User talk:Veinor Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Veinor. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The Stinger Report Issues

Thank you for your comments, I have gone through the page and removed the interview and toned down the descriptions. The only thing that I have problems with is that you say 'reliable sources' - I think 1up.com and SPONG.com are respected consumer industry sites (as well as three trade associations)- also the amusement industry is small so there are only a limited number of references to be had, as many as possible have been used to show fairness. What else could be done to this page? Stingerreport (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you could say that 1up.com and SPONG.com are reliable sources, the point I'm making is that if you find something that goes on length about Stinger, but is on John Q. Public's random blog, then it wouldn't work for a source. As for what else could be done, it's really just an issue of finding good sources that talk specifically about the Stinger Report. Not that reprint information gleaned from it, not that talk about the founder, just about Stinger itself. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable observations. The Page has been paired down of reference about the founder, the interviews, and uses references only talking about the Stinger Report and not written by the Stinger. Also details on the service operation and areas of coverage have been extended - with a re-write of the start and description as suggest. Please can you confirm this is more in keeping with Wiki requirements? (I will also be pairing down more the external links to three) Stingerreport (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Kalirai

I added my name to my article on 'Kalirai', i do not understand why i cannot take credit for this page by adding my name as all the information is provided by myself after careful research. The article relates to myself as i am a 'Kalirai' and the village which i have written about is the village that my roots are from. I made the page seeing no-one had written anything or created anything and now that I have people want to take it over. i do not understand, i want a way to be credited on the main page as this is very personal to me. Kalirai (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)! Veinor

Sumeet Kalirai

The point of Wikipedia, and indeed of the whole wiki concept is community collaboration; if you didn't want people to 'take over' your article then you probably shouldn't have made it. But as it stands, when you created the page, you agreed to license it under the GFDL, which gives other people the right to create derivatives of your work. If we allowed people to maintain exclusive control over articles that they had created, then it would devolve into anarchy as people with competing biases worked to publicize their particular version of a controversial event more than the other guy's, so to speak. So we don't let people put their names on the main article precisely because it causes divisiveness. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is any way at all i can be known as the initiator then please do let me know. Kalirai (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your username is permanently marked in the page's history; it will not be removed unless the page is deleted, and even then it will still exist in the deleted pages archive, though it will only be visible to admins. And you could create your userpage by editing this page and add your name, and whatever else you want people to know about you. Although your userpage is still technically part of the Wiki and thus open to community editing, you will have much more exclusive control over it; see the userpage guidlines for more information. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

jamiecg74

I am unsure specifically what it is about my article that is not allowed. The fact that I did gain national newspaper coverage on two occasions surely would be ok? Once for the selling of the carrier bag on eBay (people still talk about it today) and it was in the Daily Mail as I have uploaded the picture to prove it, and the other as I did appear int he Guardian newpapaper, and their website. I did also appear in the Whizzer & Chips comic in 1985, so there are three seperate publications that I have had something printed - two with pictures as well. Can you tell me what I can and cannot keep? I am happy to compromise. Jamiecg74. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiecg74 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Whizzer and Chips thing is basically what is considered a 'trivial mention' under the notability guidelines for people; it's something so small that it doesn't really count. I was in a car accident when I was young and my name was briefly mentioned on the news, but that doesn't really qualify me for an article. The same goes for the "spot the ball" one; somebody winning a local newspaper competition again doesn't really count for much.

As for the Daily Mail, I believe that the picture you uploaded is indeed real. However, I don't believe that getting one article written up about you in a national newspaper is really all that notable; though again, I could be wrong. This is why I've nominated it for deletion, instead of just going and deleting it myself, so that the community can give its input. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How will the community decide and how long will it take before I am notified of a decision? I have uploaded two photographs to validate the information so it least I am not making all this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiecg74 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The decision is made via the Article for Deletion process; it takes five days. At the end, an administrator (who has not previously stated their opinion) will look at the arguments for and against keeping the article and decide to keep or delete it, as they deem appropriate. The debate is held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamiecg74. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

HDRAPER

I understand your concern that the Draper edit is a bit long, but it is an accurate and complete biography with slew of citations. This wikipedia page is part of University of Florida class project where we have to put our biographies on the webpage. If it could be left up for just a week, that would be great. Thanks HDRAPER (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

'Your' biographies? I assume you mean biographies that you wrote... unless you are indeed a resurrected Mr. Draper.

