User talk:Akradecki

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #275

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave comments, critiques, etc., below. Unless you specifically request that I answer on your talk page, I'll be answering here, as I prefer to keep as much of the conversation in one place as possible. Thanks!

Please add all new material to the bottom of the page!

DYK for Bay Area Puma Project

On 25 February, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bay Area Puma Project, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Akradecki-

Template:Afc redirect

Hi, did you know that this template has recently been upgraded and has various options for accepting/declining a request. I just ask because there are some queries to your declines on the Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects page. Regards, Martin^msgj 10:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Greeks in Finland

Guys, you have given me all the excusess that you could give me and it looks like that editor has different opinions about this article. Could please restore the page and talk to me before you make the deletion becouse Im tired or writting the article 10 times. Here is a history of the previus discussion that lead us to remove the "speedy deletion" tag and give us more time to add content. Few hours later you deleted the page, did you see the history tab with the discusions that I had?

Greeks in Finland. The page is not a spam, it describes the Media published by an ethnic group. Dosent promote any specific product becouse there is no product here. I would say that has encyclopedic value since the content concerns around 1000 people that the live in Finland. Also similar pages like Greeks in Sweeden has less content then this one, actually many pages related to the subject of Greeks in -somecountry- have less then 100 words. So why pages with less content then this one are still up and this one is under threat?

It does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic You can put the Template:Hanon tag on the page to contest to this. If you are able to rewrite it so it looks more like a encyclopedic item it won't be deleted. I have had this happen to me and my article looked about the same as yours. (Also, Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages, to sign them, click the signature button at the top of the edit box) Cheers --Nz26 (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Well, I dont know how we messure value in Wikipedia but for the Greeks in Finland and for that ethnic group this information is very valid and important. In adittion, the page was created and is promoted to those 100s of greeks in Finland in order to add more content and historical information about Diaspora. I hope that you dont expect that one man will write the whol history of greeks in finland but rather you could expect that a page will stimulate others to contribute contennt. Isnt that the philosophy of a wiki? Moreover, as said before I started by listing media and social clubs, I dont have information on famous greeks in finland and I dont like to start promoting living persons. I will add more content as it goes so please give more time in order to add more content. I do understand your concern but I think that even that small portion of text helps and informs a small group of Greeks living in finland and has its value becouse it demostrates that people of that ethnic origin live/work and by their actions create history and art in the place that they live. Many thanks, waiting for your reply.Makrygiannis74 (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC) You have put the hangon tag on the page so that is fine. Speedy deletion will be removed once content is fixed. Cheers Nz26 (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Do we have deadline for this? Makrygiannis74 (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Unsure. Ill remove the tag on the page. Please develop the page more, Otherwise Ill flag it again Nz26 (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tessa Souter Query

The original article I created on Tessa Souter was declined and the the advice given was 'Please provide more information on why the person or group is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, and cite reliable, published third-party sources, so that the information in the article is verifiable.' So I then went and added a load of press quotes from 'third-party sources' that are all 'verifiable' and you are now telling me 'Each quote needs a ref, otherwise it needs to be removed. This article has little content and lot's of quotes, which is not really encyclopedic.' So now you seem to be telling me there are too many 'third party sources'. I can add complete references to the quotes no problem at all but I would appreciate some constructive advice on getting this article accepted as at the moment the decisions that have been made so far seem extremely subjective and not helpful. Do I need to remove some of the quotes? Tessa Souter is an extremely well documented and notable Jazz Singer and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia so please tell me what you think is needed to get the article accepted as I have followed the advice given to no avail. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.131.98 (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

First, all quotes need references...that's one of the things that makes them "verifiable". Second, your references, and especially the quotes, need to contribute materially and give encyclopedic information about the person; in writer's parlance, they need to "tell a story". Right now it reads like a promo piece, a bunch of quotes saying how wonderful this person's work is.AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

