User talk:intgr/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Intgr. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hi,

I noticed that you removed the link that I added at the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_tracking

That section is intended to list e-mail tracking software. The link which is still present is also a link to a software application.

Thank your for reconsidering to add the following link: http://www.forensictracer.com - software for e-mail tracing and analysis on internet resources (IP address, domain name...)

Best regards,

Niko Belgium —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.83.36.47 (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for letting me know, I have removed the entire section; it was probably added by the spammer who added the other link.

It is generally inappropriate to link directly to product pages from Wikipedia, unless the article is about that specific product itself, or the product is particularly notable in the context. For more details, see guidelines on external links. Sections that appear to be inviting external links to products are discouraged, and normally added by editors wishing to use Wikipedia for advertisement/promotion. -- intgr 15:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you'd tagged this article. He's clearly notable, having for nearly 20 years (!) played professional cricket in the biggest professional cricket competition in the world, the County Championship. --Dweller 16:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok; instead of telling this to me, you could've added it to the article while removing the notability tag. Articles should generally state, why or how the subject is notable, to satisfy the notability criteria.

Additionally, some claims on the article could use sources; biographies on living persons must adhere to verifiability more strictly. -- intgr 16:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The article's rubbish - I'm working on taking some cricket bios to FA (see Paul Collingwood and Adam Gilchrist) but there is a claim to notability - that he played for SCCC for nearly 20 years. That's enough for it to pass WP:N. It doesn't need any of the colour I added about his personality/dress sense/teeth! :-) --Dweller 16:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. :) -- intgr 16:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I've added the site in which the Electromagnetic Brakes article has infinged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Featurefilm (talk • contribs) 00:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

I did not add any useless information. I DID however remove useless vandalism. Someone had added gibberish of which had no relation to the article. I took the initiative to remove such information.

original message

Warnings Note: Remember to always substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings. [Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | interiot's tool | page moves | block log | block list]

[edit] March 2007

1. Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Melissa (computer worm). Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- intgr 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.85.240.193 (talk)

Sorry, it somehow appeared to me as if you had added that section. Thank you for helping to fight vandalism and again, sorry for wrongfully warning you. No hard feelings? :) -- intgr 18:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Article is notable it needs writing though and I don't understand danish!! Please add expand tag rather than delete . Cheers ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 12:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The {{notability}} tag is not a delete tag; it is a reminder that articles have to demonstrate the notability of their subject. This particular article does not.

Also note that when discussing on users' talk pages, you should add a new section for each inquiry, and note the context, e.g., which article you're actually talking about (you left me wondering for a minute). For more information, see talk page guidelines. -- intgr 12:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I usually do its just I am busy. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 12:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't see that not notifying amounts to biting. On CSD/NP patrol, many articles are clearly not intended to be serious candidates, and it's a waste of time notifying the creators.

Considering the number of pages I delete, I get very little comeback, and if someone wants an explanation I will give it, restore if I got it wrong, or help if it can be salvaged. jimfbleak 12:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I give up. If I delete a non-nonsense page, and it's by a newbie, I'll leave a message - is there a standard template/form of words? jimfbleak 13:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, WP:UTM#Other, table heading "Deletion notifications".

These templates are also suggested on the speedy deletion template footers ("Please consider placing ... on the User Talk page of the author."). -- intgr 13:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article at Seaside is far from NPOV, but the nonnotability disclaimer certainly doesn't belong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.172.243 (talk)

Have you read the notability guideline? It says that articles must cite secondary sources to establish their notability. The Seaside (software) article does not.

PS: Please add your comments to the end of talk pages, and please keep strictly article-related discussion on the article's talk page. -- intgr 13:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for removing the reference to Morantex's memory mapping technology, whilst retaining the reference to Winterdom's.

Can you please explain the principle you applied here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.242.241.67 (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

One web site is a company front page that is obviously promoting their products, the other is a neutral personal web site listing free downloads. While neither serves as a good source, I would refrain from having advertisement in references section.