In any case, the thing of it is that we usually don't allow people to keep their pages up for school projects or whatever. However, you can copy-paste it into someplace in your userspace, so to speak, which would be a page that starts with User:HDRAPER, such as User:HDRAPER/Henry Draper. You could tweak it then, convert the citations (which I do agree there are a good number of) into a standard wiki format, which uses <ref> tags and {{cite}} templates, and pare down the text to something more manageable. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you an editor of the site or something or just a user? And yes, I am part of a class of about 20 people who wrote biographies of scientists and will probably be doing the same thing I just did here in the next week.74.239.58.220 (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm an administrator; it's one level above registered user. There's a couple higher levels, though, so it's not like I have any sort of final authority over anything. In any case, I wish you and your class well, and would appreciate it if you pass on my advice: that the articles don't have to be quite as big as that one, though the effort is definitely appreciated. Also make sure to look into that link I posted above about citations; it makes it easier both for people to check them. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen J. Petrick

Hello. I'm about to close your Afd nomination as delete. Thanks for partcipating. BTW, that was going to be my first non-admin closure. Cheers. Please delete it if it seems it neccessary.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Speadily deleted Melville Rovers Football Club Page

Hi, i created the page Melville Rovers Football club as am currently doing so for all the teams in the district league for the university. I am trying to link together all the clubs one by one so that people can access player info and look at club formation. I started with the team i am in as i had all the releveant info- kit colour eg so that teams know what to wear against us. This is not a personal entry as many more will be done. we would also aim to do this for the university hockey and cricket clubs so as to create a more comprehensive picture of recreational sport at our university. i would think that this would be noteable for people coming to the university and theose already at it, cheers Melville rovers (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that notability isn't just for a specific group of people; it requires the existence of multiple independent reliable sources about the specific group. You haven't shown any coverage by, say, a newspaper or anything about the Melville Rovers Football Club, so I deleted it. I would also caution against creation of more pages along similar lines, as they will likely be deleted for similar reasons. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

BDD page external link

Hi, I'm not sure how you can feel that a link to the website of the world's leading authority on the disorder isn't relevant to the topic? It has nothing to do with advertising. It has nothing to do with search engine results. The link was added to simply convey to people another place they can visit to get a lot more detailed information on the disorder, including links to many free scholarly journal publications that have been authored by Dr. Phillips. It's as relevant as the link to BDD Central, if not more relevant because it's information being provided DIRECTLY by the MD considered by nearly everyone in the field to be the foremost authority on BDD. Just because you didn't see the relationship of the link to the topic, doesn't mean there isn't one - and your comment about "removed because it isn't useful to people who don't live near the clinic" was really unfounded and if you took 5 minutes to investigate the site before you wrote that, you would have seen just how much information is there and just how useful it is to those suffering from BDD and those looking to Wikipedia to get more info on the disorder. 128.148.113.4 (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

stockbroker fraud

many people to not even know that they have these rights.

I tried to make this informative rather than an advertisement. Where do I send my permission to?

Thank you for your help.

stockbrokerfraud (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicholas J. Guiliano, Esquire The Guiliano Law Firm, P.C. 230 South Broad Street, Suite 601 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 413-8223 (Telephone) (215) 413-8225 (Telecopier) [email protected] www.stockbrokerfraud.com

You send it to [email protected] Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

AIV

I responded to your comment on the AIV noticeboard. It's not a content dispute since it's a talk page and the comment clearly violates WP:TALK particularly where it states, "Do not be critical in headings." It also violates WP:NOT#FORUM. Further, the blog article attacks Wikipedia specifically named editors. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fine, he was critical in his heading. I also don't think he's using it as a forum; he want to discuss it. Granted, he may not have the viewpoint you agree with, but I at least don't think he's using it as a forum. I won't block, at the very least. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it not using the talk page as a forum? WP:NOT#FORUM clearly states, "[talk pages] are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference Desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages." In this case, he is bringing up an absolutely off-topic point - a non-governmental organization's attempts to influence content on Wikipedia which has nothing to do with "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid." In addition to this, he has continuously readded the material. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I guess you have a point. Looks like it's been taken care of, though, as the report is no longer on AIV. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, either way I think it's more of a problem concerning communication. The user brought it up on the incident noticeboard rather than adding it to the talk page again. Hopefully that is a better area in which to clarify policy concerning the matter. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Anthony aldandr

