User talk:TParis

RFA thanks

Thank you for your support and comment at my recent successful RFA. I do not feel adminship is authority, but is rather a responsibility and trust accompanied by a few extra buttons. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Bullying hurts and has a great effect on us all

i dont understand why many ppl go on an article but well have you read the letter i have wrote to defend my article.if you dont have i can repost and im french sry if i dont be protoclar in my talking my englich not enough good for that.

And you can be sure i gonna read your article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TParis00ap/Protecting_Children — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamofpeaceinschool (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a forum for your essay on bullying. We have a fairly substantial article on Bullying that you are welcome to contribute to. However, we do not allow original research or opinion. Wikipedia is not a webhost for you, soapbox for advocacy, or a place to advertise your cause. My article essay on protecting children is in the context of Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 19:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

k so if i can prove or sustain the death of Marjorie Raymond have provoke a massive change in the perception of bullying in Quebec and thats the case. did that become signifiant to be added in an existing bullying article if i bring strong proof of massive mediatisation that the intimidation on school of Quebec wont be tolerated no more and the fact people now cannot deny her children suffer in school. Plz tell me did direction school official response to the movement in process is a signinificant piece.if yes i gonna try to found and submit to you. december 2011 the 5 Dreamofpeaceinschool tks in advance

I suggest you bring it to Talk:Bullying and discuss the matter there. Be sure you do not post your essay there and make sure you address changes to the article or your essays will be removed.--v/r - TP 20:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

K so tks for your time i gonna sleep alittle and do. and i gonna present the adds like an adds not like an article have a anice days let me 2 second to copy this before delete tks Dreamofpeaceinschool 5 december2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamofpeaceinschool (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

page deleted?

You just deleted the 3dchat article I tried to start, stating it was (A7: Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) but it's not any of the above, it's a downloadable virtual world just like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_life or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imvu with over 150,000 current members. I don't understand this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've fixed the WP:CSD rationale. It may not be a website, blog, or web content but it is promotional. Please read WP:COI and WP:SPAM.--v/r - TP 20:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read both of those link you provided and modeled my article format of the first paragraph of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_life I do not see how this is promotional at all. It's descriptive of the 3dchat software system and virtual world without links or advertising of any sort, just facts. As a member of both Second Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_life IMVU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMVU and 3Dchat I do not see why 3Dchat should not be listed here just like them and allowd by other users to expand on. I'm a Moderator for a few different virtual worlds and I get people asking me all the time where they can read about 3Dchat with an unbiased article and wikipedia should be the place for this. I also have plans to update this article with 3Dchats history, system requirements and other useful info. I have emails into there corporate office to verify the data before I was going to add it. What can I do now? Please look at the other virtual worlds pages and let me know how my article is any different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have third party independent sources that demonstrate the notability of 3dchat? Wikipedia does not cover articles that are not already covered in third party reliable sources.--v/r - TP 20:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read a few articles online about them: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110317005213/en/3DChat-Takes-Place-Leader-Online-MMO%E2%80%99s and http://venturebeat.com/2010/07/07/3dchat-launches-a-place-to-date-dance-and-visit-virtual-strip-clubs/ (this is how i actually found them) and i'm sure there are more. I also took some information from their website for what i wrote in my article. But i have been a member of there virtual world since March of 2010 and have gotten to know hundred of other members as well. Not sure if this helps but it seems 3dchat also has the trademark for "Virtual World" http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:9v54fj.2.37 (found this while googling them). If you looking for any other more specific information, I'm sure I can find it, they have been around for a few years. there are also numerous MMO game reviews on 3Dchat: http://www.pcgamereviewsandnews.com/2011/06/3d-chat-open-beta-to-begin-next-month.html http://www.reviewsonq.com/2011/03/3dchat-mmo-virtual-life-really-means-sim-secks/ and http://www.mmoreviews.com/3dchat-beta-testers-now-can-receive-6-months-of-premium-membership/ and http://virtualworld.com/virtual-world-review/29/3d-chat.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I've userfied the article to User:Workmuch/3dchat. Incorporate those sources into the articles, using inline citations and the {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} templates. Read the guide to layout and then come back here and we'll see what else is left to get it ready to move back to article space.--v/r - TP 20:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