ProtoShare Query

I am in need of some assistance regarding an article recently declined ProtoShare. In my correspondence with a previous reviewer (Tnxman307) we had discussed the reliable sources and I was told that my most recent additions would work. Regarding the content of the article, I was following the format of current articles already posted in Wikipedia (Axure and OmniGraffle). The product reviews are third party users who have nothing to do with the developers of this product and even criticize some of the product. I have since removed some content and tried to ensure an informative yet neutral voice. It is difficult to post an article that one agrees is acceptable and another does not. Are my newest changes acceptable and how do I make sure it gets approved? Thank you in advance for your help! --Site9 (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have a couple of concerns. First, is the apparent conflict of interest here. You are essentially writing an article promoting your own company's product, even if you're trying to do it in a neutral tone. While we have a bit more leeway at AfC, there are editors around who feel this is still inappropriate. Personally, I feel this crosses the line, but I don't want my opinion to necessarily be seen as the rule. That being said, the core of the issue is notability of the product. Take a moment and read the material that the blue link I just typed says. This appears to be a relatively new product that you're trying to promote. I, quite frankly, don't see encyclopedic notability established yet. What I see for sources are three blogs and one online magazine. Only Simply Communicate, in my view, even comes close to the level mandated by our reliable sources policy.

Having said all that, I do understand the frustration of dealing with multiple editors, who might have widely varying interpretations of our policies and guidelines. I will drop a note over at User:Tnxman307's talk page inviting him to review this, and I will be happy to defer to his judgment on the issue. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for inviting me to comment. Hopefully we can reach some agreement on the article. I think the best way to proceed is to look at the sources provided. After all, notability is simply the coverage of a subject in third-party sources. I think the best two sources are the Wikinomics interview and the Simply Communicate piece. They provide a solid basis since they are third-party and go in-depth about the subject.

The other sources are less in-depth, but they do provide some coverage of the subject. While this may not amount to spectacular sourcing, I feel it's enough to support an article.

Finally, it does appear the user has a conflict of interest. However, s/he does appear to be making a good-faith effort to contribute an article. I'd be willing to work with this user and monitor their contributions, although they seem be going about things the right way so far. Are there other concerns you feel need to be addressed? Best, TNXMan 20:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, sounds like you covered them. I appreciate your willingness to work with the editor. Just a note you might want to pass on, though. Typically, if I see COI, I'll just warn the user, however there is a growing number of admins who, if they see a user name match a corporate name, will indef block on sight. Once this article hits the main space, User:Site9 should probably not be involved any longer. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Kaori Tea - Slight irelevant confusion

Hi there. This is entirely unimportant, purely personal curiosity on my part, but I noticed you deleted Kaori Tea under A7 right after declining the speedy on the grounds a prior AfD had found its sources notable. I was just curious as to why. The sudden 180 confused me a bit! - Vianello (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusion on my part. I thought it had been created through the WP:AFC process, so I decided at that point to decline. However, I then double checked and realized, through checking the history, that it had been actually declined after the AfC review, and the version posted to the article space was unchanged from that which had been previously declined, therefore I reversed myself. Sorry for the confusion. I should have checked the history of the AfC submission first. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I meant to say AFC. Anyway, now I understand! Thanks for clearing that up. I was just a little perplexed. - Vianello (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

NP...I managed to perplex myself there, too! AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Page moves

WikiThanks

Thank you for helping me. User:Yousaf465 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and I didn't moved it further.Discussion is taking place,and I 'm also contributing to it.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

The Aviator

Please see the following page, The Aviator. I have been observing some vandalism of a section of the article, but now it's advanced instead of through other means to a legal threat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

Dang, looks like I missed the action. Oh well, I don't think this person will be bothering you anymore, but I'll watchlist the article anyway. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick Question re: Block on Ahmad Batebi