Hi, thank you for removing the db tag - you beat me to it by seconds - I had a brainstorm :-( BlueValour (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fusker XP

Fusker XP, please help me to undelete. see http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/fuskerxp.com

138.246.7.117 (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no. That link you gave me doesn't help establish notability, which requires the existence of multiple reliable sources. If you disagree with the conclusion, feel free to bring it up at the Deletion review page. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiharrypotter

Hi Veinor, Sometimes Harry Potter's fans are looking for cheaperst option to buy book. Why can't I insert link to help them buy really cheapest one? Whom would become worse because of it? Wikiharrypotter (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the external link guidelines recommend against linking to any external sites; we're supposed to be a repository of information, not on where to find cheap deals on books. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Salt Lamp

Hi,

My link on the Salt Lamp page simply gives guidance regarding quality differences and offers those interested in them some insight into the issues regarding them. It in no way violates policy nor does it make any claims with regard to any of the dubious scientific claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhosCloset (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Username Blocked.--Hu12 (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review

Hi, Veinor.
Here I am, following the procedure for deletion review: attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision). I'm speaking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Slovenia (2nd nomination).
IMHO, this was not supposed to happen. The content may be (but not necessarily "must") an original research, but my criticism wasn't pointed to that direction. However, I've told in my message on the discussion [1] "Until appearing of Zmago Jelinčič, Marjan Podobnik, SLS, etc., story about Greater Slovenia might have seemed funny. However, these two are opened expansionists". I've never heard about greaterslovenianism until Jelinčič appeared (and until I saw the map of "Slovene Lands" today [2]).
My criticism wasn't pointed towards the content (I leave that to editors and those users who've studied the matter). My criticism is pointed towards deletion. The concept of Greater Slovenia, unfortunately, does exist in the heads of some Slovenian politicians.
It rather surprised me that the result of discussion was delete?
Because of those maps, Croatian diplomacy, as well as Croatian top politicians (prime minister and the president) have reacted.
I don't know if anyone has looked at that link ([3], Dnevnik.hr is a internet site of Nova TV) I posted and saw the video (part of TV-news) with the map. That was not a request for the correction of border +/- 20 metres, that's a huge portion of Croatian territory.
On that very page, in the text under, Croatian Prime Minister has recquired that Slovenian Government distances itself from that "work" (sorry for my bad English, I don't know which expression English politicians use for Croatian expression "distancirati se"). AFAIK, they haven't done that.
Also, the "dossier" of Zmago Jelinčič and its party, Slovenian National Party, SLS, (above mentioned in abbreviation: SLS) is enough. And if it's the truth, that this map [4] is one of official symbols of its party (as it says in the article), what is the problem?
The article Slovene Lands presents things too romantically. Also, how shall we treat this article United Slovenia?
If you ask me, that was enough.
Further. Some of opposers on that discussion haven't answered some of questions I gave on the discussion. All they did was "as an allusion to the other Greater entities and does not refer to a pre-existing concept" (what's the map [5]?), and they said nothing about that Podobnik's map. They've ignored that.
Than, one user said "You'll have to find better sources to prove your claim". TV station with national coverage isn't good source? Reaction of diplomacy, Prime Minister and President?
Also, when I mentioned some institution, they said that such institution doesn't exist. OK, maybe I haven't mentioned the proper name (I referred to one site), but that institution does exist ("Zavod 25. junij")[6]. Its director is sl:Marjan Podobnik (brother of Slovenian minister of environment sl:Janez Podobnik), both of them are members of Jelinčič's party (Janez was chief of deputies of SLS, in 2000).
According to the words of Podobnik: "Izrada zemljovida je, kaže (Podobnik), i u stručnom i u financijskom dijelu projekt grupe građana organiziranih u novoosnovanom "Zavodu 25. lipnja"" (translation: "Creation of map is, says he (Podobnik), in professional and financial part, the project of group of citizens organized in newlyfounded "Zavod 25. junij""). Here's the link for that in Croatian magazine Globus [7]. There you can see the maps with required areas of Croatia.
An opposer has said on the discussion: " Slovenian National Party (whose party statutes mention neither Greater nor United Slovenia, by the way"). Yeah, wright. Just a mask. is he taking others for fools?
At last: someone said "The term was apparently invented as an allusion...". And the term "Yugoslav Wars" was coined recently by a newspaperman, who knew/knows nothing about the wars on the territory of former YU (he named the wars after the country that hasn't existed at all in those times??), however, we do have an article "Yugoslav Wars". However, when that comes to apply in this case, someone says "the term is coined recently, so we cannot have that article".
Here's the article from Globus magazine [8], titled "Skandalozni projekt i karta Velike Slovenije (1/2)", and subtitled "Otvorena ucjena iz Ljubljane", summary "Marjan Podobnik: Ako Hrvati ne prihvate ovu kartu, Slovenci će spriječiti njihov ulazak u EU!" (translations: title "Scandalous project and the map of Greater Slovenia (1/2)", subtitle "Open blackmailing from Ljubljana", summary: "Marjan Podobnik: If Croats don't accept this map, Slovenians 'll prevent their membership in EU!").
Sorry for being too long, but I think that a deletion review deserves more explanation.
In short - we don't delete the article (e.g. Great Britain, limestone, car) if some wrong data appears there. We simply delete the uncorrect content. Same thing is here.
Thanks again for your attention, greetings, Kubura (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the closing of the deletion discussion, the article is essentailly original research. The problem is not about 'wrong data' or any such thing, it is that the article seems to be a synthesis of the raw information instead of a synthesis of secondary, etc., sources. To make an analogy, it would be like writing an article on the effects of a law based on the law itself, rather than on analysis by historians of its effects. I'm not necessarily saying that the concept of Greater Slovenia doesn't exist, although some in the debate have done so. What I am saying is that the article as written was so poorly referenced that it was essentially unusable and would require a rewrite in order to be decent.

