User talk:Renesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Renesis is editing at a less-than-normal pace. This may not amount to a wiki-vacation, but lower contribution levels than normal will be observed.

Talk

Archives
October 7, 2005 - November 20, 2006 November 21, 2006 - December 21, 2006 December 22, 2006 - March 1, 2007

[edit] Edits on the page listing project mgmt software

Any particular reason that you decided to remove my edits from the page on project management software. Specifically I had added "Primavera Systems" to the list of proprietory software available in the domain of project management software.

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 14:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:JIMBOSAID

Greetings Renesis, judging by your MfD comments I suspect you may have not had an opportunity to read the "Jimbo said" essay. If you haven't done so already you might want to review that essay. Cheers. (→Netscott) 17:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully I've cleared up what I meant at the MFD. -- Renesis (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perth Meetup

Hi, I noticed your response at Jimbo's talk page even if that meetup doesnt occur we can still organise a meetup here then anyway. Drop me a note if your interested, or join our discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/Perth you'll be more than welcome and we can also help you with anything you would like to see/do while your here. Gnan garra 00:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:UW future?

Hi, Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as active at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace template issue. As you are or have been active on this project we feel you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

You may have a point that insulting revert summaries could incite more vandalism. But frankly, I doubt it. And I also don't see any particular reason to be civil to folks who are obviously trying to vandalize WP. (These examples are not simple mistakes by overeager newbies. They are clearly intentional vandalism.) Nonetheless, I'll try to watch it in the future. Phiwum 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of countries by population in 1907

You posted (a long time ago) on this page about it not being sorted by population. Well, I created a table that is hopefully complete and sorted. Before I add in the rankings, I was hoping you could give it a brief look and see if I missed a country or if a country/territory doesn't belong. I don't really know what to do with Indonesia and Malaysia, there's no definite data for those two. Appreciate it. Mahanga^Talk 01:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simply

Glad to see you're back. ^Khukri 06:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XL-EasyGantt

I have removed the {{db-bio}} tag you placed on page XL-EasyGantt. It isn't a biography, and appears to contain useful content. I've added an advert tag, so it might improve.--Rossheth | Talk 18:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Renesis, did you asked for the speedy deletion of XL-EasyGantt? What is the reason for doing so? The content was about an application, how do you view it as different from the other applications listed on the List of project management software page?

Renesis, I appreciate your reply. I would further appreciate even more if you could help explain why are [KPlato], [ManageXPS], and [OmniPlan] notable when there are nothing much in the content that suggest that they are and I could not see how different are them from the rest of the gantt tools. Why are they not deleted speedily?

Excel based Gantt charts form a class of its own comparing to other standalone or web based pm tools because it provides the project managers and adhoc pms a good way to create gantt charts and distributing them to other team members and escpecially the senior executives who may not want to install additional applications on their workstations just to view and reponse to the project plans. It is notable because this is not what other scheduling tools can do easily. Most require the plans to be exported and/or require a viewer or need the application iteself to be installed. By using the popular apps like MS Excel, Excel based gantt tools help to bring project management practices of using Gantt Charts to the masses.

It took us a long time to find something really works in Excel untill XL-EasyGantt. I am a user of this tool. Like many other PMs, I find that it is useful because though there are methods available in pieces here and there on the web teaching some ways of manually creating the gantt charts in MS Excel and some commercial tools that do not work as well, this tool somewhat pieces all things together very conveniently. Thus it is quoted in the list as a reference. Of course if other users have other Excel based gantt tools that are notable we would welcome them to list them in the Excel Gantt Tool section too wouldn't we?

Further, if we want to maintain a listing of software in wiki, then perhaps, that article should have a guideline section, stating, what is the selection criteria for certain software to be listed. Why some software are listed and some are not listed and who made the decision. I believe this will avoid others from thinking that there could be some prejudice in the way the list is being maintained.

Thank you. Vikerbandt.

[edit] Tagging programs with {{db-bio}}

Hi Renesis. WP:CSD#A7 is for articles about "a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website". Computer software does not fall under this. Neil ╦ 08:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I came by to say exactly the same thing. Please read the tags before you add them. - Banyan Tree 08:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It absolutely does. Are you telling me that a simple bio article that doesn't establish notability needs to go through AFD just because the writer made it about their "software" instead of their company? I think you need to reread the WP:CSD guidelines. "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content" are the exact words, and these software products absolutely are about their companies, and often web content too. -- Renesis (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You're extrapolating - "It says A & B, so clearly it must also mean C". "About" is not "is". Given how fiercely the exact wording of the current criteria was fought over, if there was consensus on "Unremarkable people, groups, companies, web content and software" then that is what the criterion would say. Admins have been hauled before ArbCom for using the bit to accomplish what the rules 'should' say. You need a proposal to modify policy. As for your argument that you carefully read the article and then nominated it under an invalid criterion, but that there is another valid criterion that the evaluating admin should have deleted under anyway, I really don't have much to say besides that, in the case of old articles where the evaluator has to ask why the article was never challenged before, the CSD evaluation may include if the nominator shows a solid grasp of policy and their judgment relied upon. I won't even ask why you didn't delete the articles yourself. - Banyan Tree 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] danah boyd

