Thank You.

Thank You for being kind with me, I thought I was ready but I know I need more practice now x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimeelo (talk • contribs) 23:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome. Good luck and happy editing. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 23:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Howard Grammy Nominations and Awards????

hi could you please expain this to me....you are the only person i got a real response from.THANYOU!!!! i would like to know the grounds for conflict of interest. i am not Mark Howard. but i happen find it somewhat absurd that he has worked on some of the most acclaimed albums of the last 20 years and he doesnt have a wikipedia page. which is why i am so passionate about this. i have come up against lots of detours but continue to persevere as im really excited about wikipedia. could you please tell me why all the grammy awards and nominations were removed? they are all correct. what evidence do i need to show you? could you please return them? he is an engineer on most and gets a grammy ward of participation. please explain this to me. thankyou very much.--Charliedylan (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC) ps.. ok i now understand about editing my own page but i am just trying to get it all together and its taking awhile. and i didnt realse i couldnt add Marks name on other peoples wiki pages because its a conflict of interest! is that even when his name should be ther? i now understand and wont do that again. but please put the awards back up!!!!--Charliedylan (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC) [edit]Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliedylan (talk • contribs) 06:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have posted the same question to OrangeMike, the admin who marked these things. He should reply shortly. Regards. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 06:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KYPS article

Sorry if I do not use this talk system the way intended by its creators (I am confused by it). Let me provide some answers.

> This article is tagged for notability (see WP:WEB), not for a problem with its references.

I read WP:WEB but I am still confused why notability is a problem - since your reply implies that the problems with the references you identified are not related to the establishment of notability. Can you please indicate what you would like to see for notability satisfaction?

> But since you mention references, please view WP:RS. None of these references are exactly reliable. One is a blog.

makeuseof.com is not a personal blog though - an edited one. (it has been used to establish notability of other wikipedia articles, too).

> The IEEE reference has no mention of this product in the abstract (and you need to be a member to read further).

That is a result of copyright restrictions (hint: googling the article will help finding the fulltext without requiring membership). I do understand, however, the lack of obvious connection.

> The heise link is a donation download site where anyone can list,

That's not true. The "donation download site" *is* the article subject website. Having that link on heise is a result of editorial action on the part of heise.

> World Symposium doesn't mention this product at all.

OK point taken that the connection should be established more clearly.

> Plus, it kind of seems like an advertisement pretending to be an encyclopedia entry.

I understand this to be a comment on 'writing style'. Correct?

Many thanks for your response.

Besensilver (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)besensilver[reply]

Besensilver - the summary of WP:WEB is: (my comments in bold)

Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers,(<-- Your article does do this) but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, (<-- Yours article does not do this) ...

I only focused your sources because you mentioned how strong your references were.

May I ask, are you affiliated with this site?

Regards. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 22:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also - my comment on "advertising" is not a comment about your writing style (sentence structure, punctuation, etc...) but is about my gutt feeling that even if this website was notable the way you have written the article is more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry and may not be from a neutral point of view - for example your article doesn't mention anything about the other websites that offer similar services. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 22:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable?

"(Female homosexual behaviour was never criminal anywhere in the United Kingdom nor did concern for Queen Victoria's sensibilities ever prevent legislation against lesbianism being drafted.)" The second half of this sentence was deleted as being 'unsourced'. I replaced it as the first half of the sentence is also unsourced. So do both go or both stay? Nobody has disputed either part so I think they should both stay. Does that seem reasonable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.69.125 (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The first sentence (in the article currently) as it is written summarizes the outcome of the case. While this sentence is not directly cited, it's facts are supported by the external links provided. Actually, this whole article needs work on it's citations and I have tagged it as such. The sentence you added does not summarize the outcome of the case but hypothesizes or proposes a possible reason why no similar legislation was ever drafted for women. Nowhere else in this article is the Queen or monarchy mentioned, nor does it appear that people are referring to lack of concern for someone's opinion as a reason something did or didn't happen. If there are references to support what you have added, then please cite them and add it back in. Thanks. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 23:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i need a third party

can you please help me. i am dealing with orange mike who has deleted something off my page and refuses to acknowledge that he doesnt have the correct informayion regarding grammy award nominations and who qualifies to get one. who do i go to to rectify this situation. who are you people that i am talking to anyway. is it just anyone that is editing my page? who can take control of this situation? please give me some guidance--Charliedylan (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charliedylan - OrangeMike has suggested that you post the article to the noticeboard for review (and I'd like to mention that you can take it to WP:RFC if you want further review). However I have to be honest with you that I agree with what OrangeMike has said, so I have posted a comment for you here asking others for their toughts. For your other questions on who we are - I strongly suggest you read at least two of the links I left at the top of your talk page a few days ago - namely Wikipedia Tutorial and The five pillars of Wikipedia. Anyone can edit (almost) any article. I'm just an editor interested in keeping the place tidy, and OrangeMike is an admin with a whole lot of experience. Regards. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 01:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks i really appreciate your advice. i obviously need to do some more research on what is going on here. it is very overwhelming. i will be very interested to see what comes of your notice. thankyou for taking the time for me.--Charliedylan (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what is a rfc???

what is going on. i feel like your going to delete me again..i saw the comment on the music board. god i feel like im in trouble im just trying to have a good page.. what is a rfc.. please tell me thanks ??? --Charliedylan (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay calm. As I mentioned in the links above WP:RFC another way for people to ask for a closer look at anything on Wikipedia by other users. From RFC: Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines.. An RFC has not been opened, and if one is opened it's not a problem. It can be opened by you or by anyone or may not be opened at all. I just wanted the readers at the noticeboard to understand that this is not currently an RFC. Again, I strongly suggest you read the articles at the top of your talk page for answers to this and so many other questions. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 01:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am breathing out=

ok thanks for bringing that to my attention and i agree. i have just been very frustruated and am trying hard to make my page better. i read the good faith and being civil. perhaps an apology is due. ok it all just seems a little crazy to me. anyway thankyou for all your help. i do appreciate it. --Charliedylan (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this vandalsim?

My page ScribbleStick/Lies and exaggerations has been put on speedy delete by you because it is vandalism. I thought you userpages were you own thing and that you could do whatever you liked with them - I've seen people put random stuff on their userpages, so what are the rules?

--ScribbleStick (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you create a new article then it ceases to be your userpage. You should have created it as "User:ScribbleStick/Lies and exaggerations." --T'Shael MindMeld 06:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page is here User:ScribbleStick/Lies_and_exaggerations. The page you created above, and that I marked for deletion is in the main article namespace with all the other Wikipedia articles and it doesn't belong there. Regards. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 06:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

continuing the discussion

hi just wondering if you could check out the wikipedia page on grammy awards and see how it is detailed. i strongly feel that the awards i had should not have been taken down.. how do i go about putting them back up. ive had no other advice that has told me any information. who has the power to put them back up? if it says THE WHOLE PRODUCTION TEAM- which is only the producer and engineer- its not the coffee guy- i dont see how ive violated anything.AND THIS IS ON WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!!!!!!!.what do you think?????--Charliedylan (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First can I ask you to describe your relation to him? 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 02:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i have no relation to him. but i am an avid listener of some of the records he has produced and the whole era including daniel lanois/ brian eno/ the experimental/ambient movement/ the new use of sound of which Mark Howard was an integral part... and i feel like my research was justified and thorough...maybe i should just let it go.. i feel like i need help navigating these early stages because this wikipedia world is very complicated.. i dont know who else to ask.. --Charliedylan (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]