OK great, I really appreciate your help and will get back with you tomorrow after i re-read the info on layout. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 20:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Also read WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:GNG while you are at it. You might also read WP:PILLARS to help you understand Wikipedia better.--v/r - TP 20:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 21:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this a good enough start? Any help (advice) you could provide would be helpfull. Thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Workmuch/3dchat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 15:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a start, but not at all up to snuff yet. You need more third party sources, like the ones you linked above. Read those articles you linked me to, find material that is relevant to an encyclopedia, include it, and cite the source. Make sure not to do a copy/paste, you need to rewrite it in your own words.--v/r - TP 15:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok cool, I'm on it.. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 16:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I think I have gotten the page to a good start, still waiting on some more information from there corporate office and looking for more articles. Is this good enough to get pushed live and then others and myself can add more when the research is back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's really not. The article is heavily promotional still. Look, in [1] article you're given some really cool information that I dont know why you havent used. For example, 3dchat uses identity verification service to ensure user's gender and age. It also provides a 3D dating service. There is a whole paragraph on the company that developed it. This is the kind of content Wikipedia covers. The "vitual world" itself is of little importance. Details about the software are what is important. Do you get what I mean?--v/r - TP 19:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok i have made some more edits with your instructions and confirmed that the 3D Dating is not a live product yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You're still so far off. You need to delete 80% of what you have. Take another look at Second Life. Notice the tone of the article. The article you've written is very much written like an advertisement. You initially wrote things like "You can sign up for free and you get 3d chat dollars." This is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide or a fansite. Write about the facts that you see in third party independent sources. Don't write about how fun the game is, how you play, what you can do, or what not. Write the article from a detached perspective. Imagine you've never played the game, have no interest in playing it, and you just want to write a fact sheet about details of it's development, income, marketing strategy, ect ect.--v/r - TP 20:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying, this is my first go at it so I appreciate your patients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 21:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And there are not anywhere near as many reference articles for 3dchat as it's relatively new in comparison to Second Life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 21:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And " 3dchat as it's relatively new" may be the answer to your question about why SecondLife has a Wikipedia article and 3dchat doesn't. Keep trying but keep in mind that there is a chance that you may not be able to meet the inclusion criteria yet. You may need to wait a year or two and see if 3dchat gets more attention from independent media.--v/r - TP 21:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea there office said more information should be rolling out soon as there doing a big marketing push this week. You would think after 3 years and with over 150k members there would be more information on the web. I will continue my quest for info tomorrow, have a good night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Made some changes today, not much more added but I re-wrote what was already there to make it sound better and have the same "tone" as other articles I researched on here. I should be getting more info/web articles in the next week to add more content to this article. Can you check it out really quick and let me know if I'm back on the right track? Again thanks for your help, my goal is the same as yours.. To get the best possible information written in the correct way/format for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 22:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crips and Bloods: Made in America

Yes, the article is a mess. But issues are addressable even if so far unaddressed.. and no matter the article's lack, multiple sources are available showing the topic notable per WP:NF and WP:GNG. I'll report back and request a withdrawal once I address some. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and withdrawn already. Plenty of sources have been provided. I dont need to wait for it to improve to admit I'm wrong.--v/r - TP 23:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Znets

Oops, I deleted the spam article, posted the spamusername message, but omitted one vital stage. Definitely blocked now. Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

DRV

[2], I'd point out the the DRV had new evidence that the two topics were separate. I'd ask at least for a relist for wider input. Otherwise we are stuck with low attendance at DRV resulting in things not being changed even in the face of new evidence. Hobit (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The AFD was open 2 days longer than it was supposed to be and the DRV was open an extra 4 days. There was opportunity for plenty of discussion and indeed there have been participants in other discussions. As far as I can tell, there just isnt any support to overturn and I can't make that decision on 2 editors (3 with nom but he's a SPA) disagreeing. When it comes down to you, Chick Bowen, and Stuartyeates there is no consensus to overturn. What I'd suggest is that Airuko (or you) create an article in userspace with the new sources and then bring it to WP:DRV again. You would probably get a better result. Hell, if you used the new sources and then put it back in article space, that'd be enough to avoid a G4 anyhow.--v/r - TP 23:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Humm, all three felt the article should be restored in some sense. And I don't understand how you can give more weight to the AfD when it lacked the sources in the DRV. So local consensus is clear (3 for 3 to restore in some sense) and the old consensus is now clearly flawed. If you treat the nom as an SPA I guess I can see it though. I just don't like seeing an unopposed undeletion request being turned down. Hobit (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if you'd get a new DRV before restoring this to article space, but I'm not going to get on your case if you feel it'd survive a G4. User:Hobit/Body_Sensor_Networks.--v/r - TP 01:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 28#2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy

Would you revise the wording of your close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 28#2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy from "Deletion overturned" to "Deletion closure vacated"? At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 3#Amanda Knox, Courcelles (talk · contribs) wrote: "Accordingly, I see a consensus here to vacate the 2010 AFD. As I said at the beginning, the discussion here was limited about the actual merits of that close at the time it was made, and I do not find anything here that supports a straight close of this DRV as overturn."

At the DRV, you wrote: "I find that the 'keep deleted' !voters did not address the Atlantic story from after the AFD at all". Because the Atlantic story was mentioned after the AfD, the AfD close wasn't incorrect at the time. I feel that "Deletion closure vacated" is more accurate because it doesn't imply the AfD close was wrong. Cunard (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right but I am on my mobile right now. Will do later.--v/r - TP 00:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for revising your close. Best, Cunard (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Body Sensor Networks

I am writing to you regarding your closure of the the Body Sensor Networks topic on the DRV discussion.

As I was in the process of gathering references and editing the page, the Body Sensor Network page was deleted and redirected to Body Area Network. Since I was tied up with other matters, most of the new information was not yet provided in the AFD discussion before it was closed. As posted in the DRV discussion, we have shown much information to highlight and support the argument of keeping the BSN page, and the editors who joined the DRV discussion seem to agree. Although it did not seems to be any consensus, the editors participated in the discussion either suggested relist or reverse redirect. Since Body Sensor Network (BSN) is a specialised topic, this could be the reason why there are less participant in the discussion.

Since I have provided new information, I would like to ask for the topic to be relisted at an appropriate forum for further discussion rather than just close the discussion. Could you please advise what would be an appropriate action I should do further to keep this page? (Airuko (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC))

See User_talk:TParis#DRV--v/r - TP 15:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of repeated names

I notice you closed this as delete. Would you be prejudiced against my creating this again as disambig to some of the lists Kim mentiones, like List of tautonyms, List of people with reduplicated names, etc? I think this would be useful as I for one had never come across the term "tautonym" before. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 07:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I was going to say that in my closure and I guess it slipped my mind.--v/r - TP 14:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

in re Wikipedia:AN#Abusive_mass_nominations_for_deletion_and_wikistalking_of_opponents_to_deletion

Thanks for closing this - but note that the complaint was brought by Luciferwildcat, not Purplebackpack. I think Lucifer should be the one dropping the stick, yes? Or did I misinterpret your close? Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha my bad. Way to shoot the victim, right?--v/r - TP 15:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's what got me thinking - Who knows anymore when you're talking about AN/ANI? That's most of why I doublechecked. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I wish it had been open long enough to allow Carrite time to respond.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there

