Skyerise

Hi Yworo, that was an impressive cleanup you performed on the videophone article, which was somewhat overdue. Just to let you know, I've reinstated the TeleType font to the A.G. Bell quotation due to its long standing use in the article to help readers understand they're viewing material extracted from another source. Alternate font usage is not forbidden in the MOS, with the proviso that it not be employed crazily. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just for the record, I have the same suspicions about this editor. Pretty interesting that, not long after I warned the IP for the conflict of interest and the legal threat, here comes a brand new registered user that picks right up editing where the IP left off. Strikerforce (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah... however it looks as if he might be interested in learning what's allowable and what's not, what kind of citations required, etc. If that's the case, it's much less of a problem... Yworo (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the barnstar, Carol! Yworo (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You made a decent argument for deletion and I didn't find the "keep" arguments convincing. (the ZDnet review was a blog post) However, after 2 weeks you were the only one making a delete argument. My recommendation is to wait a few months and renominate. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

hello. this is my first entry to a talk page and so may not be following all the guidelines. Re old entry to Richmond Outreach Center - why do you consider that Rick Ross is not a reliable source. If referencing the fact that there is controversy, then it is reliable. If referencing factual information, I agree that it is less than reliable. Seems to me to be important information to reference in a balanced article. Otherwise, it is just a PR piece. ----

There are two problems with Rick Ross's site: the first is that he reproduces newspaper articles without copyright permission. This means that we cannot link to his site, as we would be contributing to driving traffic to his copyright violations. We can use the newspaper articles as sources, linking to the original articles at the newspaper's website if available, using a non-linked citation if a live link is not available. As for reliability, he is a polemic anti-cult crusader and is not neutral. We have no way to ensure that the copied newspaper articles have not been modified, which is another reason we don't source to copies of articles hosted without permission of the original publisher. For the same reason, we cannot use material which was written be Rick Ross himself, as there is no expectation of neutrality.

P.S New talk page entries always go at the end.

P.P.S. I see from the edit history of the article that the source used was a forum at rickross.com. Forums consist of user-contributed content and our policies state that not only may they not be used as sources, we may not even link to them in the external links section. Yworo (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I reverted your link to goldprice.org due to some wikipedia.org violations regarding anti-spam. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam

if you actually go to www.goldprice.org you'll see that it is just a spam website, the gold prices they have listed are not even live.

GoldAlert is a reputable source and an authority on Gold news as cited by local and national news outlets.

Noeltazz (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yworo.
First of all thanks for your contributions in Murry Hope, was very nice. I have appreciated your help and everybody else contributing. Would be fantastic if everybody did real contributions like you (It’s pretty aggressive the attitude of some people in Wikipedia, I don’t believe Wikipedia can survive if that don’t change in short term).
I still can’t believe that “Murry” was wrong spelled as well as “Egypt”. I need some sleep. Regarding the issue of “Living people” I suspect that the name “Murry Hope” might be a pseudonym. Would be necessary find a birth certificate to confirm (I couldn’t find one).

The article now also has been improved with much more references (more than enough, likely). Obviously you know that it is a worth article, you spent your time in it. Would be possible also you put your “keep” in discussion: (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murry_Hope#Murry_Hope)? But please be comfortable, doesn’t matter if you don’t want.
You are welcome, needing a help for an article call me (I will do my best). Best, Hour of Angels (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Those loose references I had left for incorporating when had some available time (seemed ok but ...). Already it's been done by that time, but has been very hard to me manage time to take care that.

I didn’t know that, thanks for the tip message.

Your clarification (keep) was realistic, informative and eloquent. A light that illuminates.Hour of Angels (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

By the way, what a hard work you had for put all those ISBNs (only for proving a point to uninformed people). Honestly I agree articles should have good references but without extremes. You know, if one day Wikipedia “finishing” its project then will not exist any encyclopedia available for consulting (unhappily). I mean the biggest French encyclopedia already ended because of free Wikipedia. So, when this day arrives and someone wants to write an article about Shakespeare, he cannot because there are only primary and secondary sources in the world. (???)

Anyway, it is a pleasure to see good prevailing. Congratulations to everyone (and in a special manner to you). But I don’t get it one thing: Of course the article can continuing always being improved but essentially the discussion it is over, the article was assumed OK. So, the tags (asking references and copy-edit) could be removed, right? Best, Hour of Angels (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yworo. Actually we have an especial case here. Without doubt was necessary to include the publishers and ISBNs in that list of works for helping to prove the relevance of the author (for clarifying a point to uninformed people). However, that is a list of literary works not is a bibliography. You know, bibliography is a list of source materials (most books) used in the preparation of a scholarly article; i.e., references (bibliography) are used for justifying assertions in the body text. Therefore in theory ISBNs usually are not showed in a historic list of personal accomplishments by author unless you really want to supply maxim information as much possible to the reader (but rarely a reader cares about ISBNs). Besides, according to Manual of Style (footnotes) when you want to supplement contents (for instance more details just like those) you do exactly what was done: you create a dedicated section for those notes (named “Notes” and separated from references section, because they not are references). But sometimes some articles just consider references and notes being the same thing (but rigorously that not is correct, they are in fact distinct things). By the way, the abbreviation used (n.b.) meant exactly that: take notice (nota bene in Latin).

However Yworo, that is my personal perception (and it can be wrong). What matters is that you deserve to do what you think best (you saved this article). Glad to see that you really care to do a good job, that is what counts, so it's all right. Best, Hour of Angels (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply