User talk:Igoldste

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Regional Information Center

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.

Here are some problematic parts out of these articles:

  • "...offer a variety of affordable high quality instructional and administrative services..."
  • "...help districts remain on the cutting edge of technology in education..."
  • "...staffed by experienced professionals..."
  • "...well-versed in and able to support a variety of technology platforms..."

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.) If such material does indeed exist, you are certainly welcome to write such an article. However, please remember to maintain a neutral tone, and not to put in your own experience, original synthesis, or opinion.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me! Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you did ask earlier regarding the difference between those. I apologize for not responding, I must have missed that among other messages. To answer the question , the Orange County Transportation article isn't in the best of shape, and very well could use some trivia and cruft cleanup. I've tagged it such and will try to do some work later today. That being said, however, the article does not editorialize or attempt to promote the agency (and even if it did, it would be likely the article could be reverted to an earlier version which did not). Also, the transportation article includes sections on problems and challenges, such as a contentious labor issue—not the type of thing one would expect to see in an ad article.
If you would like to rewrite the other article using more neutral language and reliable source material, that would likely be fine. However, if an article is promotional, and there is no neutral version to revert to, it is deleted. You would probably do better to work on a new article on that subject, if you believe there's one to be written. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of school districts in New York

Thanks for your comment. I have responded to your question on my talk page. That way, our discussion is all in one place. Truthanado 18:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion request

Hi there! I see you posted a request at 3o for a third opinion at Talk:WCDB. It seems you were requesting an opinion about the tone of the anonymous user's comment about your grammar usage. While I agree that the user's comment was un-CIVIL and possibly close to NPA (and I left a message on the anon's talk page saying so), 3o isn't intended for that kind of judgment call. 3o is more intended for informal outside opinions on an ongoing dispute, typically a content dispute, between exactly two other editors. Your "complaint" may have been better served by going to WQA or even just talking to the editor directly -- there's nothing that says you can't post to their talk page saying you were offended by their comment and you'd appreciate them moderating their tone in the future. Just a heads up, as many of the other 3o volunteers would have removed your request without responding at the talk page and posted here to direct you elsewhere. --Darkwind (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SUNY Albany fight song and alma mater

The cutoff date for the public domain for all works is currently 1923. "75 years old" would put that at about 1932, so it doesn't qualify, unless it demonstrably meets the "75 years after the death of the author rule" in force at that time (that may be what you're thinking; and it might even be 90 years if current copyright law applies). (How did SUNY Albany get a fight song and alma mater that predate the school's creation? Perhaps I should read the article).

Even if it were public domain, we routinely remove such material per WP:NOT#INFO (see number 3 there; you will find that especially relevant to the instant case). Per WP:NPS they belong at wikisource (again, only if they're free), not here. A paragraph discussing the songs and their history, perhaps quoting a brief, memorable excerpt, would be more encyclopedic.

I leave it to you to revert your reversion. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to demonstrate that it was written in 1916? Of course, it still belongs on wikisource if so. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the Brown link (and, more to the point, "Far Above Cayuga's Waters"), maybe we could get away with it. We'd just need some sourced history.

Actually, that article's getting long enough that we ought to consider aplitting it up. Daniel Case (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the revert on my user page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Always appreciated, Gwernol 03:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Anytime--Igoldste (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Fried chicken: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Jauerback (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm running into problems with the software that I am using when I try to do both a roll back and a warn at the same time (if the roll back fails due to someone else doing it first, the software still puts up a duplicated warning, one from the successful roll back, and one from me). Any suggestions as to software that works well for you? Igoldste (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm using a hybrid of Twinkle, popups, and Lupin. I got the code from Oxymoron83 who got it from DerHexer. For the most part, I really like it. It's not perfect, but overall it works very well. Jauerback (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am responding to your edit of California State Route 41. I am kinda new to editing here but have been a loyal reader for many years. I have lived in Fresno for 25 years and am interested in making sure the data and information about my city is correct. I am wondering why my edit was reverted? Any help you can give me is appreciated. My user name is cadking3. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadking3 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Igoldste. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. βcommand 13:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning vandals....

Hey, as always, thanks for your help fighting vandalism. Just a note that on repeated vandalism cases (such as what you and I have recently been reverting in censorship, you have to bump up the level of the warning and then request intervention. You gave several level 3 warnings, even after I left a level 4 warning. At that point, it should just be reported, not warned again (which takes the weight out of the warnings) Again, thanks for your efforts! --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm responding to the note you left on my talk page in which you said:

Hi. Thanks for the head's up. Knowing the protocol is important. After the Level 4 warning, besides being reported, should I have continued the reverts, or waited until the block was in place to do all of the revets at once? If you see me out of step with the normal procedures on anything else, please don't hesitate to clue me in. Thanks again. Igoldste (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by all means continue reverting the vandalism until the user is blocked (they can be quite active in the interim so it's good to stay on top of it) but once they've been Final Warned and an admin intervention request has been submitted it's not necessary to warn again (in fact it's better not to). Also, in cases of repeated blatant vandalism (page blanking, racist obscenities, etc.) it's okay to skip a level when warning (such as going from level 1 to 3) but there always has to be a recent level 4 warning in place before reporting it. As always, thanks for your help! --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You'd better look again

I added a better image from Wiki-Commons to the List of Gibson players which... for some oddball reason... you identified as vandalism???? Did you actually look at the edit? I rightfully removed your warning message from my talk page... and then you turned around and put it back??? Thats the second blunder you've tagged on me in the last few days (You erroneously thought that WP:LC cleaning was vandalism) If you suffer from "anti-anon" bias then you;d better find another hobby :D . I used to have a user account and had over 20000 edits with it before I rejected it for the "purity" of anonymous editing. Wikipedia was built on the strength of IP editors. Usernames and accounts are useless unless you have ambitions to be an admin. I turned down over a dozen admin nominations prior to joining the ranks of the noble anons. Please check all your edits carefully before issuing any warnings. Misuse of "the tools" does not sit well with the Wiki-community. If you need help don't hesitate to ask. I have lots of admin friends who can help you. 156.34.214.181 (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts?

Why are you making reverts to an image change at List of Gibson players? If you use an automated tool to revert you need to make sure what you are reverting is actually vandalism (which this isn't). --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 23:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I made a mistake. Apologized on the user's talk page; retracted the block request, and attempted to undo my revert, but found that it had already been done. Igoldste (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You should probably IP ban my address from editing...

...because it's my school's new one. We just changed ISPs. Either that or brace for vandalism. 67.94.41.61 (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] [1]

Rather not acceptable ;). You can undo *only* articles (mainspace of Wikipedia) Greets 83.9.255.223 (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. "As a matter of practice user talk pages are generally not deleted" --Igoldste (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Page Linked

Oh, I am sorry about that, the correct page was Niskayuna High School, not Mohonasen High School as I had linked. I've deleted my comment. Thank you for noticing, and sorry again. Nick Garvey (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)