User talk:Akradecki/archive/archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Dear Alan! 2 Bell 400 move 3 Could use your help 4 Ilyushin Il-76 5 C-5 Galaxy 6 Brown's gas deletion 7 Fear not! ;) 8 HHO gas and Brown's gas DRV 9 People keep bothering my talk page 10 Your comment to the creator of N396JS 11 Thankee! 12 New FA nominee 13 Another deleted pic 14 OS X images 15 Deletion of Racing wolf 16 John Lauritsen deletions 17 Deletion of Alex Lee Thomson 18 Deletion of Chicago Sports Fan Message Board. 19 PER Deletion 20 More on John Lauritsen deletions -- need specifics 21 Article overlap 22 Still more on John Lauritsen deletions -- still need specifics 23 Note on The300WhisperGuy 24 EADS Astrium Space Tourism Project 25 User talk:206.116.195.125 26 Dynamic Submission 27 Deletion of emoze 28 Thanks!!! 29 Air Methods, Corp. 30 I'm back 31 Velarus 32 Edit war accusation 33 Speedy tagging 34 Orange County Transportation Authority 35 Spyware terminator 36 Schweizer promotional links 37 My dear Alan 38 Odd Nasa talk page edits 39 Contingent Workforce Management Sandbox 40 Atlanta vandal 41 Reed Business Information 42 CXtec 43 Fixed width images issue again 44 Air France Flight 4590 45 Gulfstream G200 46 IAI Astra 47 PEO draft 48 Adoptee Seeks Help 49 Boink! 50 Deletion of LiquidHub entry 51 RE:User:Darkeffekt

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave comments, critiques, etc., below. Unless you specifically request that I answer on your talk page, I'll be answering here, as I prefer to keep as much of the conversation in one place as possible. Thanks!

Please add all new material to the bottom of the page!

[edit] Dear Alan!

Oh Gosh, Alan dear, I hope you forgive me for not replying your beautiful messages right away... with real life stuff and plenty of wiki stuff that sucked all my editing time away, these last couple of days have been maddening! With some peace at last, it's wonderful to be back at this friendly heaven that is your talk page. I try to never leave a message unreplied, even less beautiful gifts like those you kindly gave me, so it's only fair that I drop by and thank you warmly in person... even tho the rotor blades of your baby blew all my load of flowers all over your talk page! Should I pick them up, or are they fine like this...? ;) Have a beautiful day! Love, Phaedriel - 11:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, and thanks! Those flowers sure improved the smell around here ;} You are truly a joy.... AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bell 400 move

Alan, the User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Bell 400 page is ready enough to go live. Could you move it to Bell 400 over a redirect? Thanks. - BillCJ 19:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Done! Delete the sandbox? AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes please. I should have stated that too. I'm adding a {{dbuser}} tag, so it might be gone by the time you get there. Thanks again! - BillCJ 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Looks like I beat you to the tag! AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's all that practice you've had trying to beat the hagbot! Thanks. - BillCJ 22:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could use your help

Any chance you could assist in helping me with this discussion? I can't seem to convince the editors of the page to go to standard sizing for images. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Roger that. See my comments on the talk page there. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ilyushin Il-76

Alan, could you check out this diff? I don't believe this is notable, besides being unsourced. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup...per our in-process notability standards, it doesn't cut the mustard AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, but it sure cut the fence! :) - BillCJ 01:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C-5 Galaxy

Alan, could you check C-5 Galaxy#Incidents and accidents? There are several incidents that are pretty extensive, especially the April 3, 2006 Dover crash. They might be worht listing withthe task force for incident articles. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brown's gas deletion

What, no note of explanation for why, on AN or my talk page? Georgewilliamherbert 04:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would there be an explanation? It was nominated at AfD, debated at AfD, deleted by the closing admin at AfD. The closing admin even protected the title, which is where I was when I noticed that it hadn't been deleted. I merely deleted it in accordance with the AfD decision. Are you saying you disagree with the AfD decision?AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fear not! ;)

Hey, Alan dear! :) Don't worry about the template, just let them delete it if they believe it's appropriate. Actually, those templates were originally created for Italian wiki, including the one I used for your userpage; I was just about to code them for you here when making your userpage, when I noticed someone had already brought them a few months ago, albeit with several flaws because its syntax and functions were copied verbatim, not knowing many of these functions aren't allowed by our software here. So, I spent quite some time correcting and translating them when making your userpage, and also made several improvements to it; and trust me, seeing you happy with your page was worth the effort ;) We'll just move them to my userspace and transclude them to your page, with the advantage that the planned enhancements I have in mind can be performed without hassles. Just relax, and let me do the work ;) Love you, Phaedriel - 05:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You're the best! AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HHO gas and Brown's gas DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of HHO gas. Since you deleted the twin article Brown's gas, which was also nominated in the AfD, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People keep bothering my talk page

Since your an adminstor please tell the following people to stop leaving me messages.

Moondyne Wafulz Soccermeko

Sorry, friend, but I'm in complete agreement with those that have been leaving you messages and who have blocked you. It seems to me that you either don't understand - or are unwilling to accept - that the talk page for your account is not your own. It belongs to the Foundation, who has loaned it to you for the express purpose of letting others interact with you and leave operational messages that you need to see, the very things that have been done on your talk page. I've reviewed its history, and there's been no inappropriate posts there, as far as I can see, except your posts, specifically the "rules" you've listed, and the empty threat of reporting the violators of those rules. Wikipedia is a community project, and you're welcome to join the community, but that joining comes with the need to interact and accept what the community is telling you, especially with regards to areas where you might be doing things that are contrary to our guidelines and policies. So, once you're off you block, if you're willing to work with others nicely, you'll find a lot of friends here. If you keep up your prior behavior, though, you'll end up being blocked permanently. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment to the creator of N396JS

Well done. VERY well done. I'm taking note of that and wishing my intial comment to him had been as concise as yours. Kudos. - Philippe | Talk 22:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thankee!