See also: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising; guideline on external links. -- intgr 14:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

With respect, there are almost no 3rd party libraries for memory mapping support on Unixes or Windows, we have had a look at several and feel that Persistore is a useful product for .NET. It does not serve your readers well to limit the list to a single reference. Besides the reference was added to the pre-existing sentence "there are third part libraries that do so". A reference (which is all this is) is not an advertisement, the website to which it links may well contain or even be an advertisemnet but a reference certainly isn't; it does not recommend the product, it does not comment upon it, it does not compare it to others, it is a reference and nothing more. You obviously accept the references to Microsoft I note, does this (linking to a company that charges for products) not also constitute advertising?

As I say above it is a disservice to your readers to restrict the refernces to site only offering "free" prodcts (which you don't of course, i.e. Microsoft links) I do not see who benefits from limiting the list to one supplier.

Although that suppler may not charge for the product to which the link refers, how do you know that the company does not commerically benefit in some indirect way? There are thousands of "references" to commerical organisations, if you are saying it is Wikipedia policy to not allow use of a reference to a website that offers commercial products, then I respectfully suggest that you examine every single article because there are a vast number of violations.

In closing I contest the claim that a link to a product inserted simply as a reference, constitutes an "advertisment" especilaly as you allow the other links to Microsoft, Morantex are a tiny outfit I have nothing to do with them, but do feel that such a specialized technology that has very very fews players should be made known to interested readers, memory mapping is a specialzied aspect of software design and anyone reading this page should be affored as much helpful information as possible that pertains to the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.53.46.141 (talk)

First of all, please sign your comments on talk pages. If you do not like your IP address showing up, you may simply provide your name/alias followed by five tildes, which will be substituted for the post date.

"it is a disservice to your readers to restrict the refernces to site only offering "free" prodcts"

It is a disservice to include such references instead of a reliable source, in the first place; however, a single reference to a free product is acceptable given that nobody directly profits from it. However, the fact that there already are bad references on the article does not mean that anybody is welcome to add their own link; two wrongs don't make a right. You should also note that winterdom.com is not a company's web site, but it's the personal web site of a quite notable person — his name attracts 200 times more results on Google than Morantex. He has also published a few academic papers. That said, if you have basis for believing that the person is profiting from this reference, you are welcome to remove it with a reasonable explanation in the edit summary.

You are simply missing the fundamental point of sources. Their purpose is to provide editors and readers with the ability to easily verify the content of articles — verifiability is one of the foundations of Wikipedia, and the sources have to be considered reliable (as defined by the attribution policy). Their purpose is not to "provide helpful information", although that's often their side-effect, given that reliable sources tend to be more informative than unreliable ones.

Product web sites are not reliable sources by definition: they generally tend to be devoid of technical information, and they tend to be highly biased — their goal is to sell something. In contrast, articles on MSDN are written for the purpose of providing the developer with technical information. Even though they're not (preferable) secondary sources, they have to pass the editorial process of a very established and notable company, and can be considered reliable for citing information on an already notable product.

Back to your "proposal". If this behavior were allowed, could you imagine the references section of more popular articles, where every relevant company would add their own *cough* "reference"? It would make Wikipedia a yellow pages web site, not an encyclopedia.

If you still disagree with me, you are advised to direct further complaints to Wikipedia talk:Attribution. I did not write Wikipedia policies, I am merely following and endorsing them. -- intgr 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is littered with examples of what you claim to be "advertising" should these too be edited? would you agree with me if I were to do so? here is just one example:

Parallax (a company) are listed here (The entire article is an advertisment)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC_Stamp

Do you think it would be right and proper for me to delete the article?

If you do not, then perhaps you will have no objection to me adding the Morantex link as an "External link" as the Parallax articles does? is this something we can agree on?