I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE BLOCK ON Ahmad Batebi: Is the user banned indefinitely from editing his own page or is the block still for only 24 hours, which began last night as indicated in Ahmadbatebiuser talk page? --Autoplay91 (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've only blocked him for 24 hours. A ban would come about only if he kept up the inappropriate behavior. The block did not include his own user page. Even after the block is lifted, though, it would be inappropriate for him to continue editing the article about him. Your connection to him? AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My connection to him? None! Never have met or spoken to the guy or anything else other than observing his inappropriate behavior here and elsewhere. This behavior, which is not limited to Wikipedia as I understand it, has raised a great deal of questions about this individual and his credibility. However, the reason I posed the question was because I wanted to understand blocking rules better in general, not just in his case. I am quite surprised with the amount of vandalism and inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia and was wondering generally how such actions are addressed. --Autoplay91 (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism that is noted and which needs to be address can be posted at WP:AIV. Incidents of misbehavior can be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. As you're new here, let me caution you...your comments at Talk:Lily Mazahery are somewhat incendiary, and show a lack of neutrality on your part. You might want to consider modifying your approach when dealing with controversial subjects. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Point well taken. I was just struck by how cruel and absurd some of the statements were against her, particularly as I have followed her work for years and have great respect for what she has done. Regardless, I thank you for your advice and will certainly act more carefully and with greater neutrality even in cases where I feel there is great injustice. You are absolutely correct. --Autoplay91 (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In the same token, others are also expected to show the same restraint. If you observe others making "cruel and absurd" statements, you are well within your rights to either post a complaint to the Incidents board, or even warn the user yourself, based on our civility code. Happy editing! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I really am sorry to bother you again, but this discussion has just made me think of another question for you: Is there any way to bookmark the links such as the ones you have suggested? I would like to have a list of the hyperlinks to the pages that provide instructions regarding editing, commenting, responding, etc. but I have not figured out how that can be done. Any help that you would be kind enough to provide will be greatly appreciated. --Autoplay91 (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem with the questions...they're always encouraged. You are free to make subpages under your user name. For instance, if you look at my user page, you'll see both a bookmarks page as well as a toolbox page, and some sandboxes for working on articles in. There's just too much for this old brain to remember, so I create links for myself. Some people don't bother with a bookmarks page, they just stick the links on their main user page, which is perfectly acceptable. So, for instance, if you wanted to add a link to the vandalism board, it would look like: [[WP:AIV]]. If you want to make a subpage, you'd type in the search box User:Autoplay91/pagename (substituting the name you want to call the page, of course). When the screen comes up that the page doesn't exist, it'll also have a line that you can click that invites you to create the page. Hope that helps. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding speedy deletion of the Vermeth album Your Ruin...

Hi, as a contributor to the WikiProject Black Metal, I am currently trying to improve the Les Légions Noires page. One thing on my "to do" list is to add pages for the albums that were released through official recording compagnies. This is the case for the two Vermeth albums released by French label Drakkar Productions The problem is that I dont' feel it makes sense to create a dedicated page for Vermeth, as it is simply one of the numerous side projects by Black Legions members. However, the releases have notability as part of the Black Legions' collective oeuvre. Any idea how to proceed without getting the articles speedy-deleted for lack of an artist page, as just happened a few minutes ago? (Irina666 (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

See WP:NALBUMS - an album isn't notable unless it's artist is notable and it has been covered by reliable independent sources. I saw none of that for this one. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Phantom Automation

Hi Akradecki-

I just tried to add a new article on Phantom Automation. I accidentally saved it as a real page instead of to the sandbox, and noticed it was marked for deletion. I added the 'hangon' tag, and explained that I was updating it. I finished updating it and noticed it had been deleted anyway.

My intent was to add it as a link to the GUI Test Tools article. Were you able to see my final changes before deleting it? Was there a problem with the final changes? It is about a commercial product, but I tried to make it so that it was not an 'advertisement'. I saw some other pages that the GUI Test Tools article links to, and I didnt see anything in my page that was not in those other pages.

Sorry, but I am new to this whole thing. Any thoughts or suggestions are appreciated!

Also, the person who helped me told me to ask you to 'WP:USERFY' it for me...

Thanks!

Aeroslacker (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What I saw failed wp:corp. I'll userfy it and notify you on your talk page AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Me2everyone

Why doesn't an authoritative reference combined with several hundred Google hits count as sufficient notoriety?--Nowa (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Google hits don't count for anything. You might want to make yourself familiar with WP:WEB. The standard is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

