User talk:Bonadea/Archive 8
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
Thank you for your swift response regarding the Woodside School article.
I am new to Wikipedia although not new to article writing and it has taken, and is still taking, me hours to navigate my way around the confusion of directions - even writing this to you has used up an inordinate amount of time!
On reflection I can understand that you felt that my first efforts could be construed as being a possible 'conflict of interest' or 'promotional' and I spent the next few hours amending and deleting what I considered might be irrelevant or opinionated phraseology. I noted your own amendments which, understandably in the circumstances, seemed to make the piece less readable than before. Further major amendments and minor 'tweaks' were made by me but I see that you still insist that the 'Advertisement' banner should remain attached to the article. I find this disappointing as the only clear adjective which remains is 'imposing' as it relates to St Stephen's Church, but which seems to be doing little harm. The remainder is factual and indisputable. Unless, of course, you consider the 'Location' piece irrelevant in which case you don't know India like I do!
I included that working on the assumption that anyone reading the article may, just may, be interested enough to visit the site in which case directions would be helpful.
But your word is law, so let it be, or alternatively delete the site altogether - no one I know will be particularly offended by that. I would remind you that it was created in the first place by a student with factual and grammatical inaccuracies which seemed to have escaped anyone's notice.
And now I'm done - time and energy levels are exhausted for this project. Thank for your help, guidance and interest.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
I seem to have been granted 'Reviewer' right to the Woodside article by 'Tiptoety' but I have absolutely no idea how contact him/her to say 'thank you' (I think) for this privilege which I assume emanates from you. So I should thank you as well.
I am still well out of my depth in all these Wikipedia matters but shall keep a watchful eye on the relevant article. I have no idea how you all find the time to do all this! Amazing!
Systematic eradication of TrustLeap G-WAN under fallacious pretexts
I am writting about the systematic eradication of TrustLeap G-WAN under fallacious pretexts.
TrustLeap G-WAN is a Web Application Server, like MICROSOFT IIS or Apache Tomcat.
Unlike MICROSOFT IIS or Apache Tomcat, G-WAN is faster than all other Web servers and Web application servers -both on Windows and Linux.
This is the first time in history that such a feat happens (because IIS is nested in the Windows kernel where it can easily beat everyone else) and it matters -a lot- because G-WAN is up to SEVERAL MILLIONS OF TIMES FASTER than its peers.
This leads to using significantly less hardware, energy and staff, allowing startups to create new solutions without extensive financing and allowing incumbants to save on their bills.
With this background (G-WAN is one year old), could you please explain why, among the hundreds of (inferior) Web servers that deserve to be listed in Wikipedia, TrustLeap G-WAN does not merit to be found by the public?
If a Web server program is relevant, that's only for its qualities - and G-WAN is both smaller in size, using less CPU resources, immensely safer (no vulnerability since its inception - another historic record), and massively faster than anything else.
Please explain to the world why you have deleted all the references of G-WAN, of the benchmarks that demonstrated its value, of the free source code that was donated by TrustLeap.
