User talk:Edgar181

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Please add new topics to the bottom of the page. You can use the "new section" button above to start a new topic.
  • In general, I will respond here to comments, rather than on your talk page, so that the conversation isn't scattered.

Archive

Archives


2015
 • Jan 2015 - Mar 2015

Deletion of a page[edit]

Could you please let me know why the page we tried to create was deleted? Also, can you please give us any feedback as to how we can avoid our page from being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourceComm23 (talkcontribs) 13:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to User:SourceComm23, I deleted it for several reasons. Your user page is for information about yourself related to your work on Wikipedia, rather than for information about a company (see WP:UPYES for details). Also, the content was highly promotional and met criteria for speedy deletion (see WP:CSD for details). A second copy of the page is still located at User:SourceComm23/sandbox/SKySaver Inc. where you can work on it. At the very least, it would need rewriting to remove the promotional tone and content before it would be acceptable as an article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you please review a revised version of the webpage? We'd like to know if we are on the right track before posting the page. We'll save revised page in the Sandbox for your review. Please let us know if we need if there is anything we need to revise. Thank you. - SourceComm23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourceComm23 (talkcontribs) 16:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I see three versions of the page: User:SourceComm23/sandbox/SKySaver Inc., User:SourceComm23/sandbox/SkySaver Inc. and User:SourceComm23/sandbox. I'm not sure which one you would like to have reviewed, but each one contains content that I would consider promotional (for example, "global leader in multi-story rescue and evacuation solutions"). Those drafts are unlikely to be accepted as articles unless they are rewritten to remove the promotional tone. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you please review the revised version dated May 7th in the Sandbox? We revised this version with your feedback in mind. We would like to know if this version can be posted on Wikipedia. Any other feedback that you can give us would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourceComm (talkcontribs) 22:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to follow up on the message above. Could you please review the revised draft dated May 7th? We saved it in the Sandbox. We would like to know if this version can be posted on Wikipedia. Please let us know your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourceComm23 (talkcontribs) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to follow up on the message above. Could you please review the revised draft dated May 7th? We saved it in the Sandbox. We would like to know if this version can be posted on Wikipedia. Please let us know your feedback.

I'm sorry I've been busy lately and haven't had time for Wikipedia. I'm confused about what version you would like to me have a look at. All three versions of the article that I see (User:SourceComm23/sandbox/SKySaver Inc., User:SourceComm23/sandbox/SkySaver Inc. and User:SourceComm23/sandbox) haven't changed since you last asked me to have a look and none of them are dated May 7th. Can you specify the exact title of the page? Alternately, instead of waiting on me (I'm unlikely to be spending much time on Wikipedia in the near future) you can follow the process outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for creation where other Wikipedia editors are involved. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've re-posted the revised draft in the Sandbox dated May 20, 2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SourceComm23/sandbox) We would like to know if this version can be posted on Wikipedia. Please let us know your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourceComm23 (talkcontribs) 19:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC) I wanted to follow up on the message above. Could you please review the revised draft dated May 20th in the Sandbox? We would like to know if this version can be posted on Wikipedia. Please let us know your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourceComm23 (talkcontribs) 15:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Lester Aldridge LLP[edit]

Hi, Can you please reinstate the article deleted in 2009 named Lester Aldridge LLP. I am now managing the brand and will only add facts that other reparable websites have: lawcareers.net, lex100.com and thelawyer.com. In 2009 there was know one specifically available to manage the page, so some content might have been seen as advertising. This will not be the case again. I am looking to do similar to this article but with more facts and figures:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Law.

Regards John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjones86 (talkcontribs) 14:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the deleted page should be restored. The text was highly promotional in tone and content and therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia. I would also recommend against creating or editing a page about your employer. If you are assigned the task of "managing the brand" by your employer, you have a clear conflict of interest. Please have a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy for details. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have not seen the original page so cannot comment. All I can say is that it will be fact only. I am happy for someone else to write it (but its already been written) or you reinstate it and I edit it completely and you can sign it off? Thanks Ed, John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjones86 (talkcontribs) 15:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

A prior deletion does not prevent the article for being recreated, so there is no need to restore the former text. A new article can be created with new text at the same title at any point. But again, I would strongly recommend against someone representing the company having any involvement with it at all. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Atorvastatin[edit]

Could you look in when you have a chance? We have a newly registered SPA account that is attempting to edit war in the claim that atorvastatin causes Alzheimer's disease. The sources merely state "mild and reversible cognitive problems" Thanks Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 01:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you that the changes by Oceanlike were inappropriate. I'll help keep an eye on the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Much appreciated. So far the edits are spaced pretty well, but s/he seems determined enough that it seems likely to go beyond something I can keep a lid on by myself. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 14:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brown rice[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brown rice. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of a page[edit]

Cooroll Mills was deleted without any good reason. The content is well documented in the world wide literature. I added the coo before roll mills since the persons from catastrophe theory wanted that I distinguish my interpretation from theirs. My model is in many articles of recognized international scientific journals, several books and in my new book Gudrun Kalmbach H.E., Quantum Mathematics, rgnpublications, Delhi. India. You don't delete Catastrophe theory only since these are several authors. See also the PJAAM, open access for my articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KHEname (talkcontribs) 10:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The consensus of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooroll Mills was clear that the article should be deleted. If you think that was the incorrect interpretation of the discussion you can file a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review (but in all honesty, I don't think it will be worth the effort because the consensus for deletion was so clear). -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

New message for two complains, Cooroll Mills and MINT Faecher: the company which is not granting money is called Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Wissenschaft BMBF, Arbeitgeberverband NRW and the Universitaet Ulm blocks off my applications. I am a former full war orphan and poor and nobody here around fosters my research. This is my invention as well as MINT (Mathematik, Informatik, Naturwissenschaften, Technik) for which the persons associated with BMBF violate my copy right, in German Urheberrecht. No lawyer takes up my case, instead also you as Wikipedia is not reacting neutral. I asked that the violation of my coparight has to be deleted as an article MINT Faecher which means the same as my above invention and makes a description. I asked that the history as my invention is quoted and got the same reaction as in earlier times an Emmy-Noether under a dictartorship. You from the English Wikipedia react no similar. I have apllied for the Emmy-Noether Association and my company, the MIT Verlag (publisher) Bad Woerishofen to get patents for both, my educational and scientific work. The answer until now is negative, as you react. <No rights for those whose two lifetime works are stolen by the ruling political parties. Gudrun at MINT Bad Woerishofen PS: The article in question cooroll mills was already a cartoon used by Google recently, and has been visited by thousends of interested scientists, teachers, students around the world since Tchernobyl. I gave at least 50 talks and demonstrations to this, more public presentations than String Theory which you list. I invited Wikipedia Muenchen to visit my huge Archive KHE and let rewrite the article MINT Faecher with my historical documents added.

Please comment on Talk:Conversion therapy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Conversion therapy. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)