User talk:Davidwr: Difference between revisions

	Additional archives
	Some threads dated before June 8, 2008

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:25, 13 September 2013

Dashboard:

WT:WPAFC / CAT:PEND - 2,580 pending submissions, CAT:Dc(0)
Commons talk, Commons watch list
Special:Contributions/114.145.9.69
Special:Contributions/Citrusbowler - AFC accepts and declines only, newbie who jumped right into AFC

I sometimes go on extended semi-wiki-sabbaticals with little or no notice, during which times I check in at least every few weeks and do occasional editing. If I don't edit within a few days after you leave me a message here, you may drop me an email to remind me to check my talk page.

This page last updated at 2013-09-13 03:25:34 AM UTC.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47

To leave me a message, click on the + tab at the top of the page. Be sure to add ~~~~ to your message so I know who you are.

Talkback

Hello, Davidwr. You have new messages at Blitzio's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzio (talk • contribs) 08:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback - Aggie80

Hello, Davidwr. You have new messages at Aggie80's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggie80 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Creation on Copy Data

Hi Davidwr, I'm writing in regards to an article for creation that you recently reviewed and declined. It's the article for creation on Copy Data.

I was hoping to take a minute to explain why Copy Data is different from data deduplication and data proliferation. Simply stated, data deduplication can reduce duplicate data within “silos” of information that exist within an organization. Data backup is one such silo where data deduplication is usually applied, but there are several other silos of information that data deduplication does not address.

Take the example used within the article for data deduplication... it reads, “a typical email system might contain 100 instances of the same one megabyte (MB) file attachment. Each time the email platform is backed up, all 100 instances of the attachment are saved, requiring 100 MB storage space. With data deduplication, only one instance of the attachment is actually stored; the subsequent instances are referenced back to the saved copy for deduplication ratio of roughly 100 to 1.”

In this instance, deduplication is being applied to the backup copy of the email system, but that is just one silo where many others exist. These silos can include backup, snapshot, disaster recovery, business continuity, test and development, analytics, information sharing, and compliance. These are all separate copies of entire systems that companies are forced to make, and this is what’s referred to as Copy Data. Deduplication is often applied when making these copies to help reduce the amount of data being stored, but it does nothing to eliminate the fact that multiple copies of entire systems are being made. As you can see, this is a major driver of data proliferation. In fact, Copy Data may be the reason behind 85 percent of all storage hardware purchases made in 2012. Here’s another organization talking about it just this week: http://www.formtek.com/blog/?p=3847

I can add this and other links to the Copy Data entry, but first wanted to further explain the rationale behind this entry. As you mentioned, much of the article you reviewed discusses the management of multiple copies of data. This is because it is important to understand how and why these copies are being made -- it is the Copy Data.

If I made some of these clarifications to the article, would they address your concerns?

Thanks, Reills78 (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to time constraints I can't give a proper re-review. I went to the AFC Help Desk and asked for others to review the submission. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Copy Data for details. While they can comment on the article without you re-submitting it, they may prefer that you to click on the "resubmit" button before commenting. They cannot accept it until you re-submit it. Please hold off re-submitting it until they ask you to do so or they indicate that it is ready to be accepted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query on Polytrichum alpinum

Hi Davidwr and thanks for your note. You're right that this is a long wait for a response, although I suppose it is holiday season. I wouldn't normally rely on checking back with an editor, but certain areas of the article were confusing because of the sentence structure and I was unable to verify source material. Having looked at a couple of other moss articles, this does seem to be reasonably in keeping with descriptive styles. I think it might be best for me to do another check of copy against the original and then put it through with a follow-on note to the editor. I would also add a note on the talk page asking for a second read from someone who knows their mosses/botany. Does that sound like a good plan to you? Libby norman (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for a second read is good. If the editor is unavailable, you might try asking for help on a relevant WikiProject. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 11:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Booton (actor)

Hello Davidwr. I wanted to let you know that I have posted the following on the administrator's talk page who concluded that my article should be deleted folleing the AFD discussion. Your request has not been answered and it would greatly help me in my future page edits so I requested the following from User:Mark_Arsten. Apologies but as I am fairly new to talk pages I did not know if there was a way of linking you in to the post on User:Mark_Arsten's talk page?

