User talk:Yubal

Hello,

I don't think creating the Vodei article was a good idea. The Vodei article used to exist in Wikipedia just a couple of months ago. It was also more detailed and correct. But after long debates, many edits by various people (including myself) and many reverts, it was decided that the article had to be deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vodei) because it was unverifiable, i.e. impossible to find any reliable source (acceptable for Wikipedia) about Vodei. One of the things that's impossible to find out is what Vodei is. For example, you can't seriously claim Vodei is a format — Vodei is just some name that people (person? It's unknown) behind Vodei Multimedia Processor came up with. They don't say Vodei is a format, the only thing they say is that "Vodei Multimedia Processor" is a name of a piece of software you need for playback of files created with the Vodei encoder (which they don't offer for download). So even if the Vodei encoder exists and it produces files in some format, the format name is not Vodei, because the authors of the Vodei Multimedia Processor didn't officially, publicly give it that name (they call the format "multimedia that has been encoded using the Vodei encoder", or "Vodei encoded files"). And nobody else did. So instead of repeating all the old mistakes that have been beaten to death in the old Vodei Wikipedia article, I suggest you do not revive this dead article. J. M. 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue with Vodei

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Vodei, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=Vodei. As a copyright violation, Vodei appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Vodei has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Vodei. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Vodei, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 22:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe people must know about Vodei

Well, in my humble opinion, people affected by this "multimedia that has been encoded using the Vodei encoder", or "Vodei encoded files" (like me), should be able to find information about it. I found it on another wiki, how's it possible I didn't find it on Wikipedia? I did copy it as I thought information on a wiki is public, and not copyrighted.

I will rewrite the article, but I refuse to leave people ignorant about this Vodei "thing".

Yubal 03:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you can find reliable information about it, you can certainly include it in the article, but you must cite the source. Lack of reliable and verifiable sources (www.vodei.com is not, posts in web forums are not) was the No. 1 reason the Vodei article was deleted from Wikipedia, despite the effort by various people to make the article as correct and informative as possible. Just because you quote a confused wiki article from somewhere does not mean the information is correct. Unless you can prove that Vodei is the name of the format (and I'm pretty sure you cannot), you can't state it as a fact in Wikipedia. You can only say that Vodei Multimedia Processor is software available at www.vodei.com which is needed for playback of files that need it. That's all we know. And yes, Vodei is a very unusual and highly suspicious subject (the Vodei MP authors don't offer any information about the project and its purpose, they don't even say who they are and the Vodei encoder is not available for download), but generally, not having information about a subject is better than spreading unverified speculations about it. You should be very careful about the wording. —J. M. 04:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds fair. I do believe that wiki might not be accurate at all, it was my intention to keep working on ti as I do want unbiased articles. I just thought ANY type of info was better than nothing, for the time being. But you are right. I was thinking about not calling it a "format", just state that it is ""multimedia that has been encoded using the Vodei encoder", or "Vodei encoded files"", as you said, careful about wording. But yeah, no reliable and verifiable sources. Maybe some type of disclaimer on the talk page... Yubal 06:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted again (this time because of the copyright issue), but from what I can understand about the complicated deletion process and criteria for speedy deletion, recreating the article should be acceptable if the new content is significally different to the deleted one. So maybe you could try again...:-) —J. M. 07:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Birdiesync

I have nominated Birdiesync, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birdiesync. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Stephen platt

A tag has been placed on Stephen platt 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 a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. —BradV 02:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]