AKRadecki, thanks for the guidance. WP:WEB states The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Does my original reference from About.com, Me2Everyone: Viral Marketing of Virtually Nothing Monday February 9, 2009, qualify as at least one non-trivial independent published work?--Nowa (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Our policy on verifiability, in discussing self-published sources, states that "For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." A blog is not at the same level as a major news or trade publication. Remember, we're not creating a forum or online guide here...this is an encyclopedia, and consequently our standards are - and should be - relatively high. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand and agree with your point about self published blogs. About.com, however, is an Internet encyclopedia project. It is owned by the New York Times and their ethics policy is that of a news publication. The mere fact that users may post comments to articles is true of most all on-line news publications and should not disqualify them as an independent and reliable source. I would also add that they are already cited quite frequently in other Wikipedia articles. See cat and dog.--Nowa (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the fact that users can post comments, it has everything to do with the fact that it is a self-described blog. Even at big news organizations, blogs are treated differently. They are typically written in first person and share opinions of the blogger (as this one clearly does) and are thus commentary, rather than being objective and dispassionate news articles. Additionally, typically they don't go through the same editorial review process as an actual article would. While blogs by reputable journalists can sometimes be used as supporting references, this is your sole ref, so no, since it's a commentary piece, it doesn't meet the standard. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait then until a few more traditional news articles show up.--Nowa (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you about both the use of blogs at news sources. They are not quite the same as news articles, but they represent the opinion of --usually--an important editor there. Depending on that person's reputation, they can be every bit as reliable as if he were to publish them in a book. For what shows up at ask.com, the same criterion would hold, if the people can be shown to be notable. DGG (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

By and large (and in this particular case) blogs are commentary not news, and thus I don't see them as meeting the standard, especially when such a commentary is the article's sole source. However, with more and more major news people blogging, it probably would be a good idea to start a discussion (maybe at WP:RS?) to have a more formal guideline as to when blogs are acceptable. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Survivors

Any chance of having a look at User:Davegnz actions on A-20 Havoc survivors he does not appear to be behaving as required by his RFC, appears to be returned to own the survivors articles despite all the discussion and RFC we had previously. Also appears to have a pair of socks User:Tallmantz and User:209.212.28.50. I am bit to close to the latest changes so any help or advice appreciated. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I dropped a note on his talk page, and will keep watching. Looks like the others are definitely socks. I don't like what I see with this...trying to create a consensus with ghosts. Will definitely keep an eye on things. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Continued threats against editors

Hello. I wanted to direct your attention to this post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vistaboy99 Any suggestions regarding how this on-going problem should be addressed? User (Shayan7) has received a number of warning from admins regarding his threats and attempts to bully other editors. Yet he seems unphased by it all. --Joaj (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case, Shayan7 has a point...Vistaboy99's comments weren't very polite. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Patrick Henry Jones

On 8 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Patrick Henry Jones, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

thx

Problems continue on Ahmad Batebi

Since Ahmad Batebi himself has been blocked from editing this page, user Shayan7 who appears to be the English translator of Ahmad Batebi, continues to do exactly what Batebi was warned against doing. Shayan7 deletes verified information with unsourced and original source info that has recently been posted on Batebi's website as a reaction to Wikipedia's administrative interventions. As such, only the username of the editor has changed from Ahmadbatebi to Shayan7! The actions are precisely the same. They are inappropriate, disruptive, and lack a neutral point of view or properly sourced information.--Joaj (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time, at the moment, to dig through the diffs, but would you mind providing some that demonstrate your assertions that "the actions are precisely the same"? That will help in trying to moderate this mess. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Since you seem to have become my mentor here (which I really appreciate, by the way), I attempted to provide some points to counter those made by Shayan on Lily Mazahery's Talk page. I would be so grateful if you could let me know how I did and how I can make the changes that obviously need to be made. Thanks so much. --Autoplay91 (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you handled it quite well. You made your point through independent sources, which is the most convincing way to make a point in the WP environment. And, you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that this is the reason for using independent sources. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this situation, read through the histories and fighting back and worth. I just wanted to say that I think you handled this situation beautifully. OlYeller^Talktome 05:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thx! AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD

I'm not sure you know this, so I'm sending you a quick note about it. I've come across to AFDs you closed and you forgot to put the header inside the closure tags in both cases. I know that at least one of the TFD or CFD processes do it differently, which might be causing the confusion. Maybe something to remember for your next closure. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Dang, you're right. Thanks for the heads up! AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A-20 article

I was just wondering if anyone at wikipedia has a clue regarding how screw'd-up tables make an article look. - nothing is in ling, information is being lost and the article does not look professional or well written. Wikipedia table do not work - when I first created this series 2 years ago, I tried tables but you could not get then to look right - you end up with things that look like

