User talk:Mikaey/Archives/2009/March

Jim W. Corder

The article should not be deleted because I have added biographical information and documented sources about this scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corderite75 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Leuser Ecosystem

Hi Matt,

In regards to your proposed deletion of the new Leuser Ecosystem article in favour of the existing Gunung Leuser National Park article:

The article should not be deleted because the Gunung Leuser National Park is not yet a legally formalised national park. For a national park to be formalised requires 2 decrees by the minister of forestry and in the case of Gunung Leuser only one has been issued.

The Leuser Ecosystem on the other hand, which is 3 times larger than and encompasses the proposed national park, was designated in a presidential decree and subsequently has been recognised in an act of Parliament. This gives it a legal base substantially higher than any national park in Indonesia.

Further, the Leuser Ecosystem is a natural ecological unit whereas the proposed national park is an artificial construct.

If anything the Leuser Ecosystem article should replace the article on Gunung Leuser as the park is not yet legally recognised.

Thankyou.

(Leuser500 (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

The Pentagon size

Hi Matt. Thanks for the message, although I'm not sure why you reverted my change. Did you look at it carefully? Though it top of the diff makes it look like vandalism, if you scroll down you can see that it does not delete any text, only integrates the two paragraphs about the size of the Pentagon vs the new Palazzo in Vegas. Just trying to make the article better, feel free to reword the change if you want. --Joshuadfranklin (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Matttttttttt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobemister (talk • contribs) 07:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Diabetes Mellitus

Sorry It wont happen again I have seen what was wrong with my copyright and admit that the lisencing was incorrect. sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Incarnate6 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Matt, I just wanted to say thank you very much for giving me the barnstar. It was a very nice gesture. Cheers :-)) Marek.69 ^talk 20:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. :-) Matt (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

External link

I did not add new external link, it was the same link but moved, see links [1] and [2] - which are moved links. Doorvery far (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Crown Point, Indiana

hey unless you live in crown point, i really don't see how you can tell who is or is not a notable person —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick kvachkoff (talk • contribs) 04:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nissan 350Z

why would you delete that usefull info i put on the 350z? this is all true. are you made because the 350z is faster than your car? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.1.64 (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Caine Mutiny

Hi Matt, I did intend to make a constructive edit, and still think I did--I thought the previous version of what was revealed about Lt. Keefer's character was original research-like as well as possibly untrue, therefore we shouldn't say one way or another about it.(who knows, it's a novel). Unless there is some major critic's opinion or Wouk's hmself, published somewhere, in support of the pprevious version, then I prefer my version. Best wishes, Richard L. Peterson75.45.122.222 (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Rich (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I myself don't know much about wine, and didn't know yellow wine existed, but that's what they had in the novel. Best wishes75.45.122.222 (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: SEC Subpoena

Hey, Matt, you're not a machine, you are allowed to respond to me like a human. Instead of repeating what you've already told me, you can say "thanks" since I pointed out the broken link that was re-added to the SEC subpoena section. I simply re-edited the section to take out the broken link you (or whomever) added. If I went over the three-revert rule in order to fix what was broken - I apologize. But stop adding the broken link if that's you. It's no longer funny. Thanks. Tycoon24 (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Matt, there is absolutely nothing in the article link that you added to the SEC subpoena section that mentions Jim Cramer. My removal of that link is justified for that reason. Your source is not only irrelevant, but it doesn't belong in Jim Cramer's biography. This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, I will report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. Thanks. Tycoon24 (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Then add your sentence to the SEC or Christopher Cox article. The problem is that it doesn't belong in the Jim Cramer biography article. It has nothing to do with him. Unless your article somehow references that the very reason the SEC changed the rule was because of Jim Cramer, then by adding it to Jim Cramer's biography you are creating a libelous perception that he is the cause of the rule change. Your article doesn't state that as a reason, so it belongs elsewhere. Not in Jim Cramer's biography. Tycoon24 (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Matt, I didn't create any perception that the SEC changed their position at least in part because of Cramer's actions. Like you said, we can only use sources that are associated with the person. This is especially true (and more strict) when editing a live person's biography. You should know this. The only available source that uses Jim Cramer's name in association with the SEC Subpoena is the one that is currently on Jim Cramer's page. If I (or you) were to add more information regarding the SEC subpoena onto Jim Cramer's biography article, it is creating a perception that Jim Cramer is somehow in a conspiracy with the SEC's actions to drop the charges. Jim Cramer's biography is not a place for conspiracy theorists. Unless there is evidence from reputable sources that Jim Cramer is a part of the SEC's actions, it doesn't belong there. If you want to add the SEC information to Wikipedia, add it to the Christopher Cox article or the SEC page. Tycoon24 (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cock Inn

I'd love to prvide a source. go to http://cock-inn.com/aboutus.html and you will be able to see that the pub name I inserted is correct! ThanksPaulStimson (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PaulStimson"

Your RfA

I just closed your RfA as unsuccessful. Consensus was not reached. I imagine if you address the concerns of the opposition (specifically that you stick around and gain more experience) you will fair better next time.

