User talk:Darkwind

Welcome to Darkwind's talk page.

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics. Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply). I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to Watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Your user page

You should transfer this to your talk page. Aditya Ex Machina 14:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. --Darkwind (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Man

I have reopened this debate, as it does not appear to me to be obvious enough for an NAC, the keeps being simple WP:ITSNOTABLEs without actually supplying any sources. Especially in cases of an BLP, it cannot hurt to be too careful. Tim Song (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. --Darkwind (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacob Sahayakumar Aruni

This is Dr.WILSON ARUNI - THANKS FOR THE COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE CREATION OF ARTICLE ON "Jacob Sahayakumar Aruni".YOUR COMMENTS WERE DUELY ACKNOWLEDGED AND IN THE EXTERNAL LINK PORTION OF THE ARTICLE -ONLY THE RELEVANT LINKS WERE GIVEN AND THUS MINOR CORRECTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT IN THE ARTICLE REFERRED ABOVE.

HOPE NOW IT IS GOOD AND SET FOR PUBLISHING IN WIKIPEDIA

THANKS

DR.WILSON — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drwilsonaruni (talk • contribs) 19:40, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Unfortunately, you didn't address my main concern. In Google's search results, they show a brief summary of the website address underneath each search result in green text. When the address is too long to fit, Google replaces part of the web address with "..." to save space. By copying the website locations for your references from the green text under each Google search result, vital information about the exact location of the website has been removed.

For example, see this reference (number 1). The website URL is given in the article as "www.mouthshut.com/.../Sree_Krishna_Lunch_Home_-_Madras-135582-1.html", but the actual URL should be "http://www.mouthshut.com/review/Sree_Krishna_Lunch_Home_-_Madras-135582-1.html". Since the one in the article has "..." in the middle instead of "review", it doesn't work as a web location - clicking on it would give you an error.

You will need to go through all of the references and fix all of the ones that have ... in them by replacing them with the full, correct website address. To get the address, click through the Google result, read the page you get to make sure it's an appropriate reference, then copy the URL from the address bar of that page. Please let me know if I can provide any further advice. --Darkwind (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tenderloins

I want to thank you for placing the article in additional WP:DELSORT categories. Had you not done so, it is unlikely that I would have found it or sourced it, as my own interests revolve mainly around actor and film related articles. Nice job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad I was able to help! --Darkwind (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Darkwind, thank you for your very prompt and informative response to my post. I've been reading as much as possible about how to properly create an article for Wikipedia, obviously I still have some learning ahead of me. Thanks for helping me prioritize. I'll attend to the issues raised, and be back for another round shortly. Best regards. Eaproadv (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Listening Rhetoric - Your Review

Darkwind~ I cannot say that I agree with your assessment of my entry on listening rhetoric. Booth's concept was not well known at the time of his death, even though he was a prolific scholar and thinker. Since he died only five years ago, this concept has not had time to become well researched, operationalized, and associated with other scholars. The whole point is that someone needed to write about it in order for it to be more widely known. This entry is excerpted from my Masters thesis (which is well researched), and the existence of primary sources indicates that it is too recent for there to be many secondary sources. There are a couple of reviews of his final book and one article about the deep listening aspect of listening rhetoric. I would be glad to add some information from these sources, however, scholarly research in a university setting requires primary sources, so to me, this qualifies as a scholarly article. I am now in a PhD program and will have a chance to operationalize it while doing engagement research and scholarship. I am perfectly happy to fix the "Ibid" references, and I can revise any parts that you think are not neutral, but I do think that listening rhetoric is important and deserves to be exposed to a wider audience. Please let me know what you want me to do.

Thanks, Mswhitaker56

I do apologize if you felt my description as "essay" was condescending; it was not intended that way - it's simply the closest pre-formatted term we have to describe what I saw.

Based on your description, I was basically correct in my assessment - the article would clearly fall under Wikipedia's definition of original research. Specifically, Wikipedia is not intended for the publication of ideas, research, or thought that are not already accepted and published elsewhere, or for the publication of novel synthesis of existing ideas. Although original research is accepted (and desired) in a thesis or other scholarly papers, it is not desired or accepted in Wikipedia.