Hi, I noticed that you recently reverted a move of Danah Boyd to "Danah boyd", which would be the most factually-correct title Wikipedia is technically able to provide for that article. While I don't know danah, I have made use of her research and commentary and so it annoys me that the article on her is incorrect. I'd like to propose once again that the article be moved, and so I'm looking for opinions from those who've opposed or reverted such moves in the past.

I've read through previous debates about the article, and the rationale which has consistently been applied is threefold:

Some mainstream media sources list her name as "Danah Boyd".
WP:NAME indicates that proper names should be capitalized.
Users searching for a proper name will be likely to capitalize it, and would be confused if such a search returned no result.

But there are problems with this:

First and foremost, "Danah Boyd" is inaccurate; she indicates that she has legally changed her name to "danah boyd", and searching publicly-available records should easily back this up and make it a simple case of verification. There is no online access I could find to perform a search for California name-change records, so no hyperlink to that is available for citing in the article, but the University of California does publicly identify her on her departmental web page as "danah boyd". Additionally, publications from respected academic sources -- papers by danah and papers by others which cite danah -- include the name "danah boyd", not the name "Danah Boyd". For purposes of WP:V, this should trump apparent typographic mistakes in mainstream media sources (in previous debates, it's been mentioned that mainstream news has occasionally identified her as "Dana" -- without the final "h" -- and that Wikipedia has already chosen to ignore such references on the grounds that they are verifiably typos).
WP:BLP indicates that the highest priority is to "get the article right", and the current article verifiably does not do so. Worse, it propagates inaccurate information against the known, published beliefs of the subject regarding her own identity; this violates BLP. This also seems to be a case where BLP's guidelines for using the subject of the article as a source apply and provide another strong argument in favor of "danah boyd", because there is no reasonable doubt that she is the one claiming her name is lower-case and this information is not "unduly self-serving".
Search issues can easily be mitigated by providing a redirect from "Danah Boyd" to a more correctly-titled article.
The explanatory text of WP:IAR indicates that it should be applied when other rules get in the way of improving Wikipedia. Providing factual information about a living person while respecting that person's beliefs is pretty much undeniably an improvement of Wikipedia, so IAR should trump everything, including naming conventions.

If I'm misunderstanding something, please let me know, but as I see it there's no reason why Danah Boyd should not be moved to "Danah boyd", with a redirect for search purposes, and with a note on the final location of the article indicating that Wikipedia's technical limitations prevent the title from being presented in the proper case. And I see several reasons why the title should be presented as closely to the correct lower-case version as possible. Do you know of any other objections I've missed in the above reasoning? Ubernostrum 01:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, we do have a template to indicate idiosyncratic capitalization, as well as a mention in the Manual of Style. k.d. lang. catherine yronwode. e.e. cummings. I have restored the move. DS 02:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Republicofwiki

Thank you for unblocking the user. Vassyana 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Danah Boyd, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --El on ka 23:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the mediator misunderstood your initial statement, you might want to point that out to her. - Cyrus XIII 09:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Danah Boyd.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

^{This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.}

This message delivered: 12:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Vertabase Pro

I'd nominate this for afd, but I'm not sure how in this instance, since it's the second nomination. Would the {{afd}} still work? -WarthogDemon 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Yeah, I do have a problem overlooking simple things like that. Thanks for the help, and if I may also say, thanks for the accidental template edit. I've been worrying about some real-life things today, and for some reason seeing the prod and templates on my talk page made me laugh and lifted my spirits. :) -WarthogDemon 23:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remount a non-commercial piece on the good that this company does and its ideas. Is this possible?-Chm2008 12:42, 12 February 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.108.111 (talk)

[edit] MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Messageboxes

I've nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Messageboxes, a page you created, for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Messageboxes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Messageboxes during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SLSB talk ER 16:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, I userfied the above page per your request, to User:Renesis/WikiProject Messageboxes. --kingboyk 11:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --El on ka 06:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania 2008

Hey! I'm contacting all the members of wikiproject Perth because, I have put in an incomplete bid for Perth to hold Wikimania 2008. Please show your support by adding your name to the list and help contribute by improving our bid which is incomplete and located here - thanks Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 18:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The RX-7 Club Knows About j00!