You are a valued member of this community, and I hope you continue to work hard on the Wikipedia project. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me on my talk page or via email. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Hard luck Matt, sure to do better next time. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it was unsuccessful. You should request adminship again some other time when you have more experience like Kingturtle said. Good luck :) Neu_tralle 15:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to chime in that I wish you luck in your future endeavors. Especially when I saw your comment here regarding the many "Oppose per Useight"'s. I do think that you'll make a fine admin if you get some more experience in the Wikipedia namespace. My recommendation would be to spend the next three months without using Huggle and instead work on that. Since I am known as a pretty respectable reviewer, if you would like, I can give you a thorough review before (if) you RFA again. Useight (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This vandal

It's Grawp, a serial page-move vandal. I wouldn't bother with the sockpuppety report, as it's obvious it's him. Best wishes. Acalamari 02:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you warn vandals?

You recently reverted several edits by The Fringe 32E, but you left no warnings. If you had left warnings, chances are they would have been blocked before making the extreme vandalism you can see here. Just letting you know. No, it's not your fault, but you just might consider warning vandals in the future. That's all. Belasted (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

WholeSecurity

Hello, Norton AntiBot is technology from Sana Security, not WholeSecurity. WholeSecurity technologies were the basis for Symantec's SONAR. The redirect from WholeSecurity to Norton AntiBot is inaccurate. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.175.163 (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This article in the 3rd paragraph talks about how AntiBot and SONAR (developed by WholeSecurity) are complementary therefore implying they are not related. The WholeSecurity article is still relevant as it was a full company that employed about 100 people. It was real and the article describes what they did. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9727254-7.html "Norton AntiBot is designed to complement Symantec's existing SONAR technology, a behavior-monitoring and blocking feature acquired from a company called Whole Security last year and currently available on Norton Antivirus, Norton Internet Security, and Norton 360." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.175.163 (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I am not understanding why the burden of proof is on proving WholeSecurity technology is NOT in AntiBot. It simply isn't true. AntiBot is from Sana; SONAR is from WholeSecurity. I worked at WholeSecurity for several years and know this to be a fact. The article i presented says "complement" which implies they are different technologies. This 100% correct. Not 99%, not 99.9%, but 100%. Any sources that can be found to the contrary are false. There is no dispute to that. I can't find anything out there that says "Norton AntiBot" uses WholeSecurity technology (which is not surprising since it doesn't). The only thing you might be able to find is a source that says that "AntiBot functionality is in the Norton Line", but that has nothing to do with WholeSecurity technology being in AntiBot. I assure you that the WholeSecurity standalone article and Norton AntiBot articles are 100% correct from the WholeSecurity standpoint in my edits. Plain and simple. I appreciate your communication; it makes this process much more mature! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.175.163 (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I looked and i dont think it is possible to find anything that explicitly states that they did NOT integrate WholeSecurity technology into AntiBot. This decision to merge those articles was made on March 1. Just a few days ago. If you read what the person wrote they were speculating and asked for comments. I have now commented back to them a couple hours ago. I have no idea where they could find any information to support their postulate and they haven't produced any. The article that i produced says that "Norton AntiBot is designed to complement Symantec's existing SONAR technology, a behavior-monitoring and blocking feature acquired from a company called Whole Security". I don't want to be circular, but why would a separate standalone product be designed to complement something (in this case SONAR) if SONAR was in AntiBot? It isn't. AntiBot and SONAR do not co-exist in any of the Norton products together, hence why AntiBot was its own separate product that was designed to sell into systems that are running a non-Norton security suite to get a footprint on the box. It was a separate license altogether. SONAR has only existed inside of the Norton line and has never been available to license standalone outside of Norton AV, Internet Security and 360. Nowhere does it say (because it isn't so) that SONAR is in AntiBot. You will find even on the AntiBot wikipedia page that states "Similar to Symantec SONAR technology, Norton AntiBot monitors processes for malicious behavior." and if they are similar, the only reasonable deduction that can be made is that they are mutually exclusive. Not being pompous, but this is a fact. Thanks!--66.25.175.163 (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

slow down

The problem with Huggle is it helps people to act really really fast, instead of really really smart. If you weren't so busy editing at the speed of light, maybe you wouldn't have posted an invitation to "read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article" to an administrator who has been here over four years and created well over 1000 articles. Heck, you might even have Googled the topic before tagging the article. Hesperian 02:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I do hope you have taken Hesperians advice very carefully and have put it into practice - as for the Jakarta APV suzuki stub - it is an advertisement - not an article imho - it could have been speedied Rather than Notability queried - however it needs some very convincing WP RS to get it out facing the chop SatuSuro 03:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool - it will go whatever - the big problem is I have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexNewArtBot/IndonesiaSearchResult festering on my user page which I have been checking every day - and some of the recent crap is amazing. But your hesitation from speedy to ask for notability reality check will lead to the same imho - keep up the good work! SatuSuro 03:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Leuser Discussion

Hi Matt, I apologise for my indiscretion. I am new to Wikipedia. I am currently working on making my article more encyclopedic but it is taking me some time to learn all of the functions. I am happy to further discuss any issues you have about my assertions regarding the Leuser Ecosystem and appreciate any feedback. I will get back to improving the article.

(Leuser500 (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

fictional places

If you want a merge, do it according to WP:MERGE. dont propose a deletion when what you want is a merge. DGG (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

You can't infringe a copyright that has expired. Sorry, but that is the law as written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not just add to it or edit it?

Hi. I’m just wondering why it was deleted instead of edited or added on. Why does it have to disappear?! Why do the other home developers get to stay but not the ones I added?! Punkymonkey987 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Lois Ayres

You may want to keep the article on your watch list, as an anon reverted your edits. THF (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)