A-20-5D

O

44-12

345

and this is the first column

As far as the proposing a change - this is a joke - I often proposed a change (held lengthy discussions) and people like BillCJ just ignored everyone elses comments and just did it his wall and Melbourne one is a joke as a administrator - He does not have a clue oten ageees with my point then ignores his own common sense and just reverts back to something that does not work. Davegnz (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree. I've tried viewing the tables with several different browsers on different sized screens (from my narrow laptop to my widescreen touchsmart) and I've encountered no problems. Further, for me personally, the tables help organize the data for better viewing. Lastly, whenever you propose a change, you have to keep in mind that your proposal may be turned down by the group. I've had plenty of mine turned down. Don't assume that proposing something gives you the right to automatically implement it. Lastly, I'm really disappointed that you never really addressed the issues in the RfC, and your disrespectful comments about the editors which you've made above indicates that there's been little change in your outlook. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, since you mentioned on Milborne's talk page but not here the 17" monitor issue, I just went and double checked how it looks on the 17" monitor I'm using at the moment (viewing with Google Chrome as the browser), and it looks just fine. Don't have the problems you're describing. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Soundplant software article

I'm puzzled by the reason given for your rejection of this article, "No additional sources that meet WP:RS added since last submission." In fact 2 new sources had been added, both articles from highly respected industry publications...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.204.68 (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the dif of the changes made since the last time the article was declined. The only additional source I see is the addition of the Soundplant home page, which isn't a valid independent source. You made changes to the entries for two already-existing sources, neither of which meet our standards. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please look again at the dif page, perhaps you missed it but I had added an entirely new source ("Sound On Sound" magazine article) and clarified a second source by adding its off-internet hard copy publication details ("Electronic Musician" magazine article). I totally agree that the Soundplant home page is not a valid 3rd party source (a link to which had been there since the first draft of the article by the way and was not recently added), but I see no reason for the 2 magazine articles to not be valid sources. I was going to add a reference to yet another magazine article, but first can you please elaborate on how you think the currently referenced magazine articles do not meet Wikipedia standards? What would be more relevant than the 3rd party articles/reviews on the subject such as the ones cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.204.68 (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

X-Block

I am curious to know why you deleted X-Block? We have plenty of references (I can add some more all from leading engineer magazines). Yes, it is a product but it is all about running pneumatic cylinders in a different way and saving 60-70% energy. The cylinder manufacturers are trying to kill us as they do not like disruptive new technology because it is a revolutionary new way (see Wikipedia- FESTO). —Preceding unsigned comment added by X-PNEUMATIC1 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted as a copyvio because it was cut and pasted from a website, which is not acceptable. Secondly, although this is not the reason it was actually deleted, it could just as well have been deleted for being an advertisement. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your company's products. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting guidance from wikipedia gatekeepers

Hi there, I am getting conflicting information about software-related pages. You recently removed my OTPauth page, which was about a specific technology related to One-Time Passwords and is linked off of the One-Time Passwords page under the heading "specific technologies." It seems you would prefer I just have the reference to the technology be an external link to the project homepage. I'm fine with that, but was told not to do that on a related page. On another page, which was a "List of xxxxx software" type of page, I had an external link to a specific discrete event simulation engine. It was removed, because I did not have an internal page for the technology, which I have now created.

Which way do you want it? And thanks again for making me redo work I've already done. Can you, if nothing else, send me a copy of the page which you deleted (OTPauth)? You should be more judicious with your "speedy deletes" as I didn't have appropriate time to add the hangon tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James.barkley (talk • contribs) 18:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

First, you might want to refer to our conflict of interest guidelines...it is pretty much inappropriate for your to write about a product that you developed. Second, the article had no outside neutral 3rd sources to verify its notablity (for more information, please see WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:WEB. Third, the article was cut-and-pasted from this website, which clearly is copyrighted by Google (see statement at bottom of that page), so using that text here is a copyright violation. Three strikes...that was actually a fairly judicious use of speedy. (Oh, and please sign your messages with four tildas.) AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

James.barkley (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Wow, you're a piece of work ;). Okay, first, The Google code copyright applies to their site, not the content. This is well documented at http://code.google.com/tos.html under the "Your Rights" section which states: "Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted, or displayed by you on or through Google services." Secondly, the source code and wiki content are clearly licensed under the GNU General Public License v2, which means that reproduced or derivative works can be created by anyone as long as changes are made available. You can read more about this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License or at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html The wiki you reference http://code.google.com/p/otpauth/wiki/usage_scenarios clearly indicates this license in the right-hand sidebar. Do you think every photo you post to flickr is copyrighted by Yahoo, too?