I guess the RX-8 Club does, too, since I'm member there (but not an owner.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.30.130 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you very much for your support at my RfA. Regards, Jogers (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of project management software

Re:[1]. I agree, looks much better.cheers --Hu12 (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AtTask

I'll reply on my talk page. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eagle Mountain, Utah

Renesis, thank you for being so valiant in your standards of editing. Unfortunately, you have blocked mark58 as a contributor...mark58 is following the former mayor, Brian Olsen's story with much interest. Factual citations are what I'm after. Yet, According to the paragraph alledging Olsen was under iunvestigation in the UHP alluding to something with charges is not correct. The accompanying citation (10) has nothing to do with the statement and is therefore not a source. Just because a citation is listed , you automatically consider it legite? Please review the citation and see that someone else should be blocked for failing to cite a legitimate source. Thank You ....mark58

I have fixed the citation and replied to you at Talk:Eagle Mountain, Utah. -- Renesis (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive box

Oh, sorry. It does not affect most of the pages, and i figured that the user could always undo it if they did not agree. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I that specific example, nothing was changed. box-width=auto does nothing. I do actually look to see what it looks like before I change it, and I attempt to emulate that as closely as possible. The majority of the changes actually make the box bigger, and so there is just more space, nothing cut off. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I never realized that. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TriPod the band

Sure, I'm always happy to explain an admin decision. First of all, there are third party references listed in the references section of the article (the two books). Second, according to criterion 4 of WP:BAND, a band is notable if it has gone on an international concert tour, which the article says Tripod has. Third, it's arguable that Moonjune Records (the band's label) meets criterion 5 of WP:BAND.
I hope this addresses your concerns. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tracker (business software)

I noticed that you substantially edited the Tracker (business software) page. This article was already reviewed by admins and approved for inclusion in Wikipedia. It did not contain any promotional language or advertorial claims. The section you removed including a screenshot from each software package, and a list of the included modules. I disagree that this section constituted blatant advertising, as the screenshots illustrated the different user interfaces, and the list of modules (not features) demonstrated the differences between the packages.
However, I can understand how the article may have appeared like a product sheet. In order to minimize controversy, I have restored the screenshots, and abbreviated the package description. If you still disagree with the content, then lets have a conversation on the article's discussion page.
You also removed links to the article from List of project management software. Again, I can understand how this may have appeared to be advertising. However, the three products described in Tracker (business software) are very different. TrackerSuite.Net is a Web based application, and should be listed as such. Tracker Suite and TrackerOffice are both desktop applications, but TrackerOffice does not include functions for issue tracking or resource management. Do you have a suggestion for how else these different products might be listed in that article? Regards, KarsKormak (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'd like to clarify my point, I disagree that a component list of a software package constitutes advertising for that software, any more than a recipe for a cake constitutes advertising for that cake. If it were a list of product features, that would be a different animal entirely. However, we seem to have reached an accord with the current state of the page, and I am satisfied with it. As for the List of project management software, would you object to my lumping Tracker Suite and TrackerOffice as a single link entry in Desktop Applications, and TrackerSuite.Net on its own under Web based Applications? Regards, KarsKormak (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Then there appears to be some confusion here. You state that you would not object to a list of components, which is what you removed from the page. The Tracker packages are modular application suites. That is, the client organization could deploy the entire suite of modules, or simply the modules for Time Reporting, Project Management and Personnel Management. The lists you removed were not the features of single application, but the applications within each Tracker product, in the same way Microsoft Office includes Word, Excel, Outlook and Powerpoint applications (which are listed in the Microsoft Office article).

In regards to our listing on List of project management software, your analogy to Microsoft Project / Microsoft Project Server is inaccurate. Microsoft Project Server is not a project management application in itself, it serves to extend Microsoft Project (which is listed on the LoPMS page, appropriately) by providing report storage and Internet capabilities. It does not provide actual project management tools and functions (task management, scheduling, WBS). Again, I understand and agree that multiple links to the same page should be avoided, and if the List of project management software page were structured differently (Perhaps as a grid?) this wouldn't be an issue. However, as it categorizes products by platfrom (proprietary desktop, proprietary Web based), there doesn't seem to be another way to accurately place the links. Regards, KarsKormak (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Oldpeerreviews/doc

A tag has been placed on Template:Oldpeerreviews/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)