You can also talk to me directly by using this form: http://gwan.ch/en_contact.html
- Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to ApacheBench, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 15:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
As your reason for censorship "does not appear to be constructive" could be applied to any of the 100+ Web server softwares listed on Wikipedia, I repeat my question: why G-WAN is the ONLY ONE WEB SERVER that deserves to be eradicated? And, like it has been done for many other Web servers, instead of deleting the article, why not insert a frame asking for what you felt was missing to be added, or what you felt was inadequate to be removed? This is the task of a moderator to explain his views, and, so far, that's something that you did not do (despite my recurring requests in this matter). It sounds like a simple question for someone so determined like you. Pierre. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep on Running
It seems like it´s an neverending farce struggling for the existence of an article on the topic "Keep on Running" (Jackie Edwards song)I wonder who are really the force behing theese nominations for deletion/redirection to an irrelevant article on another topic.How can I make this stop ? All I want is to put up an article on the song written,recorded and released in 1965 of Island Records"Keep on Running" by "Jackie"(Wilfred Gerald)Edwards.My suspicion is that it´s all about die-hard fans of The Spencer Davis Group who won´t accept the fact that SDG´s version is a COVER version of an already then existing hit which by permission of it´s creator allowed them to make a recording that led them to a UK charts #1 hit.Your argumentation "There should only be one article on the song" lacks consistence since " the song" could either be interpretate as the song written and recorded by it´s originator which in this case is above mentioned Jackie Edwards or it could be about any cover version in each their own artistic right -neither standpoint supporting your argumentation.In fact there are countless examples here on wikipedia of songs being enlisted in the disambiguance pages by multiple artists doing each their cover version, there´s nothing unique about this particular case in that,but if you seriously insist on your conclusions as if they are expressing a specific wikipedia codex or policy I will not hesitate to without any further reservations go out and systematically delete any article that doesn´t live up to this policy, starting with the pseudo-article "Keep on Running"( Spencer Davis Group song),pseudo because the article wont stand up to criterias regarding rightfully notifications on origin - attaching SDG´s name to the song title in the article headline is in itself a fraudulence of considerable degree if there should be only one article on a topic "Keep on Running" (song).There are literally hundreds or more likely thousands of articles on wiki about cover versions of songs and it seems like we have a situation where "offended" followers are trying to controle the picture by notoriously spamming deletion nominations non-stop.In this case I´m infact defending the opposite standpoint,the principle of diversity, but I might just begin to clean up, taking down all non-articles that are not about original works of art, and I will do it by refering to you, naming this new codex the Lex Bonadea290710.Do you at all do any research or efford to read the articles and go through the complex of the specific cases or do you just press a button ? Flight714 (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Flight714 (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Flight714 (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page. Please remember to comment on content and not on contributors. Thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 15:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
SEO 2.0 Resubmission
BrendaBooker (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)BrendaBooker Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrendaBooker/SEO_2.0 for recreation of article with no ulterior motives.
- Thank you for mentioning this. I have commented elsewhere on what I thnk is going on. --bonadea contributions talk 07:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of fact it is not a personal view but the truth. only one example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups --22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- But that is completely irrelevant to the edits you have made. That proponents of one point of view possibly try to get their views over-represented (which is of course unacceptable) does not mean that the opposite point of view should be over-represented in turn. Wording should be neutral, not glorifying or vilifying either side. It's as simple as that. --bonadea contributions talk 07:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, it has a relevance. The whole articles on the Israeli-Palestinian War is impartial on Wikipedia, with terms like just for example Palestinian Terror, Palestinans homicide bombings. Wikipedia is and will remain Zionist to the core. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I can only assume that 188.8.131.52 does not know what "impartial" means. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know that the plot was copied from another place. I just did that because the the plot seemed very short. Can we keep the long plot and paraphrase it? CJISBEAST (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page :-) --bonadea contributions talk 19:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I am new user. You have deleted my contribution to College and university rankings. I don't know why you did it. But I am an expert in this field and all I write was correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylinne (talk • contribs) 21:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Looking at the edit in question, anything which is added must be sourced and have a proper Citation or it may be removed. The addition you added may very well be correct but it was not properly sourced and did read to be promotional.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I missed that note at the bottom of the article, revealing it as advertising. Thanks for pointing that out in the prod. I have deleted as spam. Happy editing! Jujutacular talk 16:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes - easy enough to miss, I ought to have put an info tag there when I speedy tagged it. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 17:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert. I can't revert any more, as I'm at 3 reverts for the day. However, I'll keep watching, because if the user re-adds, xe'll have passed 3RR and thus can be blocked. I'll add a note saying such on his talk page, although I'm not sure xe is or knows how to read the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Given that xe has added the text using two different accounts and an IP today, they are definitely beyond 3RR. Unfortunately I have to rush to a meeting now so won't be at my computer for at least a couple of hours. --bonadea contributions talk 12:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and I also meant to say - I do not believe that this could be seen as a content dispute; the user is vandalising the article by inserting blatantly inappropriate text after having been warned several times. So 3RR doesn't really apply, is my interpretation. It's a shame that they won't engage in discussion - thank you for trying!