Furthermore, some of that content was cut-and-paste from the homepage wiki, but not all of it. There were some custom statements in there that I would like to retain in my records. Your terms of service clearly state that I can have an article emailed to me if it is deleted, and you have yet to fulfill this request.

I can add the February edition of Linux Pro Magazine as a reference, since they ran a cover-story article which referenced the code library and discussed the application of such technology in-depth. If the article is restored, I would be happy to put this reference (and you can verify it, BTW, by buying a copy online or in the stores).

Finally, this is not a "product" and I was not the sole contributor. I understand the conflict of interest if I work for Pepsi and am marketing it, but I tried to be as objective as possible in just describing the code library according to your rules of objective language.

Now, I don't want this next bit to come out as a criticism of you personally, it is a flaw in the system: You thought you knew something ("Google copyrighted this") and you were very incorrect about it and as a result I am now losing valuable time trying to clean up the mess. As a steward of data you are put in a position of trust and control, and I feel you did not uphold that trust. How do I make a complaint against a data steward? If my appointed government official makes a decision I don't like, I can complain. I thought Wikipedia was similar, in that it wasn't just a handful of trusted officials make all of the content decisions, but rather a democratization of information.

Not sure what you meant by the four tildas thing - I am look into it now. James.barkley (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, the code may well be in GFDL, but the page that the text about the code clearly says "Copyright 2009 Google" at the bottom, and has no other statement, including no GFDL statement. For example, if you look at the bottom of any Wikipedia page, there is a GFDL statement about the text. There was no statement at the bottom of the Google page, only a copyright statement. Further, if you read through the Google TOS that you referred to, you'll find this statement in regards to the content of the page: "Except as expressly authorized by Google or other proper third party rights holders, you agree not to modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on Content, Google services or Software, in whole or in part except as specifically authorized in a separate written agreement." That's not a GFDL statement, and in fact, there is no GFDL statement anywhere in the TOS. Note that this statement applies expressly to the "content", even if the content comes from a 3rd party. Further, right after the statement that you quoted to me, Google states "Google reserves the right to syndicate Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services and use that Content in connection with any service offered by Google." If Google is reserving that right, then the content is not free under GFDL. Bottom line: the page says it's copyrighted, the TOS says it's copyrighted and that rights are reserved, and there's no GFDL statement, therefore in the absence of express license under GFDL, copyright by Google has to be assumed. As to your Flikr analogy, it's actually a good one: images from Flikr can't be used here unless they carry an explicit GFDL statement. Oh, and by the way, Wikipedia is not a democracy. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

James.barkley (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC) I am convinced you are flat out wrong about the content licensing at Google Code, but since I don't think it will be pointless to continue to argue with you about that I've explicitly licensed the content as Creative Commons 3.0 BY. You can clearly see this on the sidebar at http://code.google.com/p/otpauth/. As for the Flikr analogy: it may be Wikipedia policy not to use a flickr image here unless it is explicitly licensed, but that is because the user retains rights, not Yahoo!. This is an important distinction from the way you've explained your understanding.

Please email me the page content for my records.

If not a democracy, can you offer a different analogy? I did find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy interesting, so I give you that. However, in the next section below it under "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" the page states: "Similarly, do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy (see Wikipedia's guideline on gaming the system). If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." James.barkley (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Xmanager, Xshell, PC X Server

Please explain in further detail why these 3 entries were deleted. Specific details as to why you thought it would be best to delete them and what we need to change so they are not deleted in the future. Please do not state them as merely not following "notability" rules because the last entries met the notability guideline as much as any proprietary product.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk616 (talk • contribs)

I'll have to look into the other two later, but Xmanager was originally deleted via AfD, so recreation really isn't appropriate without going through WP:DRV. It has been recreated and deleted multiple times, and the time before mine because it was a blatant copyvio. Notability does seem to be an issue. Can you please tell me, with specifics, how it meets the notability guidelines? AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the other two. Xshell also doesn't even come close to meeting our notability guidelines. Other than a Cnet download page (which had no neutral 3rd party info on it), there was nothing to justify an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a product guide. Again, you said that they meet the notability guideline. How? Where's the significant coverage in non-trivial neutral 3rd party sources? AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

CERTPOINT Systems

Could you please explain how to avoid the following message when trying to create this page? Do I need more references? More internal links? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

Yes, go read WP:CORP. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

International Association of Lighting Designers (IALD) Deletion

Noticed that you deleted the wiki for the International Association of Lighting Designers in September.