Having said that, I don't have any particularly strong feelings about this article, and would probably not care terribly much if it was restored and rewritten.

Oh, and your english is pretty decent for a non-native speaker. And yes, "distancirati se" would translate to "distances itself" in the context you were using it in. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted link to information that many people want to have

I put a link on the area code 210 page so users could obtain the locatio of any prefix in the area code. What is wrong with that? There are many people who get unidentified phone numbers on their phone caller ID units and want to know specifically where it is located. The link was NOT spam and was provided to be helpful to those who want to know that info. Ntcymw (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First, the problem is that you're adding it to a significant number of pages in a short amount of time; that behavior in general, while not explicitly forbidden, is strongly discouraged. Secondly, the external link guidelines caution against linking to any page containing an "objectionable amount of advertising"; just looking at the page that I get, I count three distinct AdSense boxes and a banner advertisement. And finally, the link doesn't really provide any useful information about the area code itself, just for specific phone numbers within it, if you get what I'm trying to say. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing a Stub

I was trying to edit a stub that had incorrect information and description about the company and it was deleted because of "blatant advertisement." What is considered "advertisement". Is a company backgrounder/description considered that?

Crystalh4755 (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not that description of a company is an advertisement; otherwise, we couldn't have articles on Google, Microsoft, etc. The problem is simply that the entire article read like it was a press release or something similar. take the opening sentence: "Since launching the first car-buying website in 1995, Autobytel Inc.’s (Nasdaq: ABTL) mission has been to empower automotive consumers with the tools and information they need to make smart, well-informed vehicle purchasing and ownership decisions." It reads basically like something I'd find in a brochure or an 'About Us' page or something similar, as opposed to a neutral point-of-view encyclopedia article. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I do not understand why you removed links to revelant sections of our newspaper which directly relate to the article. This was not done for search engine optimazition, but rather to provide further relavant information to the subject. Further, you have removed us from the external link section also, while leaving less relavant links intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarthelca (talk • contribs) 21:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that we generally prohibit adding one link repeatedly to multiple pages, especially if the link is always to the same page on the site. I mean, it might be a useful newspaper, but the problem is that we can't have links that only incidentally cover the subject of the article; to take an analogy, the Chicago Tribune shouldn't be linked to on every Chicago suburb, because each individual suburb would only take up a small portion of the Trib's overall coverage. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So, it would seem to be reasonable for me to post links to each city's microsite for that appropriate city, as well as the microsites we maintain for major events?