Thanks so much for the beautiful replacements, dear Alan! :) They came in the best possible time, trust me. I'll make sure to visit you later... when you turn the engines of your helo off! ;) Love, Phaedriel - 08:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New FA nominee

Well, I've gone and done it and the Aggie Band article is up for Featured Article status. I know you usually work in the aviation articles and thought this might be a good break from them. Anyway, any feedback (especially support) would be greatly appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Oh, and good catch. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another deleted pic

Alan, could you check Image:H-25.jpg for me? It was the only pic on the page. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. I've noticed that some of the deletionists have been posting notes to the article talk pages, which is very helpful if the uploader doesn't happen to be active the week of the AfD, or in this case the CSD. Obviously, the user who CSDed this image didn't do that. Would be nice if someone would suggest it to him/her, along with a request for normal AfDs rather that Speedys ;) . I wouldn't be suprised if the uploader wasn't notified either! Anyway, thanks for checking this out for me. - BillCJ 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Restored, and sourced. That one was really dumb, as it had the proper PD tag. Anyway, I found the source, and added that. Also, you might want to check out the search results that led me to the source. Also check this search, which has mostely PD stuff. Some good stuff there.... AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OS X images

Hello, regarding this and related edits, I've posted about the issue at AN/I because the same images were deleted under G12 on Thursday but subsequently re-uploaded. I mentioned you so I figured I should leave you a message. Please comment if you feel so inclined, thanks. :) -/- Warren 02:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Racing wolf

I noticed you deleted this article with the deletion reason of "patent nonsense". My reading of the article was that it was just badly written, but contained understandable content. I've noticed some editors tag articles as "patent nonsense" that are not nonsense at all, but which only need clean-up. In this case, you deleted the article while I was trying to edit it to change the "speedy" to a "prod", so there's no point in restoring it. Cheers! --Ginkgo100^talk 02:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

On this one I didn't bother changing it, as it really appeared to me to be someone making up a breed...and his inclusion of his email address in the text, looking for litters, summed it up. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Lauritsen deletions

You have deleted everything that I have done in the past few days. Did I do something wrong? If so, I'd like to know what it was. I am very new to Wikipedia, both as a user and as a contributor. Do you reply here, or through e-mail? Mine is: john_lauritsen@post.harvard.edu JohnLauritsen 14:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC) The tilde thing didn't seem to work. Anyway, my name is John Lauritsen.

Will reply on your talk page as well, but yes, what you did was a violation of our spam and conflict of interest guidelines. It was posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reference to one's own books. Wikiepedia is not a place to promote your books or your publishing company. We don't appreciate people spamming the encyclopedia. I understand you're new, but being new should cause you to read up on our policies/guidelines before doing something this extensive. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Alex Lee Thomson

Hi there, you have recently deleted an article on a writer called Alex Lee Thomson because you feel he is unworthy of the Wikipedia pages. Alex, somebody who is fast becoming a friend of a lot of bands in the UK, is moving up the industry ladder faster than anybody else in indie music that I know of. He's an underground writer and as such you wouldn't expact many external links to work, and his former magazine, Eclectic, which was when I first heard of him, was an equally as underground affair (a website does exist for it though, which can be found at http://www.eclecticmagazine.co.uk). He is now an editor at Rockfeedbcak and during his time there he has taken the site from the niche market, and after working with Diesel, has grown it into the UKs most celebrated music website with a TV show on MTV2 and Channel 4. He's done so much for modern indie music promotion and as such has become very well known within the indie music comunity and I have enjoyed the chance to work with him, so I though he deserved a page... maybe not?... I'm sure you know more about all this than the people who work with him.

It's not an issue of whether he is "worthy" or "unworthy", or "deserving" or "undeserving". It matters whether he is notable as we define the word. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and evaluate him based on that criteria alone. If I am wrong, and you can show me how he meets our notability criteria, I would be happy to restore the article so that you can edit it and make the article demonstrate how he meets our criteria. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Chicago Sports Fan Message Board.

Alan, thank you for your feedback. Based on your comments, I have added two references from the Chicago are print media (Chicago Tribune and Daily Herald). These demonstrate the significance the board has had on both providing an incremental voice for the traditional media while at the same time providing the media a source for material.

Again, thank you Alan!

You're welcome. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PER Deletion

Hello again,

I see that PER has been deleted, but I recall in one of the many discussion that it had been suggested to incorporate PER, PEO and other related topics together, however I have seen no action taken. It had also been proposed that an article on Contingent Workforce Management be created, with some information from related articles incorporated. I have not seen this either. I find it kind of disappointing that an article of educational value is just deleted and there is no effort to re-format this information so that it is still available while not violating policies. I have requested the Contingent Workforce Management article on the Wikipedia Request page and I am willing to supply some sources in building this article. Please let me know the progress on this article.

--TheBackpack 17:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my page. I just went to Sue's page and in the discussion section it says she is no longer active. I will start the article in my sandbox (how do I do this?) this way perhaps you and/or other Wikipidians can have a look at it before I publish. Thanks again for your help.

--TheBackpack 13:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Repilied on users talk page. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on John Lauritsen deletions -- need specifics

You stated:

Will reply on your talk page as well, but yes, what you did was a violation of our spam and conflict of interest guidelines. It was posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reference to one's own books. Wikiepedia is not a place to promote your books or your publishing company. We don't appreciate people spamming the encyclopedia. I understand you're new, but being new should cause you to read up on our policies/guidelines before doing something this extensive.

I can't agree or disagree with you without know something more specific. For example, on the "Homosexuality and Relition" page I added a link to several historic talks, given by myself and two colleagues in the Scholarship Committee of the New York Gay Academic Union -- talks which represent the most thorough critique of John Boswell's thesis that Christianity is not inherently anti-gay. The link was to a library of the Gay & Lesbian Humanist Association, based in England. My link was immediately following a citation of John Boswell, and therefore was relevant. Is it always considered "spamming" to cite an article by one's self or one's colleagues? As it is, eliminating my link means that one side of an on-going debate has been cut off. Or, was this a "conflict of interest"? If so, are those who have participated in debates thereby barred from providing links to those debates?

For another example, on the Kurt Hiller page I added a link to a very important 1928 speech of Hillers', which I had transtated from German into English. This translation is on my personal web site. Is this against the rules? Would it be better if I created a Wikipedia article and put the translation there?

For another example -- on a couple of pages I posted a link to the "Feminism" page on my personal web site. This contains the texts of my writings on "censorious feminism" from the 1970s -- and these texts are historically important in the on-going debate over pornography, censorship, civil liberties, etc. My review of Brownmiller's book on rape was the only negative review to appear in the gay press, and one of the very few negative reviews in the entire country. It is true that I am a partican in this debate -- on the side of Free Speech -- but then the people who wrote the pornography etc. pages are also partisans. Where is the line drawn?

I did read the boiler-plate notice, but failed to read your note at the bottom of it, and didn't realize that I was being warned in some way. My questions above are sincere, not argumentative.

JL 72.70.68.172 18:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Consider reading the links I provided for you regarding spam and COI. They're in blue in the text. The bottome line is that Wikipedia is not a place to promote your books or your publishing company. Do not cite your own material as references. This isn't about free speech or partisanship, it's a matter of conflict of interest. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article overlap

Alan, could you look at the Air ambulance and MEDEVAC pages? Seems to be an awful lot of overlap in content, though the MEDEVAC page does cover some military aspects, especially in history. As an outsider, the terms have always seemd mostly synonomous to me. What do you think? - BillCJ 18:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Medevac is more general, and includes ground transport in many places. Air anbulance would then be a subset of that. As an aside, it always bothers me when medevac is put in all caps, because it isn't an acronym. I've just been to lazy to move the article to the proper name. The two articles, though, could easily be merged. Interestingly, the term "Life Flight", though it started out as a brand, has not only become synonymous with "air ambulance", is actually more recognized by the general public. When I tell someone I work on an air ambulance, they often get a quizzical look on their face...when I say a life flight helicopter, they understand. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It looks like it might be best just to remove the aircraft portion of the MEDEVAC page to Air Ambulance, as that page is still a bit skimpy.

Erlanger Hospital in Chattanooga TN has a Bell 412 operated as Erlanger Life Force, for at least 20 years. About 9 years ago, my bro-in-law had back surgery at Erlagner, and I watched his kids for the week (6 and 5 at the time). We went to the hospital to visit there dad, and as we came in on his floor to the room, I saw the 412 sitting on th pad. As we left, I took the kids to the window in a hallway to see the bird,a nd it was just warming up to take off. After a few minutes it lifted off. I'm not sure who was more thrilled to see and hear it take off, me or the kids! I'll check around Wiki and see if there's any info on LifeForce somewhere, and maybe add it to my projcet list ifthere isn't. - BillCJ 02:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.lzontheweb.com/visiting_aircraft_at_erlanger_.htm

[edit] Still more on John Lauritsen deletions -- still need specifics

You wrote:

Consider reading the links I provided for you regarding spam and COI. They're in blue in the text. The bottome line is that Wikipedia is not a place to promote your books or your publishing company. Do not cite your own material as references. This isn't about free speech or partisanship, it's a matter of conflict of interest.

I reply that I did read the links you provided. My questions were quite specific, and I think they deserve specific answers. I still fail to see what was wrong with, for example, the link to the Boswell talks. It was not my web site. Is it always wrong to cite one's own writings, even if they are entirely relevant? Would this link have been acceptable if it had been put in by someone other than myself? These questions are simply not answered in the links you provided.

Best, JL JohnLauritsen 22:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The COI link is very specific. The relevant part is: "Be careful about excessive citation of your own work". If you had cited that one translation in that one article only, that'd be fine. But what you did was add links to numerous articles in a manner that raised a lot of red flags that you were just another spammer. Given that I made 22 reversions (some of which were for multiple edits in the same article), all for spam links, and since that leaves only 2 or 3 actual textual edits from you, it appears that you main effort here is to add links and references using your books. It would be quite different if you were writing big sections of text, and used an occasional reference to one of your books (I've even done that once, I think), but when it's roughly 80-90% of your edits? That really looks suspect to me.AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note on The300WhisperGuy