This group is an international professional organization for architectural lighting designers and incorporated at a 501(c)6 as an association, akin to the American Medical Association for doctors and the American Library Association for library professionals, meeting the requirements for notability for non-commercial companies as defined by wikipedia.

Layingblames (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Go read WP:CORP again. The article didn't meet it. See the part where it says "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)"? Gotta have that. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So, is it a matter of proving the existance of this organization as provided by a reputable body? incorporation papers?

U.S. Department of Energy and International Association of Lighting Designers Partner to Improve Energy Efficiency in Lighting Systems

IALD is an internationally recognized organization comprising independent and esteemed professionals dedicated to the very highest standards in lighting design. DOE's collaboration with IALD further strengthens its commitment to developing innovative, energy-efficient lighting solutions.

Associations & Organizations, National Lighting Bureau

International Association of Lighting Designers (IALD) Founded in 1969 and based in Chicago, Illinois, USA, IALD is an internationally recognized organization dedicated solely to he concerns of independent, professional lighting designers. The IALD strives to set the global standard for lighting design excellence by promoting the advancement and recognition of professional lighting designers. Value Lighting designers are a tremendous resource of innovative, practical and economically viable lighting solutions. They understand the role of lighting in architectural and interior design and utilize their extensive experience and knowledge of lighting equipment and systems to enhance and strengthen design.

What else?Layingblames (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. Our policy states:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So, the web site for the US Dept. of Energy isn't good enough? Quick Google search shows 11,400 references, including several from journals, trade press, and industry sites. I honestly have no idea what to provide to meet - could you please provide one solid example of a web site or source that would count? Layingblames (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what I quoted above? Once again, it says, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." It's your responsibility to ensure that this is in the article. Secondly, I get the strong impression that you're connected to this organization. Am I mistaken? AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'm a member of the association, and it was brought to my attention that this page was deleted by someone who isn't as familiar with wikipedia procedure. I'm going to move this discussion to the WP:DRV Layingblames (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome to take it to DRV, but be aware of our conflict of interest guidelines, which preclude people from using Wikipedia to promote their organization or products. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

FYI, I have restored Ken Binns; regardless of what I might think about the article personally, it was the subject of a recent deletion discussion, which did not reach a consensus to delete, so it should not be speedied. That is one reason why we need to check the page history before deleting. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It would have been nice if someone had actually tagged the article's talk page with {{oldafd}}! Thanks for the heads up on this one. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Rmcsamson

Please investigate this user. I've been suspecting that he's using sock accounts like User:Minala and others. Use checkuser for this one. Soapiamarz (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar
		For all your hard work at AfC, I hereby present you with this shiny award. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Awesome...Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Jigsaw (wrestler)

The article was deleted in June 2007 for being about a "minor league" wrestler. Since that time, he has gone on to compete regularly for Ring of Honor, the third largest promotion in the United States and has competed on several events aired on pay-per-view. The only other problem with the article by the original nominator was the fact that Online World of Wrestling.com, the source for the article, is a website that wrestlers can (but not necessarily do) pay to have a profile add, which all they do is record the wrestlers match history and are deleted if the website finds out the wrestler is giving them false information. The original nominator is the only person to have a problem with the website, and damn near every single article on Wikipedia about a professional wrestler uses OWW.com as a reference. In addition to OWW.com he has profiles at CHIKARAfans.com, Ring of Honor.wikia.com, and most promotions websites feature event history (as well as producing the events on DVD) and title histories, all of which can be used to source the article in case someone has a problem with "At [event] on [date], Jigsaw defeated [wrestler] to win [championship]". Nenog (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

With as many times as this article has been deleted, I'd strongly suggest taking it to WP:DRV. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning BakerPlatt