For the city? I wouldn't necessarily be against it, but I'd suggest bringing it up on one of the talk pages first, such as Talk:Palm Springs, California or Talk:Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival. If the community approves of it, or if there isn't much of a response, then I won't revert; I would, however, prefer that the links be used as references rather than as bare links; we could always use more references for our articles. If you want help on making citations, let me know. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Durham Miners' Gala

Hia, would you mind reverting the bot? It seems to victimise new users. I feel lack a black American in the 1960s. 88.107.110.247 (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Already fixed it; the bot is designed to treat users that are newer than 7 days and unregistered users with extra suspicion on the basis that they're where most of the bad-link-adding comes from. I added a couple of the links for you; I didn't add all of them, because Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a collection of links, but I picked out a couple at random and added those. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And crime recorded in the black population is high than the white. Treat all blacks with extra suspicion? It's the equivalent of banning all black people from entering certain areas because they are more likely to commit a crime. It's pathetic. The degrading of the rights of the genuine few is not an acceptable price to pay for whatever good the bot does. 88.107.110.247 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So you're comparing oppression due to a legacy of systemic enslavement and institutional racism that stretches back hundreds of years.... to not being able to add a link? Black people were being denied fundamental human rights, but there is no such thing as a universal right to add a link to a Wikipedia article. And it's not like you can't change your status as a 'suspicious user', so to speak: register an account and wait seven days. Frankly, that analogy is one of the worst I've ever seen. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, the analogy was saying that degrading the rights of the whole because of their abuse by certain constituent parts is not right. I don't like your attitude, so I would rather not speak to you anymore. 88.107.110.247 (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

agreement on AN/I

thansk for the support, but your signature lacked your username, perhaps you'd like to sign it fully? ThuranX (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

SHA Implementation Link Removal

I noticed that you trimmed a significant portion of the implementation links for SHA. Was there any rule of thumb used for this? You removed all of the javascript implementation links, leaving only Java and C/C++/C#. I know that my complete SHA implementation in javascript (hosted on SourceForge) was aiding ~150 people a month directly from Wikipedia. Admittedly, a lot of the links were for the same thing by a different person, but having no JS links is only harming people. Caligatio (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Men's Health

You just reverted the changed I had made to Men's Health. I would refute the suggestion that I was using Wikipedia as a 'soapbox'. The section about my organization contained spelling mistakes, and didn't accurately describe our activities. Also also added a link to our website - under external links which is completely related to the topic. Also the internal link to Men's Health Week should be of interest to anyone reading about Men's Health. Mens1 (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I accidentally changed too much back; the big problem I have is with the extra paragraph you added. It reads at least to me too much like an advertisement for the organization, rather than text about men's health in general.

By the way, I would advise you not to make edits related to MHN, as we have guidelines against editing articles about subjects with which you have a conflict of interest; I'm not saying you can't edit the article at all, just not about Men's Health Network. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Greater Slovenia being deleted

I think that WP:SYN is meant not as an excuse for deletion but as the way of forcing editors to source better - which doesn't imply that sources are invalid. Also when some sources and editors are accused for OR there should be sufficient evidence of OR being done especially by disproving the sources used. None of that has happened but instead a bunch of users claimed OR and got a way with such unsupstantiated claims. -- Imbris (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Under what circumstances can a book be referenced

Had links deleted, having tried to list a book. If substantive content is added to the page and the book is referenced... is that the only possible way to reference a book? It is an odd thing, because the book in question is itself substantive and should be listed with other sources of further information.Empathy321 Empathy321 (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If the book is referenced or listed as "further reading" or something, that's okay. The problem is that you linked to a specific store, which tends to be seen as promoting that source specifically to the exclusion of others (Amazon, eBay, etc.) The usual way to reference a book is to just give the ISBN in the format: ISBN 123-4-56-789012-3 (or ISBN 1234567890 {{isbn}}: Check isbn value: checksum (help) if the 13-digit ISBN isn't available). See WP:ISBN if you need more information about the format it needs to be in. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD Closes