Please carefully read the page I linked above, and decide whether you can write an article about listening rhetoric that falls within those parameters, with sufficient secondary sources to back it up. Otherwise, you would need to wait until there are additional published secondary sources that support the material in the article before it can be created. --Darkwind (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you are looking for a platform to publish your material specifically for the purpose of making listening rhetoric more widely known, then I respectfully submit that Wikipedia is not the place you're looking for. Wikipedia is not a platform for spreading new ideas, it is an encyclopedia. --Darkwind (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Darkwind~ I have revised my entry to include reviews of Booth's concept, and I have changed some of the verbiage that might be considered "not neutral." Please re-read the secondary sources I have added to see whether this might improve the entry. Given your description of Wikipedia's interest in information published elsewhere, Booth did publish listening rhetoric elsewhere; it is not original with me. I merely researched it and connected it to his other published works. So, from that perspective, it is encyclopedic. Booth was an important scholar, and his concepts are widely acknowledged in the Academy. I find it sort of astonishing that this is not considered important enough to be published in Wikipedia. I would think that it can be revised as more scholars choose to work with this concept, but given Booth's intention that this concept be widely accessible, I would think that Wikipedia would be an appropriate place for its publication.

Thanks, Mswhitaker

Thanks. I'm not trying to say I think listening rhetoric isn't "worth" being included in Wikipedia, but what I am saying is that there are certain policies that every article must adhere to, including verifiability, which is where we get our requirement for secondary sources. I think it might be best if I let someone else do the next review of your proposed article, so we can get a third opinion. How does that sound? --Darkwind (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That's cool, but I don't understand how this is not "verifiable." All of Booth's works are published and can be readily inspected. The goal of my article is to connect his capstone work to the rest of his copious works. If you know anything about Booth, you know that his concept of the implied author has been a mainstay of literature courses for the past forty years. To be honest, this is our "final" in my Epistemology class, so even if it doesn't get published permanantly, I would appreciate it if you can leave it up until Wednesday evening. It's not that I don't want it published, because I think it's important, but it obviously doesn't meet the criteria for Wikipedia. I would like to have someone else review it just to get another opinion, but I understand if it just won't be accepted.

Thanks, Mswhitaker56

AfC Enterprise Architecture Profession

Hello Darkwind,

I've edited the article and reposted it for review. There are still references to be completed, which I am researching now. I'd appreciate your advice on whether the article is closer to proper NPOV, which is my goal. I've read (and re-read) the items you point out for study, and have done my best to follow the advice given. Let me know if I'm moving in the right direction. Thanks. Eaproadv (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at this later today. --Darkwind (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

User:superldm/Miroamer

Hello Darkwind, :) Cool name! I came from your welcome! Thank you for that. May I ask you a favor please? I've made some correction of my page which is User:Superldm/Miroamer. Could you please help me to check if it is okay to publish the page in Wikipedia? If okay, I will put it in mainspace. If not okay, could you please tell me what should I alter to make it available please? I appreciate any of your recommendation of what things I need to improve.
Superldm (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to take a look at it later today. --Darkwind (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacob Sahayakumar Aruni

Hello Darkwind, i am sorry about the message you had given through this page.but i had deleted the external links to minimum earlier and now i had made still more deletions on it. i had also corrected the url pages as advised by you.

please go ahead and kindly recosider the same. thanks -wilson

At the time I'd moved the page from "hold" to "declined", you had edited the external link section, but you hadn't fixed the references yet. If you've done so, I'd be happy to take another look later today. --Darkwind (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Move: Tree shaping to Arborsculpture

Tree shaping article has undergone a series of mayor changes in the last few days. Here is the page before and now Duff has now proposed to change the article's name from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. If you are interested please come and comment on Talk:Tree shaping. I am contacting everyone who has edited about arborsculpture Blackash have a chat 08:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace

Why did you remove that line that I added to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace? I wanted to let them know that if you get a warning and another one, it goes to the next level. For example, if a user got a level 4 or 4im warning, it would mean that they would also be blocked the next time they do any of the actions listed in the multi-level category at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Keyboard mouse (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of community consensus for that type of "escalation". Each problem edit needs to be handled on its own merits. For example, if a user has vandalized several times and reached a level 4 warning, we're not going to block them just because they later upload an otherwise usable image and forget to specify its copyright status. There are no automatic blocks, and blocks are preventive, not punitive. The whole idea of "automatic escalation" of warning levels across different types of misbehavior is against the spirit of WP:AGF. --Darkwind (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at User talk:3-5 file as an example of what I mean. First, the user vandalized, then created an inappropriate page, then vandalized again and got a final warning. Keyboard mouse (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I think the increased warning was appropriate, because creating vandal pages and vandalizing existing pages are two aspects of the same type of misbehavior. However, I still strongly believe that automatic go-to-the-next-level behavior is against the spirit of WP:AGF. Each problem edit should be handled individually, and increasing the warning level should only happen if it is clearly a continuation of previous behavior, and it seems the editor has disregarded the previous warnings. At any rate, we should stop discussing this here - this would better be handled on the talk page for the templates, so other editors can weigh in and form consensus. --Darkwind (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Actionable Intelligence page

Darkwind, can you please help me understand why our page Actionable Intelligence was deleted? Is it because it is a trademarked term? Was it because it was sited as a Verint trademark? I'm trying to get clarity from a novices perspective on what the violation was so we can correct. Thanks, JBrown Verint 11:50 AM Eastern Time, 05/03/2010

First, please see our Frequently Asked Questions for organizations and businesses. This covers a lot of what you must know as someone editing Wikipedia in connection with an organization.

Second, about the actionable intelligence page itself: It was not deleted specifically because the term is trademarked, insofar as we have lots of articles about trademarked terms, such as ActiveX, Big Mac, and Crystal Pepsi. The primary reason that the article was deleted was because it appeared to be promotional or advertising material for your organization or its products or services. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising or promotion. More generally, "marketing speak" or PR materials are not acceptable as they are not considered encyclopedic, and are typically not neutral in point-of-view. For more specific information, please see this section of the business FAQ as well as the third paragraph of this section.

The bottom line is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and to that end, all articles must be about notable topics, written in a neutral point of view. The article you created about actionable intelligence did not appear to meet either of these criteria.

Also - please sign your additions to talk pages with four tildes at the end, as such: ~~~~. This automatically produces your signature and a timestamp in UTC. --Darkwind (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Darkwind, thanks for the feedback. It's a lot to keep straight. I'm certainly not trying to post this in terms of an Advertisement or PR push. I'll try to re-word so it is more generic and hopefully meets the letter and spirit of the Wikipedia guidelines. When it is ready, can you give it a review to see if it conforms with the necessary guidelines? If not is there an editor you can recommend?Jbrown verint (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What I would suggest is either use the Articles for creation process, or create a Userspace draft of the new article and then request feedback from Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. Both of these processes give you a much better chance of someone reviewing the article sooner than if you were to wait for me to look it over. However, if you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them. --Darkwind (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll do that. I'll also include some references of where the term actionable intelligence is used and how it is used to describe specific action/data. Thanks again. Jbrown verint (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, JBrown Verint, in view of your username, you should read WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. Wikipedia is not a notice-board for companies to promote their products. JohnCD (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Pointers needed for Los Tres Gusanos page please

Hello Darkwind,

Sorry I couldn't get back online within 24 hours of submittinng my Los Tres Gusanos page. I've been away.

The page was declined because of referencing problems.

I tried to give references for just about everyting on the page, but I must admit I'm new at this and perhaps I've missed something.

Is there something specific I need to change or perhaps should leave out entirely?

I hope you can help a newbie out.

Cheers!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Los_Tres_Gusanos

4th May 2010 88.107.69.73 (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Copy-Edit

Hello, excuse me, Could make a copy-edit to the article "Forgive Me"? Please, if it is no trouble for you. If not i'll understand it. Thank you very much. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

New section

{{helpme}} I don't know why my last edit was marked as vandalism??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pistolsoftheheart (talk • contribs) 16:53, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Because this is patent nonsense. Also, please don't put the {{helpme}} template on someone else's talk page, and remember to sign your comments on talk pages by adding ~~~~ at the end of the comment. --Darkwind (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

He's complaining about a similar edit which I reverted too. Tommy2010 16:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

am not, tommy sent me a provocative message and i felt abused so i came to you darkwind Pistolsoftheheart (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)