There are very very few products (free or otherwise) that offer ANY support for shared memory or memory mapping on Windows and I think it entirely fitting to include some references to those that do exist, just as I think the BASIC Stamp should be included. Morantex's offering incidentally is a beta and freely downloadable, they also claim to offer an edition that will be free - http://www.morantex.com/PersistoreEditions.aspx

William Baxter

"I think it entirely fitting to include some references [...]"

I repeat: References not external links; they are used for explicitly citing information that is present in the article text. Product pages do not qualify as reliable sources, and thus should not be referenced.

External links, on the other hand, must conform to the external links guideline. Speaking of links to Parallax, the aforementioned guideline says "articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." Thus, it is appropriate to link to the web site of Parallax, Inc from an article about their product. However, a link to Morantex' web site on the memory-mapped file article would fail a few criterion mentioned under 'Links normally to be avoided'.

However, for a subject to have an article on Wikipedia, it must satisfy the notability guideline, which in a nutshell says that "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." BASIC Stamp clearly qualifies here, as a quick Google search even reveals numerous books written exclusively on this microchip. So, the article is not an advertisement, since it covers a notable product. From a brief glance, the article text appears to have a neutral point of view, and cannot be considered advertisement in my opinion. The only problem I can see with the article is that it does not cite sources.

In short: Article subject → notability; article text → neutral point of view/verifiability; references → attribution (reliable sources); external links → external link guidelines/advertisement.

Putting it all together: while it would be okay to link to Morantex' web site from an article about the company itself, or a product of theirs, none of their products, nor the company, would actually qualify as notable. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but less than two pages of results on Google [1] doesn't seem particularly promising. In short: they are not notable, their (or anyone else's) product page cannot be used as a reliable source, and adding them to external links of memory-mapped file would be considered spam.

With that out of the way,

"Wikipedia is littered with examples of what you claim to be "advertising" should these too be edited?"

Yes; though you were putting words in my mouth back there. But I do agree, there are lots of articles left on Wikipedia which don't conform to these guidelines/policies. You are welcome to edit them, mark them with the relevant cleanup templates or flag them for deletion. -- intgr 00:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

hi it used to be in a list form on the page but after getting the new rating, the editer said that i should put it in a templet or on it own page...well i put it on its own page only to have it deleted from other editers so i looked around some other pages and found that some had used this type of box to list things, so i made one up and put it on the Thuringowa page and if you look back at the history i said it was only until i can find something else but i have a life outside of Wiki and once i have the time to get on to it i will. I will add some links to it today to keep you happy adn maybe you could offer some other ideas that i could use, that would be helpful thanks Thuringowacityrep 03:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, are you sure that those entries are notable in the first place? I'm doubtful of the encyclopedic value of this list; if anyone wanted to know which health institutions are present in the city, they're better off looking at the yellow pages anyway. -- intgr 13:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

i have just removed it i feel that this is the wrong thing to do but what do i know, every time i do something that i was told would be a good idea it gets deleted or i get told that it should be deleted, have a look at the Thuringowa discussion page in the rating box and you will see i did what i was asked so i guess that editer was wrong ...anyway it's gone now Thuringowacityrep 22:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Phi Kappa Psi was again vandalized. When you get chances, could you look in on it from time-to-time? —SlamDiego 06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, added to my watchlist. -- intgr 13:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's now semi-protected, but in a couple of weeks or so that will lapse. —SlamDiego 06:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy deletion tag from the above article. While the subject might not be notable, the article does assert notability in a reasonable way. You may wish to list it at WP:AFD instead, to get a broader consensus on the article. Thanks for your time and your hard work reporting these articles - even though I'm not deleting this particular one, your efforts are very much appreciated. Kafziel ^Talk 14:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What?! It doesn't matter if the subject is notable or not. The article is blatant advertisement, badly POV, doesn't cite any reliable sources, and would take a total rewrite to become a reasonable article. Furthermore, it is a copyvio straight from Canon's web site, as admitted at the bottom of the article. Seeing something like that on Wikipedia seriously offends me, and even moreso does seeing administrators endorse such articles.

