my aim was to ask attention and intermediary of a neutral, experienced user. Since that opportunity is closed now and talk page does not look like promising, do you know of any other procedure in Wikipedia? Filanca (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually RfC is a best way to resolve this, as it solicits comments from the whole community. All the content dispute resolution means are helping when there is a dispute between editors who want to find a compromise solution, while here this is not the case. Furthermore, the DRN (or 3O) resolutions aren't enforceable – whatever is the outcome, the other party is free to ignore it completely. RfC is more of "scorched earth" way to resolve dispute – once several uninvolved editors make their judgment, the matter becomes clearer and further dispute resolution (at DRN or MedCom) makes more sense. I would suggest you to prepare a special subpage for RfC (Wikipedia:Request for comments/Minorities in Greece and invite the other party (AFAIR Athenean) to prepare the other side of dispute statements; you both should agree not to engage in any discussion with each other on the RfC page. If this won't work, sorry, there's nothing I could suggest you. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
secondar sources
My article "Dear World" has been rejected due to insufficient sources. The wiki review summary stated that I needed more reliable secondary sources. Could you elaborate on this?
Hi. If I understand the Dispute Resolution board correctly, you're one of the volunteers there. I would use that board, but I couldn't make heads or tails of how to use it. I didn't know if I should just start a new discussion on the bottom, or what. Besides, I'm hoping the issue in question is something that only requires a polite admonishment, and not protected discussion. On September 17, I removed uncited information that User:217.120.23.150 had placed in an article, and advised him/her of the pertinent policies on that IP's talk page. Although my message was mostly polite, it was a bit more critical with respect to the poor writing on the part of the material (though that was not the reason it was removed).
The editor did not respond well, and his/her most recent message was this one:
You must be a motherfucking fool. I only added some missing information (about 15 words) about Tania Heads lies about being rescued by the hero Welles Crowther as said in the documantery The Woman Who Wasn't There. I NEVER edited something in the Welles Crowther article, that's a fucking lie. I added something in the Tania Head article. You removed that missing information because you like incomplete articles's and because: ""it wasn't well written"" So, correct my words fucking fool. You are sooooo stupid, you don't even have an own language. You have only the language of an other country England. So piss off Neanderthalamerican with your fucking arguments and lies. And please block me forever loser.
Again, while my messages were critical of both that editors writing and their arguments, it did not approach this frothing-at-the-mouth level of rage, or violate any policy or guideline, and I think that editor needs to be informed by an uninvolved editor of proper Wiki etiquette. Could you chime in on that page? I also contacted Guy Macon, just to make sure that someone attends to this. Thank you very much. Nightscream (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I actually participate in content dispute resolution, and I'm not sure of how the conduct DR process is currently organized. The problem you face seems to be more about conduct problem, and I have no experience within this area. I left a warning at IP's talk page, and it it fails to bring his/her etiquette skills back, you might want to write to WP:ANI... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I went to Dispute Resolution because I thought that it had supplanted Wikiquette Alerts after the latter was shut down earlier this month. Nightscream (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Most of that seems geared towards content disputes in which some protracted editorial conflict is ongoing. Again, I just needed an uninvolved admin or two to inform the editor of our policies governing civility. Nightscream (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Good morning Czarkoff,
I contact you to discuss the deletion you did on the page OS_MarketShare (20:36, 30 September 2012).
I added a history view in the web client section because we have for the moment only instant information about the OS market share and for each update (typically each month) we loose the previously information registered.
So I added a chart with OS market share for web client obtained from the data of PCMag (period 1991-2002), W3School (period 2003-2006) and the data already registered on page OS_MArketShare (period 2007-2012).
In your comment, you mention the page WP:SYNTH.
I read this page to see what is wrong with my "good faith" edition of course. I'm sorry but the chart added do not imply by itself. I do not added some interpretation of the data and references them.
So, I think your deletion is not justified regarding your explanation. Could you reconsidered your view, please?