Hello, I see you deleted one version of the article (me deleting 2 other versions). the article has been recreated, and I'm loath to delete it a 3rd time. But I could use another pair of eyes here. See also pertaining messages on my talk-page. What do you think? COI, SPA, paid writing? Cheers and Thanks in andvance. Lectonar (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys. I'm an increasingly frustrated and discouraged newbie to Wikipedia. I'm loathing the accusations and failing to see why the page is repeatedly being deleted. It is impartial, objective, notable and entirely in keeping with the entries for other offshore law firms. Please would one of you give me an indication as to where I'm going wrong, without accusing me of 'paid writing'! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonmackenzie (talk • contribs) 14:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Jason, first, what is your connection with the firm? Second, it would be very helpful if you'd put the refs into inline citation format (see WP:CITE). At first look, this article looks non-notable as we define notability, but when you start following the web links, a case for notability can be made. The problem is that you haven't made the case well, because you haven't used the standard reference format. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you delete the slipknot single snuff? I edited that last night because the infobox was WHACKED! Please start it again... :'( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.200.16 (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it failed to meet WP:MUSIC. Consider including the info in the main article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Need your guidance regarding photo for Lily Mazahery's page

Hi again. I am trying to figure out the licensing and photo policy here and I couldn't be more confused! So once again, I am hoping that you can direct me towards the right path. I have uploaded 2 different images for Lily Mazahery. One was a photo that had been removed because of copyright related issues that I really don't understand since the subject is over my head. However, because the same picture had been used in other places, I contacted the media source from which the snapshot was taken, and I sent an email to Lily Mazahery's office as well, asking them if it was OK to use the image. Both said that there were no problems with using it. Mazahery_Lily.jpg But just to be safe and to make sure that I am not doing anything inappropriate, I uploaded another image of her, LilyMazahery2007.jpg‎ which is a photo that my father had taken of her when he had gone to Washington DC and had met her. That photo has been used extensively in the past couple of years and neither Ms. Mazahery nor my father have any problems with it being used here or elsewhere. Also, ironically enough, my dad took that photo using my camera that he had borrowed for the trip! So I need to know which photo is more appropriate to use under Wikipedia rules. The photo that was used initially in her profile is a more appropriate depiction of Lily Mazahery in the context of her work and activism profile, which is on Wikipedia. But if that is not acceptable under copyright guidelines, which again, I really can not make sense of (sorry!), I would like to know if it would be OK for me to use the other image on her profile. Thanks again for all of your mentorship and help. --Autoplay91 (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The photo taken by your father with your camera is much easier for the copyright issues. For the other one, if you want to use it, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, and email them the replies that you have. Hope that helps. Photo copyright really is a convoluted problem, which is why I only upload images that I shoot. If Lily is going to be in L.A. any time soon, especially in San Fernando Valley, and would agree to be photographed, I'd possibly be able to shoot some images myself. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you have seen this back and forth discussion or not, but just in case, here's the link to the thread on the admin's talk page about this issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn#Lily_Mazahery_image As confusing as Wikipedia is, I must admit that I am having a lot of fun learning. And I really appreciate having the guidance of experienced editors such as yourself. --Autoplay91 (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny time in signature

User talk:CEAMOfficial. What happened? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, how bizzare...never noticed that before! That message is a template, and I don't think it's auto-updating the time. Will have to explore that more. Thanks for pointing that out! AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Botchamania

Just wondering why the Botchamania page was deleted and is now restricted for someone to create it. There are bits that say due to it being about a website that is not worthy of inclusion. What exactly would make it a website worthy of inclusion? Maffew, the guy who makes them has 10,000 subscribers, and his channel has been viewed half a million times, which I would consider to be pretty high by YouTube standards. Plus his account has been shutdown, which could be discussed in the article and his numerous run-ins with ROH and DirectVideo.

In terms of content, a breakdown of the botches included with links where necessary to other pages on Wikipedia. Consider it, and let me know Blindwombatuk (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the last person to last delete it...it's been deleted 4 times (I was actually the 3rd), and every time it was the same thing: it failed our standards miserably. Please go read the following guidelines and policies: WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. It met none of these. There was no indication of encyclopedic notability and there were no independent reputable 3rd party sources providing significant coverage of the subject. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Galen T. Porter

On 18 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Galen T. Porter, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)