User talk:Witchinghour

Archives

FYI

Regarding your recent post on L2K's talk page - I have made a comment there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so we wait. I was thinking of taking it up as a dispute, but decided to try and communicate with L2K directly. Anyway it's great having an admin around to monitor this. Thank you. --Witchinghour 20:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not always notice everything! Even on those article on my watchlist (currently around 2,000 articles) so if you ever require adminsitrative attention or assistance, or just have a question to ask, feel free to contact me on my talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks, I actually do need your help. All of the images on Hit 'Em Up were unsourced and untagged. The image claiming to be the cover of the single is actually the cover of another single "How Do U Want It" as it reads. All of them are now orphaned and non of them have a fair use tag. They violate Wikipedia:Image use policy. I'm not sure what the proper steps are that need to be taken in that regard. Thank you!! --Witchinghour 17:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats a perrenial problem. See: Wikipedia:Untagged images#How can I help?. As a completely unrelated comment, you do realize that if someone uses the + tab to add a new message on your talk page, it will be placed below your HTML comments, right? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, thanks for pointing it out for me. :) --Witchinghour 19:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cadence Design Systems

See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Cadence Design Systems. Anthony Appleyard 11:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, even a superficial check reveals Cadence Design Systems was mentioned 169 times in the New York Times alone. (Go to the NYT page, then search for "Cadence Design", with quotes). This to me indicates that it is notable. Of course, the page can still be spam, and should no doubt be improved, but please do at least this type of check before deletion. LouScheffer 14:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the article itself has to assert the notability, and frankly 169 times isn't that much at all, it might have been mentioned in passing. did you try to search for Microsoft on NY Times? --Witchinghour 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A company does not need to be as big as Microsoft to be notable. From the guidelines: Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.. Did you read any of the NYT articles? They are indeed substantial 3rd party content, not mentions in passing, as the guidelines suggest. LouScheffer 15:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the article still doesn't show why it's notable and it doesn't even bother to use any of those 169 NY Times links as references!! --Witchinghour 16:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ECAD, Inc.

You deleted ECAD, Inc. (apparently, I'm not an expert). This was a company that was critically involved in the development of the EDA industry. Since it was small, and long ago, it is entirely possible that it should be mentioned in some 'history of EDA' section, rather than be an article itself, or that the article should be improved to indicate the right significance. But since it's deleted, there is no way to see the content to copy whatever is useful into the right place. It's clearly useful to delete insufficiently useful articles, but it would be better (in my opinion) to tag them, to allow interested people a week or so to put the content in the right place, improve the page, or do what is needed. LouScheffer 14:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I didn't delete it, an admin did, i'm not an admin. But still, the article violated a couple of the wikipedia policies, thank you. --Witchinghour 15:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you consider using the prod template (proposed for deletion - delete after 5 days if no controversy)? If the page indeed violates wikipedia policy, it will the be deleted, but please give someone time to object and/or re-write. A serious problem with speedy deletion is that if often gives no time to salvage the useful information from a page (and many of the pages you have tagged have at least some useful content). 5 days should be plenty fast for these articles.

These articles weren't made 5 days ago. There was plenty of time before. But I will consider the prod template thanks :) --Witchinghour 16:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]