Hello! This article used to include tables for each of the sources, showing historical usage shares. Those were trimmed half a year ago due to WP:WEIGHT concerns (the article was found to give improper weight to user client-based stats). I would like to have a comprehensive overview of data in question, but the way you combine different sources (PC Magazine uses synthetic figures, w3schools measures their own auditory using unique clients approach, Wikimedia measures their own auditory using page hits approach) produces too screwed results. Given that the chart is an interpretation of data itself, this graph constitutes improper synthesis of sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Krabbal declined
Hello, I am very new to wikipedia and not positive how this works. My friends and I made up a game and want to put it on here as a searchable item. It is a fun loving game for all ages. You declined saying it was untrue or a hoax. I can assure you we really did make up this game and are avid players. I can include pictures and videos or us playing eventually but living on a remote island off Cambodia it is hard to organize when I will readily have the internet at my disposal. I have made some changes to make it sound more factual. Please let me know what else I can do to make this a searchable game on Wikipedia. Thank you, Sarah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krabball (talk • contribs) 14:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Added a primary reference from a French finance newspaper "Les Echos" dated December 30, 2011. Let me know if I need to find more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.188.240.92 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Marine: capitalization
Hi, Czarkoff! I just responded to a statement by you on the MOS page, because I am very confused about how you are reading the article that notes that the NY Times has CHANGED its policy, so that as of February 2009, the word "Marine" will be capitalized when it refers to an individual, not just to the Corps. Here is the article. Could you be reading and citing an article prior to the Feb 2009 change? NearTheZoo (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove posts by others, except for vandalism or blp. It's considered a violation of WP:TPO.
Further, 30 is explicitly for disuptes with 2 people, so my post is valid.
KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh ... 14:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not; Czarkoff was quite within his rights to remove your request. It is certainly not a violation of TPO to remove declined requests from a noticeboard, since it's not, in fact, a talk page. And the decline was proper: 3O is currently for content disputes only, and yours is purely conduct. I'll go to Floq's page and respond anyway, just so that there's no drama over this, but just know that Czarkoff wasn't in the wrong here. Writ Keeper⚇♔14:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, per 30 itself:
Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors. When two editors do not agree, either editor may list a discussion here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from both editors during the discussion in order to be successful.
This is a disupte between two editors, plain and simple. I hear what you're saying, but it's not supported by anything on the 30 page. Therefore, removal of it violates WP:TPO. No, I'm not looking for drama, as a matter of fact, I'm looking for a third opinion. See you around ! KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh ... 15:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not a discussion page, so TPO can't apply. By that same logic, removing an erroneous report to a noticeboard like AIV or UAA or something would also be a violation of TPO. Although I suppose you're correct in theory that there's nowhere that explicitly says, "This is not for conduct disputes", look at the third paragraph in the lead section of the 3O page. It's meant for content, not conduct disputes, and when the two are intertwined, the content dispute is the one to base a 3O request on. It's not a big deal, really, but Czarkoff wasn't wrong to do what he did at all. Writ Keeper⚇♔15:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
30 is for disputes between two editors, that's what this was. The dispute started on ANI, and as I wanted to keep it between myself and FLO, I kept it to his talk page. I didn't see this as a conduct issue, but rather a content issue. Look on the left side of 30, under "Dispute resolution" and notice that is shows 30 as the first step for either conduct or content disputes between two editors. No I'm not looking for drama, and yes, you did answer the request, and I appreciate that, Thank you. But I still disagree with both of you and am explaining why that is.
Like I said, it's no big deal. It's not a huge problem for conduct disputes to come 3O's way. (It was a conduct dispute, though, since it didn't involve any article edits.) Just, for the future, be aware that they might get declined as a conduct dispute, and that such is not unusual or worthy of a talk page warning or anything. That's all; no worries. :) Writ Keeper⚇♔15:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the whole argument. (I was offline.) I assume that my edit in question if this one. As WP:3O says, the requests are declined by removing them from the list. At the very same page one may read that WP:3O deals not with conduct disputes, but with content. The logical conclusion is that conduct-only disputes should be removed from list if posted.