"Hello Mark. You have just concluded that my first article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Booton (actor) should be deleted . Could you please advise me where I can find the source code so as to improve the article for possible future consideration? Also, could you please provide an answer to the request by davidwr (the AFC reviewer who initially accepted the submission) when he request the following: "Note to the closing admin: This should only be deleted if either he fails WP:ENT (I contend that he passes WP:ENT, but that's obviously open to interpretation and discussion) or if he passes WP:ENT and is therefore presumed to be notable, but someone takes the trouble to do a deep search for evidence of notability and comes up dry or mostly dry. I am requesting that if the article is deleted, the closing admin specify whether, in his opinion of the consensus, the person fails WP:ENT or, despite passing WP:ENT, has been shown to fail WP:N. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you for you consideration. Papawazo (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)" Papawazo (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. The typical ways to link to a user's talk page are:

[[User talk:Papawazo]], which produces User talk:Papawazo,
Papawazo's [[User talk:Papawazo|talk page]], which produces Papawazo's talk page, and
{{user|Papawazo}}, which produces Papawazo (talk · contribs)

Notes: The first form is by far the most common. The second form is called "piping" because the vertical-bar is called a "pipe." Basically, the part to the left of the pipe is what get's linked to, the part to the right is what is displayed. The last form, using the template called user, is not commonly used if all you need to do is link to the user's talk page. In addition to linking to the user's talk page, it also links to the user page and the user's contributions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

Thank you! I'm doing my best to really have the article finally published! God bless! Anthonyhallop (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and good luck. My Wikipedia time is limited. If you need further help with this or any other AFC submission, ask at the AFC Help Desk, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC User-davidwr-AFCscripttest (August 30)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/User-davidwr-AFCscripttest.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC User-davidwr-AFCscripttest (August 30)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/User-davidwr-AFCscripttest.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manual move issue

I am sorry about manually moving All the Rage! and Talk:All the Rage! to All the Rage!! and Talk:All the Rage!!, but I did not mean any harm. If it is ever possible to use Wikipedia's "Move" feature, I always do, but some pages have titles that are on a blacklist, which requires me to manually move them. I did the same to Tomorrow We Die Alive→Tomorrow We Die ∆live and Just Got Paid (EP)→Just Got Paid, Let's Get Laid, although the problem was not a blacklist error with Just Got Paid (EP)→Just Got Paid, Let's Get Laid; the problem was that Just Got Paid, Let's Get Laid was already a redirect to Just Got Paid (EP), so it would not let me move Just Got Paid (EP) to an already existing article space, and blanking the Just Got Paid, Let's Get Laid redirect page didn't work either. If you would educate me on what to do in these situations, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! — Tha†emoover†here (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia:MOVE has information on how to do a move when technical problems require an administrator to make the move. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

Thanks there Davidwr! I have it re-submitted. Really praying that it can be successfully reviewed and approved this time. Thanks again and God bless! Anthonyhallop (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Hi David! I have tried re-editing and re-submitting the article. However, for some reasons, whenever I re-submit it, I am not seeing the multiple copies. But this time, I'm really hoping the submission will be finally approved. Thank you for taking time to review the copy. Really appreciate it. God bless! Anthonyhallop (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Good Day David! I know it has just been last week since I re-submitted the article. Will you still be the one to edit it? Really praying that we can have it successfully posted this time. God bless! Anthonyhallop (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large backlog at the moment and unless by chance I'm the one that grabs it, odds are someone else will. In general, if I become "invested" in a submission I leave it for someone else to eliminate bias one way or the other. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Vista Equity Partners

Is removing chunks a contribution? ;) Fine with me! heather walls (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You had 3 edits, which was enough to get you on the notification list. If you aren't neutral on the question of whether the PROD was appropriate, consider either removing it or endorsing it with {{prod2}}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that template. Done! Thanks, heather walls (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty Of Engineering And Technology/Jamia Millia Islamia