Alan, you mentioned a project that you can't write, I assume because of COI. You may have already asked me about it awhile back, but if so, you can try again :) Sounds intriging, whatever it is. - BillCJ 22:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an article about Air Methods. I'm an employee, so it's not appropriate for me to write it. AMC is the largest medevac provider in the U.S., is a publicly traded corp, and so easily meets the Corp notability. There's plenty of soures, as well. Wikipedia has one article, ARCH Air Medical Service, that covers one of AMC's brands (local services are "branded", ARCH is one, Mercy Air, which I work for, is another). I don't know if the ARCH article should be expanded or an AMC article started from scratch, but it is definitely needed. FWIW, besides being an operator, AMC's Products Division does medevac interiors for other customers, incl L.A. County. They even won the contract to do the medical interiors for the Army's Stryker vehicle. I can point you in the right direction, if that's something you'd be interested in doing. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought, and hoped, it might be that. Yeah, I'd be interested, but it would probably take awhile, as my sadbox has about 12 projects right now! Go ahead and start pointing, and I'll see what I can do. If 300WhisperGuy responds and wants to do it, that's fine with me; I'll just back him up. He's actually a fairly good writer, if he'll just be willing to adapt to Wiki policies, he'd be even beter. - BillCJ 23:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to start a sandbox for me to put links into? AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK, the sandbox is at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Air Methods Corporation, and I've dumped in the text from ARCH Air Medical Service as a starter. It has a few links to the AMC website that should be useful in some way. I don't know yet if it's best to exapnd that article, either to cover all of AMC, just certain divisions, or leave it as is, but alot of that depens on the overall content when I finished. Do you know the copyright status of the pics on the AMC site, and is there anyway you could try to secure them for use if they aren't PD? Thanks. - BillCJ 19:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Great. I'll see what I can do about the AMC pics. I have tons of ones I've shot of Mercy aircraft, when the time comes. I get all the AMC press releases via internal company mail, and since their releases, I can temporarily post the text somewhere for you to mine. Also, I haven't forgotten about that 206 article...my wife cleaned house last week, and unfortuntately I haven't been able to find the magazine since. Also, FWIW, I'll be gone Mon - Fri camping up the coast, in the redwoods, far away from cell phone and wireless internet signals!AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EADS Astrium Space Tourism Project

You've probably heard about the EADS Astrium Space Tourism Project project already, seeing as how it's main competitor is based near you. I heard about it this morning, and looked in the EADS Astrium article, and was surprised to find someone had already put together a page on the project. It's actually pretty good, though a bit lacking on citations, but it's a great start. - BillCJ 23:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting...seriously larger budget than Burt's. I see some real problems with the artist's rendition...reentry heat on the engine nacelles and canards, for starters. Actually, I better not get started! AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind, really! Not any people around here I can talk aviation with anyway, so I enjoy were I can get it. Retractable canards have been used before, notably on the F-14A, so I think the guys at EADS are smart enough to figure out a way oround that. As to the nacalles, I would think burying the jet engines in thick wingroots with closable inlets would be a better solution, but I'm sure they'll figure that one out too. Anyway, just goes to show you what the Private (or,in EADS case, Business) sector can do when there's a market for something, and a demand to go with it. Whether they'll all be succesful or not, only time will tell. But, it's fun to wathc it happen anyway. And I'f I ever inherit a few million dollars, I know what a several hundred thousand of it is going for already! - BillCJ

Since we've now carried 2 of Burt's employees in our helo, I maintain he owes 2 of our guys rides! In thinking about the EADS concept, the other thing that's really been bothering me is the fact that the vehicle has jet engines at all. For years, from the Shuttle to the various private ventures, the bottom line that everyone is going for is the lowest cost per pound lifted. It doesn't make much sense to me to lift at least half a ton of metal (engines and accessories), jet fuel (assuming it'll make a powered landing) and empty airframe (the jet fuel used on the way up has to be put somewhere) that far into space. To lift all that, you now have to have more rocket fuel, which means you have to have more structure inwhich to carry it. Personally, I think Burt's carrier aircraft makes much more sense from an efficiency point of view. No wonder he's skeptical! AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL. At this point, I'm sure EADS is just relasing the concept for publicity. Not that they aren't serious, but no concept stays the same all the way to production. If the A350 is any guide, this one mgiht go through 6 or 7 iterations too! As to the jet engines, could it be they're planning on usesing the same fuel for the jets in the rockets? I know it's theoretically possible, but I don't know enough about the technology to know if we're there yet. At some point in the future, I expect there will be hybrid jet/rocket engines, but I think those are even further away. - BillCJ 00:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I see the article made the DYK on the main page today. And my new Alenia C-27J page got ignored :( I guess I should have mentioned the Army intends to fly it into space! - BillCJ 18:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:206.116.195.125

Alan, you night want to check out this diff, this one, this one, and this one. I know he just wants attention, and blocking him will just egg him on, but I'm about to the point I'm going to start dumping trash like he added to the A-10 on Adim pages (not your's or Chris's, of course, and not from my computer either!) I'd dump it on Jimbo's talk page too, but I dout he has one that I can edit! - BillCJ 00:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. See this and this. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

THanks much, and also for listening to me vent! - BillCJ 01:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic Submission

This article just came out of deletion review and I was fixing it as per request. The completed article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Akc9000/backup it is from a neutral point of view and is not spam. It just explains what it is and what products like it do.

It is noteable since it won an award and is referenced in books. Please look at the fininished article and let me know. Plus, I thought you were suppose to leave a note on my talk page before you delete it. I put the hangon tag. I was in communication with an admin working on the article when you deleted it.

Please advise--Akc9000 03:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If you were in communication with an admin, and were actively working on it, you (or the admin) should have actually put a valid hangon message on the talk page. Quite frankly, I don't believe the draft article you're working on is ready to go for the following reasons:

• There's a number of grammar and spelling errors
• Headers should not have caps except for first letter, and should not be wikilinks
• Bolding is for the first use of the subject in the lead paragraph only
• References shouldn't be generalized like you've put them. Individual facts in the article should be footnoted to the references (see WP:FN and WP:CITET if you don't know how to do this)
• The section on "Search engine submission software" should be omitted entirely, as it's covered in a separate article. Don't duplicate material, that's what wiki links are for
• Move the reasons why its notable (media coverage, awards) to the 1st or 2nd paragraph
• Please be aware that wikipedia is not a how-to guide, so instructional information about how to use the software is not appropriate.
• You can eliminate the "further reading", as the book is in the refs (and get rid of the dummies graphic - it's not relevant to the particular program...it looks like you're plugging the book). AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for the very useful input. I took all your suggestions, I like the article better now. I must say it is very difficult not to properly cap the H T T P protocol, you told me only one cap. It is a proper name. In any event. Could you have another peek and tell me if its going in the correct direction and any other suggestions would be app.