Indeed, some ambiguity was introduced with the wording about posting conduct-only disputes at WP:3O if in doubt. I don't actually know how did this wording survive, but there is a strong consensus that conduct-only disputes are out of 3O's scope. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Czarkoff, I hope you don't mind me expanding a bit here, to avoid derailing the talk page. What I meant was that, if Stana Katic had said unequivocally "I prefer my name in Serbian, diacritics and all, and wish people would use that instead of the English spelling", then we should include it as at least an alternate spelling. Beyond that specific scenario, I agree that opinion shouldn't matter. Absent that, and absent widespread use of the diacritics in reliable sources (whatever the reason), I don't think the alternate spelling is justified. Do you disagree with that? I'm not really versed in the policies on diacritics, so perhaps mine isn't the accepted view; I could well be wrong. (It certainly doesn't seem to be the case with this person, which is why I moved my reply here; I don't want to confuse people there with aspects that aren't relevant to the issue at hand.) Writ Keeper⚇♔20:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Be I allowed to make an ultimate decision, I would just avoid the Serbo-Croatian spelling whatever her personal preference is. This dispute happens in the imaginary world, while IRL things happen the way they are in paper. Just a simple (and very personal illustration): my name is "Дмитрий", which is difficult to properly transcribe to whatever language, but may roughly correspond to "Dmitrey" in English. Since a while ago I moved to Montenegro where my name should have been written (according to Serbo-Croatian rules) as "Dmitrij". As long as a common Serbian name "Dimitrije" exists, I mostly introduce myself by this name (so this is my preferred version of spelling my name), but in the publications I'm mentioned in here I still have "Dmitry" spelling, which is the one I have in my passport and the one I end up being tied to, regardless of my personal opinion on the matter. This is equally true for every other human being on the Earth – the names are not subject to personal tastes and positions, they are uniform, consistent throughout the paperwork and subject to irreversible transformations. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Czarkoff. I deleted our discussion on my talk page -- and deleted some of my comments (and softened others) on the Manual of Style page. I hope my comments seem all right to you now: just disagreeing with you without seeming to come across as disrespecting you. If you think they need to be softened even further, let me know. Of course, feel free to delete this comment on YOUR talk page after you read it, as well! By the way, I am glad you did not say anything disrespectful about Marines -- unlike another editor, whose comments about "reinforcing the stereotype" of Marines as "Dumb Grunts" was entirely unnecessary and inappropriate.... Best wishes, NearTheZoo (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Cyrillic script
Hello Dmitrij,
I am curious. You are Russian your native language is Russian but you have only a near complete understanding of the Cyrillic script ?
Is this an error or seriously meant ? (Sorry, my english is quite poor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.213.167 (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Czarkoff,
can you let me know why you do think the "Vision Capital"page I created does not meet criteria for notability and proof of significant coverage in reliable sources.
best wishes,
--JHAVTVS 10:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHAVTVS (talk • contribs)
Adminship
Hey Dmitri, I'm not sure if you recall seeing me around, but I previously did post on your talkpage over a month ago in August. I confess that I went on to watchlist your talkpage out of interest in your editing activities, and I must say that I've been very impressed by the things I've seen since that time. For starters, I've actually been noticing your name popping up much more often in Wikipedia-space these days (particularly at AfD and RfC), and you seem to have demonstrated an in-depth grasp of policy from the comments I've taken the time to read through. I also note that you are highly active in dispute resolution and in particular at the related noticeboard. That's excellent — we need more administrators with a solid background in resolving disagreements between editors. You clearly have the temperament, diplomatic skills, and judgment to be a terrific administrator. According to your userpage, you have expressed an interest in one day attaining the sysop bit. Whenever you feel ready, perhaps in a couple months time or so, I'd love to have the opportunity to make you my first ever RfA nominee, if you're willing to accept of course. =) Kurtis (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this assessment! I indeed would like to become administrator one day, but I'm afraid that until the end of October I won't be able to respond timely to any questions (I'm quite busy IRL now, and I'll be offline for a week from October 16). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem, I'd love to see you with the "mop and bucket", but I'll wait until you're ready and aren't so busy with real-world matters. =) Kurtis (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Declined article about a Java tooling company Plumbr
On 15th of September last year you declined the article about Plumbr. I improved the article and resubmitted but it keeps getting rejected with the only comment that "It was already rejected once". Can you either review the article again or give more hints about what we can do to be present in the wikipedia? The company is now two years old and sustainable, but wikipedia presence seems to be something we are stuck with ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivom2gi (talk • contribs) 10:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
New citations
I added some new citations to the Tien Tzuo page. I don't believe your issue is whether or not he's newsworthy, but whether or not the page has enough references to back up its assertions. Hopefully it does now. Please let me know which statements/facts still require referencing. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bicyclesquid (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I am just letting you know that I've made a proposal to create a rotating DRN organiser-style role that would help with the day-to-day running of DRN. As you are a listed volunteer at DRN, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and the other open proposals at DRN. You can read more about it here. Thanks! StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!00:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Vision Capital AfC
There was recently a request added to the Paid Editor's Noticeboard that was asking on how best to create an article on the company Vision Capital. After doing a quick search, I found that the user in question had submitted an AfC request for the company, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vision Capital. You were the last reviewer for it and declined it, so I must ask, why? The article seems perfectly fine for a starting stub article that can grow from there. It has rather good references and everything seems to be in order. Why did you decline it? SilverserenC23:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
DRN needs your help!
Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!11:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Mobilebits
Could you provide a little more detail on Mobilebits and what information it is lacking to make it noteworthy? Would not the awards suffice to make it noteworthy combined with being a public company? Thanks for the help from a newbie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behrlich (talk • contribs) 15:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