Regarding your note here, you're right that I was initially neglecting to put the {{ab}} template at the bottom (for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Ken Idenouye and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GMC Terradyne). However another editor pointed this out to me and I thought I had corrected the problem in my recent AfD closes (for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon Scott, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Burdette, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Qiyamah. If I'm wrong and there is still a problem in how I am closing these please let me know. My apologies for the initial errors—I'm new to the AfD closing game and have very little experience dealing with templates but I still should have been more careful.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, all three of those look fine to me. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Rockbridge Forum

I just noticed that that you deleted the entry for Rockbridge Forum, "speedily", so we had no opportunity to provide supporting information. You suggested that it might be recreated if justified. I do not have the original source material and so this is a burden, and appears rooted in a unilateral and somewhat arbitrary decision. The Rockbridge Forum is a unique online collaborative forum, an example of the "new media", in Rockbridge County, Virginia. Although clearly of smaller scale and somewhat different character, it shares some attributes with Wikipedia itself, which is listed in Wikipedia. Other media, even those in small towns and less populated regions, find a place in Wikipedia and I would argue that equity provides a compelling argument for inclusion in this case. Can you provide the original posting material so that I may recreate it? At the same time, I will provide the suggested defense and support for carrying this article. --qmhdk (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC) PS. It's been nearly a week since I posted this - I would be grateful for a reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qmhdk (talk • contribs) 16:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree or disagree with the statement that Rockbridge Forum is useful; however, this is not a valid criteria for deletion/inclusion. You need reliable sources written about the forum; there weren't any mentioned in the article, so I deleted it. Oh, and I noted that the time between article creation and deletion was almost a month, so I do think that you had time. But I am willing to undelete it to User:Qmhdk/Rockbridge Forum, where you can work on it, include reliable sources referencing it, etc. Let me know when you want me to take a look at it again. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll work on it again and try to respond to some of your suggestions. I just don't follow these things as closely as you do so even a month wasn't enough in this case. Cheers ...--qmhdk (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Autobytel

You deleted an earlier version of Autobytel created by another editor. I wanted to let you know that I found some useful references about the company and added them to the article. I think the article now establishes notability. --Eastmain (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bullets inappropriate external link removal

My external link reference was to a commercial site catalog of hard cast lead bullets site reference. This showed a photograph and specifications for each caliber along with current pricing. I felt it was an excellent external reference on the reloading component, aka the lead head, as the Wiki on the subject is high level and static. The promotional site was dynamic and had one of the best detailed generic catalogs on hard cast lead bullets for reloaders. Mabrams us (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that we generally don't link to sites that are selling anything, as these links violate the external link guidelines. What happens is that it turns into a contest where various sites strive to make theirs the link on the Wikipedia article to the exclusion of others, and plus it looks kind of like an endorsement of that company's products. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi veinor

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denkriston (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You chided me

I have never touched the Piano article and I don't know why you think I have. I have most certainly never touched it and I am outraged that I would be so pointlessly accused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.148.97 (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was somebody using your IP address; IPs are rotated by your ISP, so it wasn't you. I wouldn't worry about it given that it was a warning from last year. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not Me

I didn't do what you said I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.11.234 (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Link count?

This page hosted as a subpage on your talk page came up in a google search I was doing. It really confused me and I got really curious, what is it for? Tyciol (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Article?

This page Would it be possible to ask an author to write an unbiased article about www.mordinson.com for Wikipedia? I would be happy to pay for the time involved. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.236.212.158 (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from a fellow editor

Hi there! You know who I am. --TerrorBite (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Are you the author of this image, just curious.

--Ramu50 (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the author is Hdegier. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocking IP Address

You left a message on the user talk of the IP address (95.229.236.215). It is a publicly shared IP address in the UAE (provided by telecoms operator Etisalat) and has been, as you can see from the user talk page, abused. I would recommend blocking the IP address from making edits 195.229.236.215 (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the article you deleted about Jan B. Wade, please can you put that article up again,

he is a key contributer to www.noblood.org, I really wanted to visit that page and I'm disappointed I couldn't. He works to create blood conservation products and is really intelligent yet you deleted because it doesn't state his significance, he is known well in the medical field as a nurse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.58.146 (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Newcomer to RCP