Thanks! --Akc9000 06:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's better now. There's no guarentee, however, that the notability question won't be raised by others. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of emoze

Hi Alan, As a new Wikipedia fan, and still trying to find my feet around here, I realize that you have deleted the emoze article I submitted.

Please give me a brief explanation of why this was noted to be spam? Emoze is one of the "push email" companies in the global market and I fail to understand the spam with regard to a company background and what the company does as opposed to Blackberry, Seven, Good (motorola) etc.

I would highly appreciate your feedback and assistance.

By the way, I'm an aviation fan too, the first, youngest South African woman pilot (now former South African), so we do share something in common.

Regards, Caront 13:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki has asked me to keep an eye on his talk pgae for him. Let me answer your question about the article on "emoze". I have viewd the deleted version and agree with Alans deletion. Below are a few reasons as to why

1. The page starts off with a link to a company, a sign that an article is often spam.
2. Your articles does not give a good assertion as to why this group is notable
3. Even if it did assert notability, as this organisation recieved third party coverage? (Not an interal press release)

These are just a few reasons as to why this article was probably deleted. Remeber that all articles need to be cited by reliable sources that assert the notability of the topic in question. Otherwise it is just an article trying to promote your company which is not what wikipedia is for. Hope this helps. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!!!

Well folks, thanks to your reviews and comments, the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band is now a featured article on Wikipedia. It should take a day or so to update, but it's a done deal. Thanks for the help, Akradecki/archive. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air Methods, Corp.

User:Dhaluza has created the Air Methods, Corp. article. In time, I'll work on adding more info using the sources you gave me. Also, be sure to check out the "See also" section, and see if that is a notable page listed. - BillCJ 06:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Bill, missed this question when I read over my messages...IMHO, yes it's notable, given the amount of media coverage, not just of this crash, but air ambulance crashes in general. Given the politics in the affected county, this is also going to be the subject of recurring media discussions. This one was very, very personal for me, though, so I'm biased and my opinion doesn't really count. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Alan, yes, I agree it's notable, for the same reasons. I was being a bit fecicious, just wanted to make sure you saw the article, and didn't miss what it was about in the flurry of trying to catch up on what you've missed while you've gone. I asked Dhaluza if he could look into into for me to check the notability, and maybe have a short article to surprise you when you got back. He did a great job, and went far beyond what I had intended for now, which is a good thing! The link on needing a trauma center for the High Desert region is the clincher on notability. I'm sure it's not that easy to read it, but I hope Dhaluza did them justice in his coverage. If there's anything you want me to address in particular there, but you can't for COI or other reasons, just ask me, and I'll do what I can. - BillCJ 20:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It was, indeed, a pleasant surprise! The only thing I can think of at the moment is add Arch to the See Also. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the section on possible "bribes" in the San Bernadino County award. Do you have any sources you'd like me to look at?

Sorry about the wrong pic on the 2006 Mercy Air 2 accident article. I confused N401MA and N410MA, so I must be dyslexic! I saw your other pics on BillCJ's page, and put one on the Safety of emergency medical services flights page. If you have some other refs on the controversy, I could add them for balance. There should have been something on the final resolution. Also did they ever permit a second operator? Dhaluza 10:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm back

I'm back from my wal in the redwoods...though it'll take a day or two to get back up to speed. Thanks, Chris, for taking care of the above matter. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Velarus

Alan, can you look at Velarus? I added a prod, but the creator removed it (see User talk:Gaucho69 for his explanation). What should we do next? AfD? I really don't think this is notable yet, and have found nothing on google related to it exceot the company's site. - BillCJ 18:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it as spam. Could easily justify A7 - nn corp - as well, or even No Context. I'm sure I'll get flack for this move, but given that there's nothing published on it, and that the only link is to a seldom-visited personal website, this has all the earmarks of someone trying to promote their pet invention/better mousetrap and using Wikipedia to do said promotion. Thanks for pointing this one out! AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - BillCJ 19:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war accusation

Alan, could you be so kind and look at this talkpage entry? It's again User:M Van Houten whom you've met few months ago in a little bit long and exhausting fixed width image dispute. This time I'm accused for starting edit war and I'm a little bit... well, I don't like it.

If you look at history of the G4M or history of the G8N articles you'll see that I've entered Operators sections and rising sun flags long time ago and in fact User:M Van Houten is the guy who is doing his reverts against other users. For example this revert in G8N article is his fifth revert in short time. I really have no idea what to do because I still remember his last statement made on your talk page. Any ideas? Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 20:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Piotr, thanks for the note. I have to confess I'm quite confused by the debate, and I guess that comes from a lack of hard references. In the debate that's referenced on the template talk page, both sides make good arguments (and even missed some...the flag with the sun and no rays actually wasn't officially the national flag until much later). However, what really needs to be done is some good references found one way or another, besides web sites. I would be curious to what the hard print encyclopedias have to say on the issue, as well as other universally-recognized authorities. For the time being, I'd suggest opening yet another discussion on the subject, either at the military history project or the aircraft project, and see if other folks have sources that can be added to the discussion. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Alan, I'm afraid there is no hard written English references which couldn't be questioned by M Van Houten. There is a lot of photos of Japanese soldiers using raising sun flag during WWII era as well as propaganda posters from that era which in my opinion are enough proof that this flag was used in these times. If you look on this propaganda poster you'll see Italian crowned flag. If artist painted correctly this difficult variant of Italian flag instead of so why he would paint incorrect Japanese flag? There is much more rising flags used on US propaganda posters (or these ones) and I don't think that all artists were stupid or illiterated to use inproper flag. Your opinion about "white" flag as unoficial is right, when you look at the Flag of the World page, you'll read following info:

On March 25, 1931 the Imperial Diet attempted to legislate the Hinomaru as the official National Flag and also its official specifications; it passed the House of Commons, but did not go through the House of Peers.