I'll try my luck again with {{db-copyvio}} this time. -- intgr 14:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not blatant advertising if the product is notable. There are tons of articles about Canon cameras. On the other hand, if something is a copyvio, it should be tagged as such. It's important to use the right tag when you're marking articles for speedy deletion; there are hundreds of articles to go through, so we don't read every single one from start to finish. If the wrong tag is used, the article probably won't be deleted. I'll have another look at it now, as a copyvio. Kafziel ^Talk 14:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me if I am mistaken, but as far as I can tell, it does not say anywhere that a subject cannot be deleted under CSD G11 if it is notable; Quoting WP:SPEEDY: "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. [...]"

To me, that sounds like a 100% match; the article only contained information from the manufacturer's POV to sell it — that's blatant advertisement. Phrases like "full package of exciting", "incredible SLR performance", "advanced, lightweight, ergonomic design", "exquisitely precise focus", etc etc, have no place on an encyclopedia. -- intgr 15:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and the offending information could have been removed without tagging the entire article for deletion (even if it meant deleting 90% of the article). It being a copvio, however, is another thing entirely, and the article is now deleted for that. But if someone else starts a stub about it, it won't automatically be spam. Kafziel ^Talk 15:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's true; I will keep that in mind the next time. Thanks. -- intgr 16:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, just wondering why you replaced the Prod tags on My Last Breath with the Notability tag. No reason was given in the summary or the talk page. Thanks. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't replace it, the prod tag was removed by User:Ed624, and because of that I added {{notability}}; please refer to the edit history. -- intgr 08:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Och, sorry about that, I completely overlooked that fellow. I think that I had though he'd just added the video, which you also removed. Well, it's a moot issue now, as an admin came along and redirected the page. Again, my apologies for the confusion. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice you have added a notability tag to Mailwasher - and at the same time to MailLaunder and Marshal Software. At the same time the WK links to these have been deleted from E-mail filtering by 81.179.39.202 (not sure if that is also you?).

I know nothing about the last two but I was the original author of the Mailwasher article. I agree it needs expanding, but surely it is just as eligible for its own WP article as programs like POPFile. Mailwasher is a widely used anti spam program and is every bit relevant to articles on e-mail filtering and spam techniques. Dsergeant 14:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I tagged these articles with {{notability}} in response to seeing the edits by this IP address in my watchlist; however, that user is not me. Note that this template isn't a deletion template; it's there to remind editors that Wikipedia articles need to state why or how they are notable. See Notability and Notability (software) -- intgr 14:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Should I (or you) then revert his deletes? A previous editor was complaining about too few links to the Mailwasher article, it now has even fewer so will get tagged as an orphaned page if we are not careful. I will attempt myself and with the help of the Mailwasher community to expand the page, I am sure we can get over the notability issue! Dsergeant 14:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think the e-mail filtering article should link to companies/products in the first place, unless they are directly related to the development of filtering techniques; perhaps creating a list of e-mail filtering software or something, although these list articles are often discouraged, as they are prone to attracting spam and non-notable entries; so I don't know. Comparison of e-mail filtering software?

Note that mobilizing communities is not necessarily a good idea — inviting a bunch of new users who have a conflict of interest and aren't comfortable with Wikipedia's policies/guidelines editing a single article sounds like a recipe for disaster. :) Though I'm not aware of any actual cases where this has happened. -- intgr 14:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Amazing article you've created in one run — did you really write it all yourself? Just checking; have a good day. -- intgr 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is an offline collaboration between myself and several co-workers; is there some method/custom in wikipedia to attribute authorship in these situations? Kingtl 02:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding me right? I created that page, and i'm bitching about the term and these damn pstat books. I have a final tomorrow, and I also hate PDF files. So.... Ya. Fresheneesz 02:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that explains it.