I don't have a place to register the stalking behavior engaged in by Purplebackpack89 yesterday due to your having shut down the ANI report on him just 8 hours after the open. Wikipedia is a global entity and it seems unreasonable for someone to sit glued to the monitor around the clock. You're welcome to check out the history of my talk page for his behavior, if you are interested. I'll leave aside his seeking out a page I was working on with a CONSTRUCTION banner clearly indicated and dropping a ONE SOURCE banner on top of it since it is technically correct in that case. But it is indeed indicative of stalking behavior. Just so you know. Best regards. —Tim. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If someone wants to make an accusation of wikistalking on an editor, they should either provide the diffs or wait until the person with the diffs is available to corroborate their story. No action was going to be taken in the thread, and if it had continued then Luciferwildcat would've continued to receive a community lashing for unsupported accusations and it wouldn't have been good for their own morale and we could've potentially lost them as an editor. There wasn't a reason to keep it open. Now, if you'd like to start a new thread involving Wikistalking and you have the diffs to back it up then be my guest.--v/r - TP 19:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, GO DUCKS!--v/r - TP 19:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And any discussion of WikiStalking shouldn't take place on TParis' page. It should take place on ANI, my page, or Carrite's page (although Carrite apparantly is deadset on removing content he doesn't want on his page) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should just avoid Carrite's page then? Then we wouldn't have any problem of wikistalking: real or alledged.--v/r - TP 20:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If he doesn't want to talk about it, shouldn't he refrain from posting about it on your page and other people's pages, then? (For the record, there have been previous ANI threads about Carrite trying to shift discussions away from his talk page when in all rights that's where they belonged) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to. If he doesn't want to interact with you and removes your posts on his talk page, he can do that. If he wants to make an ANI thread because he feels you've been stalking him, he can do that. You know the best way forward from here? Move on.--v/r - TP 20:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You didn't exactly answer my question. My question was, "Why is a discussion between two editors (me and him) happening on a third editor's talk page? Shouldn't it be happening instead on editor 1 or 2's talk page, or in a community forum?" I'm more than willing to drop the matter, but he is bringing it up on 3rd and 4th editor's pages Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I did give you an answer. The answer was that it doesn't matter, just move on. When you linger on these trivial matters, that's what creates drama. Consider me a no-drama zone. I don't pick sides, I cut to the heart of the matter.--v/r - TP 20:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to criticize Carrite, you should focus on the likely fact that he is a Beavers fan and they got beat by the Ducks a week or so ago.--v/r - TP 20:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Very sensible advice there, you wouldn't have lost me as an editor but I was frustrated by the peanut gallery. I think the best course however would have been to allow it up for at least 24 hours, it doesn't hurt anything to discuss an issue like that.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

One problem there, TP...my family's always been Beavers fans. My dad was born early because my grandma jumped up and down too much at the 1946 Civil War game Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not a problem, that's just another poor soul for me to torment. In all fairness, half of my family live on Corvallis and half live in Eugene. I actually live in Texas but I grew up in Eugene.--v/r - TP 00:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Page history merge request

Hello TParis, if you have time, could you please merge Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Software Reliability Testing into Software Reliability Testing. The article submitter worked on one submission, and then copy/pasted their work to another title. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 20:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Stan Pitt

I appreciate your comments in the here|ANI debate, I am willing and prepared to address all issues of potential copyright violations within my edits. Unfortunately I operate in a different time zone to Cúchullain and therefore am not in a position to immediately respond to his requests. I didn't realise that he had only given me 14 minutes to respond. I am not a full-time wiki-editor and therefore can not respond immediately to every request. I can only edit when it doesn't interfer with my normal life. I do feel a little out of my depth with this debate. All I can reiterate is that it was never my intention to plagarise other articles and that I am more than prepared, given a little time, to address any concerns raised. I am posting this here as I am not certain whether I have a right to reply on the ongoing ANI debate. Dan arndt (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI

See Blackpizza (talk · contribs) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Kenny Tick Salcido

Hello TParis, I would really love to have you're experience and guidance for my latest article on an individual by the name of Kenny Tick Salcido of the Latch Brothers . I really feel he is relevant to what the subject of the Latch Brothers are and on further discovery, I found more relevance and ties to other artists as in Beastie Boys, Wiz Khalifa, Grand Royal Records, etc. I understand this is my second article, my first being approved and now this article up for debate. I am sure a tremendous amount of time and energy that must go in to maintain quality control and I am all about hardwork and dedication to be a better author and contributor. I really need help with my format in cleaning the article, could you help?

I started the article off wrong but upon my fixes ie, mentioning Latch Brothers first and his association I feel it truly flows.

I do feel this person's web of music artists and their relevancy as well as most of them being Wiki inductees, made me feel very passionate in contributing a solid article on an individual who will continue to have a story grow, and others will contribute. I have family in military so I was psyched when I saw the profile.

Thank you for you're time and excuse my inexperience as a wiki contributor, I will be better at this. Sincerely, Kurt Nardone Kurtnardone (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)