I don't want to bring all arguments here, it's not the proper place. I'm afraid that debate with this guy is impossible - old debate about fixed width images shows it quite well. He started edit war with reverting edits of two other users to state which is correct from his own point of view. Please look closer and you'll see senseless Empire of Japan links. Note that we don't use full names of countries in Operators section and we write Poland or United Kingdom, not Republic of Poland or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I don't see any reason why Japan should be except from that convention. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 22:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. I really think the argument could go either way. But, until at least an attempt to discuss it on the aircraft article's talk page - or one of the project pages - is at least attempted, there's not much that can be done about it. WP:CONSENSUS says that rather than edit warring, discussions should be raised. I know there's already been discussion at the template talk page, but that is such an obscure location that it didn't the proper exposure. I'd suggest the aircraft project page, with a note on the military history project page so that the discussion can be kept in one place. Make your case like you've done here, and we'll see what happens. I'd prefer to remain somewhat neutral in all this, so that if needed, I can exercise my admin tools if things get out of hand. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Alan, thanks for advice. Is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/page content good place for such disscussion? If yes I'll write there soon. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 06:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd put it on the main project page...not everyone in the project has the secondary pages watchlisted, so they might not see it, and this discussion needs to have the wider input of the whole project. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy tagging

Seems like someone's trying to make a point. I would imagine it was indeed over that speedy of the organization article previously. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orange County Transportation Authority

Hi. The administrator user:Seraphimblade rapidly deleted articles that I was involved with based upon the following:

"The reason I deleted these is indeed because they were intended to promote. Promotional doesn't necessarily mean it's promoting a for-profit corporation—I've seen ad articles here for everything from charities to open-source software.

"None of these statements are whatsoever attributed to any type of reliable source which says any such thing. Nor are any secondary sources cited at all. Lacking that, they basically just appear to be glowing editorials. Whether or not it was your intent, and without intent on my part to cause any offense, the articles quite honestly looked like they could have come straight from the organizations' PR departments.

"If there are secondary, independent sources which have covered these organizations, it still may be appropriate to have articles on them. (We do require that substantial amounts of material independent of the subject exist, sources published by the subject or those closely affiliated with it are not enough.)"

Just so you know, it's not a bad faith nom. More than a week ago, I asked that admin what the difference was between those pages and Orange County Transportation Authority. Without a reply, I took it that there was none.

Can you explain how Orange County Transportation Authority differs? Both are multi-county agency government agencies. Both explain the services that they provide. Yet one was deleted, and the other stays because "it's a public agency".

Thanks --Igoldste 15:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm not going to respond to questions about another admin's actions. If you have issues with user:Seraphimblade, go discuss it with him. If you disagree with his actions, I would advise you to ask him to revisit the subject. He might change his mind, he might not. I've had people ask me that, and sometimes I stand by my decision, and other times I realize I was in error...we're all humans, we all make mistakes, it's just that as admins, our mistakes are much more visible and much more frequently second-guessed. I haven't taken a look at the article he deleted, and won't unless he asks me for a second opinion. If you still disagree with his response, you are welcome to take the issue to Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Second, what I can tell you is why I didn't delete Orange County Transportation Authority. I focus a fair amount of my admin time to fighting spam, and I've developed a short list of spam give-a-way indicators. When I read through the article you nominated, however, none of the alarms went off. The article isn't promoting OCTA, it's clearly about OCTA, from a neutral, outside point of view. It doesn't use glowing, promotional terms, it isn't written by the agency's PR department, it's not trying to convince me to come to OC and ride the bus. It's written in dry, encyclopedic language, as it should be.

Lastly, I'm not going to judge whether your nomination was good-faith or bad-faith, but it does seem to be an attempt to make a point, as it's the only article you've ever tagged for CSD, and it's on the heels of your disagreement about the other article. On this I will strongly caution you: just because you disagree with what another admin has done, don't go trying to delete the hard work of other folks who are innocent in the dispute. If I was one of the major contributors to the OCTA article, I would feel a bit offended that you chose to try to delete my hard work just to prove a point...that, quite simply, was unkind. And, quite honestly, I think you owe that little segment of the community an apology.

If you have any other questions on the subject, feel free to ask. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll begin by apologizing because of the way that my action was perceived. I had not intended to offend anyone. While I've only made minor contributions, the edits that I have made have always been made with the best of intentions. The reason that this was my first CSD tag, was that I had not yet looked extensively at any other articles with what I had understood to be the rules for deletion. I appreciate your no-spam link and see from it why OCTA would not qualify. I also now see that the rules being used to determine spam may not be universally accepted, so I will leave further CSD tagging for others.