- And now I really have to run :-) --bonadea contributions talk 12:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I hadn't even noticed the multiple accounts; I've gone ahead and reported to 3RR, although it possibly could have gone to WP:SPI or maybe even for quicker action to WP:ANI. But we'll see if 3RR fixes the problem. I reported both accounts and the IP. Have "fun" in your meeting. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bonadea! Thanks so much for the barnstar and kind comments! Glad I'm able to help out where I can (especially since I'm far from being capable of doing major edits or new articles... so, at least I can contribute in some other ways). Thanks again! Best, Rob TALK/CNTRB 14:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you really a linguist?
Then surely you must know that internet slang and text speak is as pervasive (at least among computer-literate people--the sort that read Wikipedia) as the English language itself! Now I'm not saying that the ubiquity of text speak means it is acceptable to communicate on Wikipedia on these terms, but I find it difficult to believe that there is a significant number of English-speaking computer users who do not understand my awesome leetspeak.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the vast majority of computer users, including those who use Wikipedia, are not computer literate. This, from both my own personal experiences as a support and repair technician (for the last 24 years) and from a variety of other information related to this topic. Something else to keep in mind is that, since many searches on Google and elsewhere list Wikipedia in the top 3 results, the possibility of Wikipedia being viewed by non-computer literate viewers is even higher. Various of them even try to contribute (something anyone who works RecentChanges would know due to the number of good faith reverts needed to fix wikiformat and other issues by users who are not computer literate). Knowing how to use a computer, or even knowing how to use Word or whatever does not imply computer literacy or an understanding of "leetspeak". Just my thoughts on the matter. TALK/CNTRB 21:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- As an example, many people are very good drivers, but dont have a clue how to do something as "simple" as changing a tire or checking their oil. TALK/CNTRB 21:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, but real life got in the way - by now it's a bit too late to engage in a discussion, but I still want to put in my two cents here. This particular issue is actually one of the reasons I wanted to become a researcher in linguistics. Back when I started as a grad student, in 2003, "Internet language" was usually represented in media as a particular form of language used only by teenagers - I knew from my own experience that that wasn't true, but wanted to find out what the actual situation was, instead of relying on what I thought I knew myself and what other people thought they knew. Today the popular belief is often the opposite, that "everybody" is competent at understanding Netspeak, including txtspeak and creative spelling based on one English accent or another. Of course neither extreme is true; lots of people who are not teenagers are fluent txtwriters, and many, many competent Internet users can't parse txtspeak and creative spellings at all. Not to mention the fact that the Internet slang expressions are different in different places. Singaporean kids, for instance, use an Internet lingo that is almost incomprehensible to me, because it includes Chinese and Singlish words, often with a simplified spelling. Fun, isn't it! :-) But of course in a place like Wikipedia we can't use our own local codes, we have to try to cooperate, so even if we guess that most people will understand simplified spelling, it's still rude to use it because it will exclude some people.
- And yes, I really am a linguist. My PhD is on a particular aspect of Internet English. So this is actually something I am somewhat qualified to say something about. --bonadea contributions talk 20:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Why was my posting removed? Open AdStream powers 24/7 Real Media's network. It's also proprietary technology. See link below.
http://www.247realmedia.com/EN-US/news/article_531.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Could you provide some more information, please? I haven't reverted any edits made by your IP as far as I can tell. Are you referring to this edit by me, to Ad serving? If that's the edit you refer to, the entry I removed showed no signs of being notable, and there is no article in Wikipedia about "24/7 Real Media" or "Open AdStream" (but there have been several attempts to add those to the Ad serving article, and a number of different editors have removed them for the same reason I did it). --bonadea contributions talk 17:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)