I have actually deleted as an implausible redirect; as and when you feel able to create a full article then I will be more than happy to restore the appropriate history. Giant Snowman 14:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent changes to the redirect-target, this is appropriate. Actually, I didn't create the article you deleted. You may wish to notify the creator of both it and the creator and other major contributors to Jamia Millia Islamia of your recent edits and the reasons for them, so they don't restore the information without fixing the problems. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with restoring an article that was wrongly deleted

I need your help with restoring the "Beautiful Onyinye" article that was deleted. According to User:STATicVerseatide, the article fails the WP:NSONGS. I dissected the WP:NSONGS paragraph and here's what I posted on User:STATicVerseatide's talk page:

According to Wikipedia, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Here are several notable links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY2H2ZP56K4; http://www.okayafrica.com/2012/06/12/video-p-square-x-rick-ross-beautiful-onyinye/; http://www.bellanaija.com/2012/06/12/bn-video-premiere-p-square-feat-rick-ross-beautiful-onyinye-remix/

"1.Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts." African songs aren't popular like American and European songs and there's not a lot of information online. Also, there isn't a major music chart website like billboard. The closest thing to Billboard in Africa is Afribiz Top 100 chart, a weekly chart that compiles music from West, East, Central, and Southern Africa.

"2.Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." Again, something that's not known worldwide can't possibly get nominated for the aforementioned awards, can it?

"3.Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." Beautiful Onyinye has been released as a recording. The track is on iTunes. Here's the link: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/beautiful-onyinye-feat.-rick/id580462837?i=580462842

I've dissected Wikipedia's statements and don't see why "Beautiful Onyinye" doesn't qualify as a "notable song".

Wikipedia also states:"Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created."

According to the above statement, you don't have the right to delete the single because if it isn't "notable", the information should be "contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created."

Whatever angle you look at it from, you're wrong for deleting the "Beautiful Onyinye" article. I see that you've written numerous hip hop articles. How would you like it if I deleted your articles and tell you, "WP:NSONGS"? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't appreciate people who don't give 2 cents about your contribution to wikipedia. versace1608 23:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S, there are numerous hip-hop, pop, country, and etc songs that haven't been nominated for any of the awards listed above. Yet, there are articles of them on Wikipedia. The last time I check, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia aimed at educating the word through information. If articles about P-Square (one of Africa's biggest musical duo) and other african musicians aren't created, how can people who are trying to learn about these artists know about them?

The rest of what I said is here:Beautiful Onyinye. This administrator isn't making sense. He deleted the "Beautiful Onyinye" article without giving me any irrefutable claims that are substantial. His viewpoint is that if a song hasn't recieved accolades, it doesn't deserve to have a Wikipedia article. The "Beautiful Onyinye" article meets Wikipedia's music guidelines notability and isn't a stub, thus, it deserves a Wikipedia article. I would appreciate it if you restore the article. Here's the link to what he deleted: [1] versace1608 00:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

First, he is not an administrator. However, he is an experienced editor with years of editing, over 100 articles created, and he has several user-rights that are normally granted only to experienced editors who have a history of positive editing. He also has done a lot of work in music-related articles. Based on his musical work and his history, I'm inclined to give his opinion more weight than I would someone who either didn't have extensive Wikipedia experience or someone who didn't have significant musical-related Wikipedia experience.

Second, he didn't delete the article, he merely turned it into a redirect. You have the technical ability to undo his edit. He can redo it, but he probably won't. Instead, he will probably nominate it for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) where the community can discuss it for 7 days and, based on the outcome of the discussion, an administrator will either close the discussion with "keep" or "no consensus to delete" in which case the article remains, "redirect" in which case it will be turned into a redirect and probably "locked" so it stays a redirect, or "delete" in which case it will be deleted outright.

Based only on what is in the article right now, if this were nominated for deletion, I would probably recommend leaving it as a redirect on the grounds that the article does not demonstrate that the song meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. With that in mind, I'm recommending that you not change the redirect back into an article until or unless you have something to add to the article that will make it very clear that the song meets Wikipedia's notability requirements.

By the way, most songs, most albums, and most musical artists do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and therefore they cannot have a stand-alone article. See Wikipedia:Notability and the subject-specific guidelines linked from that page for more details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]