--Igoldste 11:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spyware terminator

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Spyware terminator. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cableguytk 04:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schweizer promotional links

Alan, can you double-check my deletions of "promotional links "here and here? One link has been there awhile, and the second one was added today to each page, apparently to make sure their site is promoted too. These sites appear to be geared toward sales and service, and are not about the aircraft types. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse your removal. Definitely spam. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it was, per your recent;y-posted "spam-detector" guidelines, but given that you're in a related industry, I just wanted to make sure the sites didn't have some value that I might have missed. - BillCJ 19:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My dear Alan

Thank you for all that you have done! How much love resides therein! All one's gifts are never gone: Not seen, perhaps, but stored within. Kindness is an inner sun. Your unspent heart a message sends Of grace and sacrifice hard-won Upon which happiness depends! Thank you so much, my dear, dear Alan! :) Love, Phaedriel 21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My dear Alan, I'm sorry I couldn't watch over your userpage while you were away for reasons you already know. There's much I'd like to tell you, but I'll save that for tomorrow and I'll do it by email. I've kept my mind occupied all day replying the incredibly kind messages I've received, but not a single email - and trust me, I have "heaps" of them sitting at my inbox! But, as a father, you'll understand that, until the problem is truly over, I won't be myself again... but I won't get ahead of myself. Your kind and warm wishes and thought are very dear and special to me. Have a great hug from this friend of yours, and talk to you tomorrow - and thank you, I can't say that too many times. Love, Phaedriel - 21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd Nasa talk page edits

Alan, could you look at this diff and this one? I'm not quite sure what the intention is here, but I certainly didn't write those comments. It's wierd, because they've copied some lines from my posts, but I certainly wouldn't have written the rest of it! I want to call it vandalism, but as I've got no other edits by this user to go on, I'm not quite sure, so I've not warned them yet. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Judging by this diff, and this one, I'm sure it's vandalism. Will warn for each incident. - BillCJ 03:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My solution: [1]. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! - BillCJ 04:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contingent Workforce Management Sandbox

Hello,

Please add any comments in the discussion page on the article I am creating.

User:TheBackpack/sandbox

Thanks, --TheBackpack 13:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, the draft is looking good. I've made some comments at User talk:TheBackpack/sandbox. Keep up the good work! AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have finished up some major editing on the rough draft, added the rest of the references which I will reformat accoring to the citation templates that you had linked. If you could retrieve just a brief definition from the PER and employer of record articles, so I may add them to the CWM article, that would be great. Please take a second look at the article, and add any other comments, and suggestions on how to intergrate the contingent workforce article into it. Also, how do I publish an article from my sandbox?

Thanks again,

--TheBackpack 15:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Just a quick note while I'm on break at work...will have to wait a few hours to have time to take a deeper look, but I just found this: Contingent Workforce Outsourcing, which has been proposed to be merged into Contingent Workforce; since it's already proposed, maybe it's an ideal time to combine all 3. I'll also get the other two articles at lunch or this afternoon for you. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great! Thanks for your help.

--TheBackpack 15:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atlanta vandal

Alan, could you look at these contributions? This editor has been adding junk to the Atlanta, Georgia page for the past few days. He has been wared a few times. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Never mind. Someone else has blocked him for the time being. - BillCJ 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep an eye out 48 hours from now...Also, if you haven't already, there's a vid in an email from you showing a first-hand view of brownouts. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I will. I got the e-mail, but haven't viewed it yet. Have to go grocery shopping now, so will look at it later this evening, if I don't forget. - BillCJ 19:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reed Business Information

Any thoughts on how I could clean up that page. If I removed all the external links there really isn't much of an article left. I would agree the company is notable, I just tagged it as spam because all that is in that page is essentially advertisments for its various websites. So in the context of the content I think it is spam, even if the subject is worth. Should I just delete the content except for the very top summary stuff and mark it as a stub? You should check out the individual mag pages as well as a template someone created with all the mag links in them. Its a huge link farm, i'm sure its bringing up their google cred. pw 19:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd trim out most of the links, get rid of the bolding, but a brief overview plus a list of the company's publications would be a good start. Given its size, I'm sure the company has attracted external media coverage, especially in business publications. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I just checked back...great job on the cleanup AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CXtec

Please take a look at the creating user's talk page before you remove my deletion tag. The page has been created and deleted multiple times and the user has been warned as well for doing so and still insists on creating it and related adverts to the same company. Regardless I don't see anything notable about the company, but the user is also trying to abuse the system. pw 20:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree. The spam CSD includes the statement that it "would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic". Yes, this article is a bit spammy, but it's got refs and an assertion of notability, so it could be argued to meet WP:CORP, and it wouldn't take that much work to clean it up and get rid of the parts that are a bit over-the-top. This has only been deleted once, for not asserting notability. It asserts it now (industry awards, etc, multiple refs). If you strongly disagree, that's fine, I'd just suggest sending it to AfD. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed width images issue again

Hi Alan, once again we have to battle fixed width images. Please look at this edit] in PZL MD-12 article. I've talked with User:Pibwl earlier on his talkpage (in Polish) and tried to explain him why we are not using fixed width images. I've sent him link to your long dispute with User:M Van Houten and explained that we will edit such images to thumbnails. It seems that this user is trying to force his own rules by uploading photos with senseless license "use with no less, than 250px width". I've moved this new photo into Aircraft infobox where it meets the "250px width" criteria and thumbnailed old photo into main text so our rules are preserved ;o) Unfortunately I'm afraid that uploading photos with such strange license can be continued and we have to think what to do with such images. I see only two options - leave it in main text against our own rules or remove from main text when it can't be placed into Aircraft infobox. What do you think about it? Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 08:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I guess one way to get his attention will be to delete the image, as you can't put such a restriction on the image on Wikipedia. I'll look into it. Was there any progress on the flag issue? AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is a free equivlanet, there is no reason to use a copyrighted image used with restrictions. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pibwl is doing a lot of good work with Poland related articles and I hope he will not leav use. I guess that he wanted to check how strict are our rules and it seems he got good answer. Guys, thanks a lot. As for flag issue I didn't wrote anywhere due to lack of spare time. I'll try to write sth more after my holidays - I need to rest far from my PC and Croatia seems to be good choice. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 17:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Maybe I'll just refrain from uploading my photos of aircraft in cases, when 180px is too small. I really hate photos, that look like stamps and you can't see anything without enlarging - especially, that aircraft are usually long and low. I believe, that my work on a photo sometimes deserves something better, than 180px, that is the reason of my behaviour. I also don't believe, that any of common Wikipedia readers (not editors) changes his thumbnails preferences - anyway, you have to be logged to do so?. I think, that derivative works are allowed, even on a given condition, but as you wish. I'll change the licence of questioned works. Pibwl ←« 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air France Flight 4590

