User talk:Solarlive

Welcome!

Hello, Solarlive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Tech geeks, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Rinkle gorge (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tech geeks

The article Tech geeks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be a non-noteworthy neologism.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rinkle gorge (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tech geeks

The article Tech geeks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary; WP:Original research.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tech geeks

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Tech geeks, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Tech geeks. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tech geeks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tech geeks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tech geeks until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Tech geeks. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Security Industry Specialists

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Security Industry Specialists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Google Bus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages USIS and Ed Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Google Bus. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. GabrielF (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove notices of ongoing deletion discussions

As you did at Google Bus. Doing so interrupts Wikipedia's processes for achieving consensus and, if it continues, will be seen as vandalism under our policies.

Given your feelings on the article, you may wish to participate on the discussion, however, I would urge you to read the relevant Wikipedia policies, most of which should be linked for your convienence within that discussion. Best regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Jaco

I've reverted your edits to this biography of a living person. Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy requires controversial statements about living people to be backed by sources that meet Wikipedia's reliable sources policy.

I've also asked our WP:BLPN noticeboard to look at edits you made to Startup company, where it was determined that your comments there constituted a "gross violation" of our WP:BLP policy.

I also have concerns that your inclusion of the name of the Google employee who was stalked (to use the word the New York Times used), who is otherwise a non-notable individual, may also fall within our WP:BLP policy.

We treat statements about living people at Wikipedia very seriously. If you continue to violate our BLP policy, you will be blocked. To make that more clear?

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Best regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Charles Jaco

We don't draw conclusions from raw footage, particularly for a biography of a living person. We quote what reliable secondary sources have to say. If the claim is true, then a reliable secondary source will have reported it.GabrielF (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raw footage is a primary source. It's a realtime record of what's happening and, as a result, requires interpretation. A secondary source, such as a scholarly book or article, attempts to explain or synthesize primary sources. We generally write articles based on secondary sources.

Your video is a great example of why we don't use primary sources.You claim that the video was filmed in front of a green screen and was therefore faked. However, I don't believe there's enough context to make that claim. There's blue in the background, but I can't tell if it's a "blue screen" in the sense that it's designed so that an editor can composite in a background or if the wall he's standing in front of just happens to be blue. If its a blue screen, why is he standing in front of a giant plant? It looks like there's blue in both the raw footage and in the footage that was actually shown on CNN. Also, the footage has clearly been edited. There are portions where we hear Jaco's voice even when he isn't speaking. The point here is that the two of us are both probably reasonably well-educated consumers of news and yet we're drawing separate conclusions from this raw footage. So given how subject to interpretation this is, how much value can we give a random person on the Internet's interpretation of this raw footage?

Maybe someone who has an expertise in news production could look at that video footage and could say exactly why they believe its fake. In that case, if that person was established in their field and posted something on their blog, or if they were quoted in a newspaper, we could report that that particular expert felt that the footage was fake. If there was more of a consensus than we could report that the footage was fake without attributing the claim. But if all we have is a YouTube video we really can't say anything at all.GabrielF (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones' commentary is a secondary source, but not a reliable secondary source. He represents WP:FRINGE views and his methodology is sensationalistic and unsound - the very definition of generating heat and not light. (in fact, here's what Jones says in the video you posted on my talk page: "notice that blue screen in the background so they could project the Tel Aviv and Jerusalem skylines in the background" - of course they were in Saudi Arabia, not Israel and how could you possibly project a skyline over a blue screen that's mostly covered by a giant plant?) GabrielF (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones occasionally misspeaks, as do many public speakers, so for you to nitpick on his Tel Aviv comment is merely irrational opportunism on your part. If you disagree with what he says, and want to see him silenced by accusing him of being "fringe", this only shows your lack of courage in learning the truth. I understand there were people who once called Galileo fringe and wanted him silenced... people like you. Solarlive (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care

Please take with edits that add or reinstate content that is in breach of our policy on biographies of a living person. In particular, see WP:BLPCRIME which includes "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured" - thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 04:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned you regarding an issue at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard

That discussion is at Wikipedia:Blpn#Pattern_of_BLP_issues_surrounding_tech_CEOs. Best regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, you really need to read the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, and ensure you comply with it, if you wish to continue contributing to Wikipedia. We take violations of this policy particularly seriously, and compliance isn't optional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Please note that this edit summary "Undid obvious censorship by GabrielF. His lame pretext is clearly motivated by bias" is a personal attack. You should also be aware that your belief that something is 'POV propaganda' does not grant you an exemption from the edit warring policy at Google bus protests. If you continue to revert that article (before getting support on the talk page) you may be blocked without further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Posted edit summary calling another editor a "scumbag" after above warning. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See [1]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]