Sorry, I didn't look too closely at this edit, assumed removal of information as vandalism. Thanks for catching my mistake. BlazerKnight (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem; I've made the same mistake before. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 07:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you've been reacting quickly to those promotion-only accounts, so I'd like to draw your attention to one case I'm not so sure about. Changi Airport Group was created by User:Cmyk in July, and then was recently turned into a very promotional article by User:Fansofchangi. Your thoughts? BlazerKnight (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a blatant advert, so the article could just be reverted... the username itself I think stops short of being full-blown indef'able, but I'm a little wary. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 08:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If I revert, it would become a stub again. And now an IP has edited the article. What should I do? Also, suggest keeping an eye on User:Charlotte76, looks like a meatpuppet, if not sockpuppet of User:RandoxLabs. BlazerKnight (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

List of online dating websites

ok I am confused, I added 2 sites to the list of dating sites, and this is considered spam? a LIST of Dating Sites, I add my 2 dating sites to the list, and they are spam? I feel that they were a valuable contribution, at least one of them, my HIV Positive dating Site is a very Valuable contribution to the list. please clarify.Sddarkman619 (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, as you yourself admit, that they're your own sites. This goes against our conflict of interest policy due to the fact that people tend to make biased judgments when their external links are appropriate and when they aren't. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 08:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User Fairdebt

Hi there, you sent me a message stating I was creating promotional articles when in fact I plan on listing every major debt collector on Wikipedia so that consumers are more easily able to find their contact information and keep the companies recent news and facts up to date. Please let me know whats up. Thanks Fairdebt (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the article as you were writing it was basically a giant advertisement for the company; Wikipedia is not intended to be advertorial in tone. If you'd like, I could restore the article to your user space where you could work on it and make it sound less like an advert. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. I will create a few additional articles there and see if they fit the proper wikipedia profile before making them live. Thanks Fairdebt (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Hello, I understand the conflict of interest but do think it strange that our competitors/colleagues (Netlog, Instant Action etc) are on Wikipedia. I am sure of it they added the page themself and not somebody else. I think the material is not subjective and plan to even include references to our competitors to show that there are other companies doing what we do and its a growing market. ChrisKalydo (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak as to the origins of the pages of your competitors, but regardless of who added their pages, my original point remains. Just because everybody else may be breaking the rules doesn't make it right for you to do so, you get what I mean? I'm also sure that you're trying to be objective, but it's essentially impossible to remain neutral when you're writing about something that's important to you. I'm not in any way suggesting the article may be deleted, simply noting that the article has advertisement-like qualities and that the main contributor (you) is related to the subject of the article. Please stop removing those tags, or I will be forced to take action. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 08:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand what you mean, I just don't see how or when those tags will be removed automatically, I don't see them at the other pages and they are not less advertorial than our material. Thank you. ChrisKalydo (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The tags aren't removed automatically; they're removed at the discretion of the community, if you get what I mean. The conflict of interest tag wouldn't be appropriate to add, as I don't have any evidence that they were principally written by people with conflicts of interest. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 08:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

RED SMOKE!

I have the articles son, whats your say? Red red red smoke (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red red red smoke (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy

Please don't accuse another editor who is frustrated and discussing their feeling hounded and stalked of having a vendetta for engaging in good faith discussion of the issue. Your block is disgusting. There were numerous alternatives such as continuing the discussion on the user's talk page. There was no need for your abusive action. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

An admin goes to AN/I and reviews an ongoing discussion and blocks an editor who is continuing to make accusations against another admin and failing to provide any more support than his original evidence. This constitutes 'disgusting' 'abuse' now? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you can defend an admin proceeding after that ANI discussion was resolved in his favor to go and post a comment in opposition to the very editor who accused him of stalking and hounding. Why was that necessary? I hope you'll be more respectful of your fellow editors in future and exercise greater restraint. Bullying by admins is a real problem and you handled a frustrated editor with the utmost in insensitivity and a total lack of empathy.

I didn't realize you were the admin who made that disgusting block when you posted your question on the Honey article issue I identified, but I responded on my talk page. Jonathunder went ahead and fixed the problems. I don't hold grudges, so I have no problem collaborating with you, if you can show good faith, going forward. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mel Gibson DUI incident

Sorry, I was alluding to the fact that Mel Gibson got an expungement on October 6, 2009. The article was outdated and I was trying to update it with recent information. I just figured out how to fix it though. Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.170.61 (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Veinor/Archive 9