You might be interested in Talk:Air France Flight 4590#Alternate crash theories. I've posted a note on the Accident TF talk page, but just wanted to make sure you caught it. WP:UNDUE and WP:RS seem pretty clear, but we might want to clarify how they apply to accidents/incidents, and set up a few guidles too. - BillCJ 17:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gulfstream G200

I finally got the Gulfstream G200 page up, though it text body still needs to be done. (I'm woking on that at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Gulfstream G200.) I took so long in getting the page up that the redirect from IAI Galaxy was deleted a month ago cause it went to a blank page! Anyway, I'm redoing my strategy on new articles, and trying to go ahead and put up the stubs, while still working on the text in the sandboxes. It would be nice to find an editor who loves to write copy, but doesn't have enough projects to do! I can handle the twaeking, so even someone who wasn't familar with aviation topics would do. Just need someone to rewrite sources into something we can use. Is there a request page for editor help on stuff like this? - BillCJ 00:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of a page for specifically that, but I was kinda thinking along the same lines, and realized that such work is a wonderful way of learning the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia, so I've put out a couple feelers to folks looking for adoption. One looks like a teen who's interested in aviation, so if he takes me up on it, that might be a possibilty right there. We'll see. Great job on the G200! Oh, did you see the incident info I put on Tanker 910? That happened right above town! I'm amazed that they elected to fly all the way back to VCV to make their emergency landing, when we had a 12K foot runway right there. Besides overflying us, there was EDW, too, so I'll bet the FAA is gonna have a thing or two to say. Anyway, some of the media wire stories for the tanker incident are also mentioning an injured firefighter who was airlifted...we've now done 2 flights related to the fire (the other one, a guy who was trying to evac his horses...was bit by one of them before the horse fell on him...poor dude!). I'm rambling now.... AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at your blurb - interesting indeed! Hmm, the adoption angle is interesting. I've seen a few new WP:AIR editors, myself included be "unofficially" adopted by other [project editors in that they've helped the new users, and answered question, and so forth. Piotr's a good example, and does a pretty good job now for the most part. His computer programming experience helps alot too. Maybe the Air or Aviation project could set up an adopt-a-user program within the project, as there are a nuumber of things unique to our project which take awhile to learn, even for users with some Wiki experience. - BillCJ 00:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IAI Astra

Alan, can you move User:BillCJ/Sandbox/IAI Astra to IAI Astra over a redirect? You can leave the sandbox there as redirect, as I'll be copying an earler version with a source dump back there to work on later. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Done! AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Many tanks, mon! - BillCJ 01:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PEO draft

I've uploaded what I have so far on the rewrite of Professional employer organization. It's located at User:BWatkins/peodraft. I'll continue to work on it as I have time. BWatkins 04:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow...looks great. Well written, well referenced. You might want to coordinate stuff with User:TheBackpack...see the conversation higher up on this talk page under the heading "Contingent Workforce Management Sandbox". You two are working on complementary projects, and the end result would be much enhanced by you to coordinating your work. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adoptee Seeks Help

What do I need to do so other aliases redirect to the bio I have worked on?

In order to be able to add the time and date after my signature, do I have to do this manually or is there some sort of shortcut? Thanks!

I hope you find this - this page is SO long :) Tanyawade

[edit] Boink!

Email alert! Belated one, in fact, as I wrote to you a few hours ago ;) Love you sweetie! Phaedriel - 16:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of LiquidHub entry

Hi, you deleted the LiquidHub entry as spam and as a copyvio (I assume that's a copyright violation). I don't believe it's either. Since it's the first thing I've added to Wikipedia, I'd like to understand what was in violation so I can add the entry back w/the necessary changes.

Thanks.

Ctwise 20:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Sorry your first contribution ran into difficulty. I hope it doesn't discourage you. The text, as far as I could see, was almost word for word (with the exception of "they" replacing "we" in the first paragraph) copied from the company's website. If you look right below the "save" button in the edit screen, in bold text, it says, "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." Virtually all corporate websites are copyrighted...as is LiquidHub's, therefore to place their text in Wikipedia is a copyright violation. That was the primary reason it was deleted.

The secondary reason was as spam. The lead paragraph, especially, was written in the tone of an advertising brochure for promoting the company, which is natural since it was taken directly from the company's website. We are not a place to promote companies. Corporate entries, as well as all entries, need to be written in a dry, academic, encyclopedic tone, since we are, first and last, an encyclopedia.

The third reason it was deleted, though I didn't include this in my edit summary, was that it did not assert any "notability". Now this term has a particular meaning on Wikipedia, in that it refers to a set of standards that must be met for a corporation to be deemed worthy of having an encyclopedia article. Those standards can be found at: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

I hope this helps. I'm curious, though...what's your connection to the company? If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to drop me a note. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:User:Darkeffekt

I'm in the mood for some vandal fightin' :). DarthGriz98 01:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)