In any case, profanities on Wikipedia are discouraged, so you might want to remove that comment after you have passed your exams. And good luck! :) -- intgr 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't know profanities were discouraged, I thought it was all in the name of civility. Maybe i'll censor myself a bit. Thanks for the luck. Fresheneesz 03:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied back to you on Prostores article's talk page.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Replied again to you on Prostores article.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 18:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I really appreciate you looking out after my page. (Actually it belongs to EVERYONE) I thought that the humor tag in the talk section would be sufficient, but if you think it's important to have it on the main page, well, I want you to know that's good enough for me. You've been a wikipedian a lot longer than I have, and I trust your judgement! If you think there's anything else it needs, let me know, I'll put the time into it. Thanks sweetie! Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 22:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you handled it well enough. :)

I originally tagged the article with {{proposal}} without reading it, since I assumed it was a proposed policy from the article's title (diff). While I wouldn't mind removing it, here's an example case where the tag would have been useful, and the reason why I reinstated it.

Also, are you aware of Uncyclopedia? You'd make a great addition to their team. But they still have heaps of tags to terrorise you with. -- intgr 01:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the revision of Linux_distribution, I kept all relevant links intact. There were links to GNU, Linux_kernel and Linux_distribution. Debian is not a "Linux distribution", it is a "GNU/Linux distribution" and requests that it be named as such, never as Linux alone. Putting it immediately before the word "Linux" like that is quite misleading. This differentiation is especially important, considering the Debian operating system is available on a wide variety of kernels, with more being introduced all the time (Hurd/Mach/Linux/FreeBSD/etc.). Anyhow, will leave it at that, it's not worth a revision war. Raven Morris 23:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose my edit summary wasn't clear enough. The article, before your edit, stated "Red Hat Linux, Fedora Core and Debian Linux distributions"

My interpretation of that phrase is that it's a list of three elements: "Red Hat Linux", "Fedora Core", "Debian"; the "Linux distributions" phrase is a qualifier — all entries on this list are Linux distributions. The list did not contain "Debian Linux", thus I believe your edit was unwarranted.

Moving the qualifier to the beginning disambiguates this phrase: "several Linux distributions, including Red Hat Linux, Fedora Core and Debian"

As for "keeping the links intact", I don't really know what you're talking about. You introduced two new links to Linux kernel and GNU, see diff. I do not like link pipes in contexts where they can be avoided, either. -- intgr 01:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead and delete it. The original PC Tools page contained this matter as well, so I went and cleaned that page up by moving this content to the article page in question. The original PC Tools was famous and does need an article, but this one should be deleted ASAP, IMHO. I moved it into its current page only because this already existed as a separate section in the PC Tools page. rohith 17:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator so I can't delete pages; let's just wait the proposed deletion to expire. -- intgr 17:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and I won't dispute the reverted citation. Because this article has so many external references, links, etc. it was attracting spam and I felt it needed cleanup. Calltech 02:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to fix the tagged section of this article, condensed the existing content, removed outdated and/or POV comments and added current events, while shuffling everything around a bit.

I still think it needs work, perhaps even more so now. I'm hoping to get an OK to post a screenshot of the newest version, that'll definitely spice up the eye candy.. but the current article structure still seems awkward.

Thank you for pointing out that the entry was over due for a clean up, any suggestion on how I can improve this article would be greatly appreciated. ROT26 Decoder Ring 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

you wrote:

[Hello, please do not repost articles that have been deleted in the past, without changing any of the content. -- intgr 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC) In response to your e-mail saying: "i reposted the aldon page after changing almost all of the content." I admit that I don't really remember how similar it was to the previous article, but in any case, it read like a sales brochure and not an encyclopedia entry, as did the previous version. Please make yourself comfortable with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before attempting another post of the article. Also, please note that Wikipedia editors normally prefer to be contacted on their user talk pages, and not by e-mail. -- intgr 21:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I received another e-mail from you. "i tried to contact you on your talk page, but got no response (this was the first time you deleted our page, quite a while ago)" I do not recall any messages left on my talk page, User talk:Intgr, by you. If you look at the history of my talk page,[1] or the archive,[2] you can see that there are no edits made by the user "Chnacat".

> "we are not trying to post a sales brochure. our competitors have wiki pages and we just want to be able to post our information. can you please tell me why these are acceptable (and have not been deleted) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perforce > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_Versions_System > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AccuRev%28vcs%29 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearCase > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Source_Safe > and ours is not? i would appreciate any help you can offer."

First, as per the conflict of interest Wikipedia guideline, you are not supposed to edit articles about your company in the first place! And more importantly, you should not treat Wikipedia as an advertising medium; your "competitor X has an article, so why can't we?" attitude is an obvious hint here. Second, with the exception of AccuRev, because they read more like encyclopedia articles, not like advertisements (although they're far from satisfactory in my opinion). I do not have a copy of the Aldon article for reference, but I can recall the Aldon article being worse than what AccuRev was before my recent edits. The speedy deletion criteria, which Aldon was deleted under, states "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic."; articles tagged for speedy deletion are reviewed by two people — first by the user who tags it for deletion, and second by the administrator who actually deletes it. Even though I do not advise you to do so due to a conflict of interest, if you really want to write a proper article, please make sure you have read and understood the relevant Wikipedia policies, starting at WP:NPOV, WP:A, WP:N, WP:POV and WP:MOS. No doubt these guidelines will seem confusing at first, and subjects where you have a conflict of interest make a bad starting point. Writing good encyclopedic articles is not an easy task (and that's part of the reason why I spend most of my time bitching about others' articles ;).

If you wish to contest the deletion, you can do so at WP:DELREV, though I do not expect any chance of the old article being restored. Have a nice day. -- intgr 18:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)]

my response:

i take umbrage to your comment about my attitude. i have no agenda whatsoever. i was asked by a person in our marketing department to help them post a wiki page because they had no html or web skills (not that those are needed necessarily)

i am just trying to do someone in the company a favor. i could care less one way or the other, i just didn't understand why the other companies could have pages and aldon could not. you are, in essence, shooting the messenger.

thanks for your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chnacat (talk • contribs).

Well, I am sorry for offending you, but you just admitted it yourself: your agenda is to write an article about the company and please the marketing department, not to improve Wikipedia. Indeed, this is what we call "conflict of interest".

I already addressed the reason for deletion in my previous response: Aldon can have an article if it's not written like an advertisement and conforms to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- intgr 08:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

like i said before, i did not write the article...i'm merely the person who is posting it for the marketing department. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chnacat (talk • contribs).

Okay, I did not realize that they were providing the content, too. Apologies for the misunderstanding. -- intgr 16:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

hi. ok, we asked a consultant to write something for us for our wiki page. i was wondering if, instead of my posting it and you deleting it, could i email it to you and you could tell me if you think it is appropriate to post??

i really appreciate your help!

-lisa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chnacat (talk • contribs) 16:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Are you now speaking on behalf of the marketing department, or still the same person who created the initial article twice? I am a confused looking at the previous comment by this user account.

again, i am just the messenger. i did not write the article, i have not written any of the articles. i am only the person who knows how to format for wikipedia correctly and have offered to do so for the marketing department. i am not speaking on behalf of anyone. the person from the marketing department will now be contacting you directly. i'm stepping out of this whole thing.

First, I am not an authority to tell whether an article is inappropriate or not; every editor is allowed to mark articles for speedy deletion, after which they are reviewed by an administrator.

you are not an authority, but you are the one who keeps deleting what is posted. so that is why i asked for your help.

Second, asking a third party (a consultant) to write an entry about your company is still a violation of the conflict of interest guideline. As I cannot ethically encourage this behavior, I would prefer not cooperating if this is the case. -- intgr 16:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

i have forwarded your comments to our marketing department. like i said before, they will contact you directly, i am stepping out of this.

-lisa

Hi Intgr,

I am the person in marketing whom my colleague China Cat refers to. Thank you for helping us with our wiki. I appreciate your stance with regards to neutrality and wikipedia. Clearly, for Wikipedia to be as valuable as it is, it must be as trustworthy as possible. It's thrilling to be a part of it.

To that end, we've had an outside consultant revise our article, describing the company "Aldon" with neutrality in mind. We will be resubmitting the article and hope it meets Wikipedia's standards.

Thanks again for your efforts.

Christy (Urchin 22) Urchin22 16:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Intgr,

Thanks for your message. Based on your advice earlier today ("Aldon can have an article if it's not written like an advertisement and conforms to Wikipedia policies and guidelines")we will make every effort to deliver something that meets this guideline. Thanks again for your suggestions.

Best, Christy (Urchin22) Urchin22 16:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks intgr, I'm a new wikipedia person and I mistakenly removed it. It's as it was.Kawdyr 06:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

could you make a short article about Kasten-brust armour? I've writen ru:Кастен-Бруст (доспехи), but I don't have a registration to make a such article for english wikipedia :-( It is a geram armour of the first hal of 15c , the source is "Osprey-Military "German Medevial Armies 1300-1500" (Men-at-Arms Series t166), text by Christopher Gravett, colour plates by Angus McBride, editor Martin Windrow, Reed International Books Ltd., ISBN 0-85045-614-2 " and illustrations are Image:Konrad Witz Sabobai And Benaiah (1435) fragment.jpg & Image:Jan van Eyck 032.jpg, this armour could be gound in museum of Vienna, and shown in many german pictures and statues e.g. image:Arthur3487.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.115.55.212 (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Huh? I don't have a vague clue about what Kasten-brust means and I can barely understand Russian.

If you don't want to create an account on English Wikipedia, you can use the Articles for Creation process, where another editor will create the article for you if it is deemed appropriate. -- intgr 12:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I made it ! [[2]] :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.115.54.183 (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I was just using WP:AWB to do some typo fixing and general format fixing, so don't have an opinion on this article's worthiness. I suggest you contact the page's creator. Thanks Rjwilmsi 14:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I was contacting the wrong person to begin with. :) -- intgr 15:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. My reasoning for the move of certain entries to the top was that those were actually called "Cairo", as opposed to peoples' surnames or some other term. People visiting the article for, e.g., the graphics library with the name cairo have to look to the bottom of the page, below less relevant entries like people with the surname of "Cairo" and the like. — Sam 22:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I have doubts that they're more important than the cities named "Cairo" — you moved them above these entries. -- intgr 22:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did that because the towns and cities have their own heading. They're right under the others, and there is only 3 entries there after all. It just makes more sense to me to have the ones called simply "Cairo" on the top. — Sam 23:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We could create a section called "computing" under the cities — then they'd have their own heading and would be located below the cities. After a thought, I'd be OK agree with moving the films up, too. -- intgr 23:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- when I did my original rv of your DTrace edit, I had thought that you'd changed the original "not to be confused with" line to point straight to one instance of another D language. I only realized the second time through that you'd actually added an additional one. You probably hadn't noticed that there already was a similar clause in the next sentence of the article.

The second time through, I realized that your placement and wording were the better of the two, so I removed the original one, but placed the existing wikilink to the D dab page on your new one. Hope that's a less confusing "not to be confused" for everyone. Cheers, NapoliRoma 23:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, indeed, I didn't notice that it was already stated. Thanks. :) -- intgr 23:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I Noticed your recent edit on Motion planning that I wrote, and wanted to thank you for a very respectful and thorough edit. I will try to edit for style as you indicated. Contrary to seeing on your userpage that some may have found you disruptive, I found your edit very clear, respectful, and correct. I wish other people I ran into on these pages had 1/2 the comon sense you have shown. --- Samfreed 23:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? All I did was change capitalized words to lower case, to conform to the manual of style. Are you sure you're not confusing my edits with someone else's? -- intgr 23:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Intgr. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5