Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 31 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Hello, Elahrairah. You have new messages at Beeswaxcandle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Elahrairah. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Basalisk,

You recently deleted a page I created - Grey Technology (Gtech) - citing A7 (no indication of importance). May I ask if you read through the talk page of the article before deleting? I had made numerous edits that others had flagged as 'promotional', which involved taking out a lot of information related to the company's importance - such as: 22million+ sales for its debut product; availability of products in the UK and US; product reviews in high-circulation newspapers; media coverage for Gtech and its founder Nick Grey.

I believe this company is important enough to warrant inclusion, and I would be grateful if you could provide me with some pointers in regards to information I can include that is considered to display importance, without being promotional.

Thanks and kind regards,

--Opyper (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Though the article had previously been deleted per G11 as advertising, I deleted it as A7 as it made no assertion of importance. The company isn't notable enough for an article and so I can't see how changing the style to make it less promotional would make any difference. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia notability guidelines put a lot of weight on coverage from third party sources. I have citations from the Sunday Times, the Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail and The Good Housekeeping Institute. These cover product sales (including the 22m+ sales of the SW01 floor sweeper, as mentioned above), interest in company founder Nick Grey's work as an entrepreneur and inventor, and product reviews. Surely these are evidence of notability? Or do the personal opinions of editors play a large part in weighing up an articles notability? Regards, Opyper (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, personal opinion doesn't have any bearing on notability. The Sunday Times article you supplied isn't about the business, it's about its owner. The Telegraph source is good but you need several good sources to confer notability. Are you in any way associated with this company or its employees? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Basalisk - no connection to the company other than appreciating their products, and coming from roughly the same part of the world. The Sunday Times article is indeed about Nick Grey but it covers Gtech-related stuff too - the whole article swings upon the success of his company. I have two Telegraph sources - one covering the problems with bringing UK manufacturing operations to the UK, and the other covering Gtech's flagship product. I also have product reviews from the Sunday Times, and the Daily Mail, and a press release proving Gtech is endorsed by the Good Housekeeping institution. Naturally, many of these will focus on products, but due to the nature of Gtech's business, that's to be expected. What I was getting at in my first post is that I believe these sources prove that Gtech is worthy of a Wikipedia article, but I was told to remove them as they were seen as being promotional - do you believe I should reinstate this information? Opyper (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More... Gtech wins trade award in US (Worcester News); more product coverage from the Daily Mail, Daily Express and Which?; Gtech endorsement information from Good Housekeeping itself; more Nick Grey/Gtech coverage from Telegraph and Sunday Times...Opyper (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, you can re-make the article with those sources, but avoid a promotional tone. You can include a sentence or something for their products, but don't spend too much time talking about how good they are or awards they've received. The article you write shouldn't sound like it's trying to make the company look good or improve perception of their products. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do. Thanks very much for your advice. Opyper (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for leaving comments at my RfA. This is just a friendly notice that I have replied to them. Regardless of your vote, and your decision to continue this conversation or not, I appreciate you taking your time to vote in the the first place. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you saw or not, but DQ answered you on my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you tagged three of my IPs as "abusing multiple accounts"? Of my two accounts, the second was blocked for violating the clean start policy, and the first was never blocked. As far as I know, under these circumstances I would still be allowed to use my original account or post anonymously. --213.179.213.19 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,this page is not a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject, It is just a tool for users to learn more about it and Blu-ray player software, just like Microsoft Office. I would appreciate any tips on rewriting it. User talk: Bella.show May 14 2013. —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a cookie. Rd232 talk 20:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was recently wondering if there was a "Have a cookie" barnstar. Close enough. I'm nabbing the source code. :  } Thanks, Basalisk. --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should look at your recent spamublock of User:Kwnyc who has been renamed to User:JDWilliams through CHU. Your block of the prior name was done at the same time of the rename so it spilled over to the new name which is not a username violation. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I was about to look into it further but got called away from the keyboard. I've unblocked the renamed account. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but why did you revert my change? The change was factually correct, zinedine zidane is not french, he's a french national, but ethnically algerian. My edit was factually correct, therefore you should not have reverted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.208.167 (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all I disagree with you. He was born in France, and held French nationality his whole life. He never lived in Algeria, and as far as I'm aware never held Algerian citizenship, so to call him Algerian is obvious not accurate. But that aside, even if you are right about him "being Algerian", you still need to provide reliable sources to verify this (you'll note that there are already 3 references supporting the claim that he is French). I understand you may feel strongly about this, but Wikipedia is not the place to write stuff that you "know is true" (see WP:OR. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is a Berber. His name is zinedine zidane. He doesn't look french or european and his His father is an ethnic algerian, and so is he himself. I can't source his family tree. According to himself in this article, he references to himself as Algerian Berber. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2004/apr/04/sport.features, to quote him: "Despite pressure from lobby groups, Zidane has never commented on the war in public or on his Berber origins; but he is clearly pleased that this identity should not be overlooked in the English-speaking press. 'My family are very proud of me, but I am very proud of them and where they come from. I am proud that they come from Kabylie. It is a special place and my roots there are important to me. We used to go all the time to my father's home village when we were young. But now, it's like Marseille and La Castellane: even though I want to go back it is difficult for so many reasons.'

The Zidane family legend is that when Zinedine's father, Smaïl, left the family village of Taguemoune in the remote hills of Algeria, he came first to Paris and, like many of his compatriots, headed for the tough northern districts of Barbès and Saint-Denis"

What more source do you need? Nationality as an identity is about as useful as toilet paper flushing down a toilet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.208.167 (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have no real argument for calling him french. He's as french as you'd be mozambiquan, if you acquired a mozambiquan nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.208.167 (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing having Algerian heritage with actually being Algerian. And yes, if I had Mozambiquan nationality, I would be Mozambiquan. What you're saying is like saying I'm Tanzanian because somewhere along the line some of my ancestors came from there (which is true of everyone, as that's where humans originated). Even if all of this were not so, you're still just talking about what you think you know, which is original research. The point of Wikipedia is not to report "The Truth" according to your own knowledge, but instead to report what reliable sources say. There are already three such sources in the article which claim he's French. I'm not saying that he does not have Algerian heritage or that he isn't proud of said heritage, but by the definition of the word he is not Algerian. He was born in France. He has always lived in France. He is and always has been a citizen of France and nowhere else. He is French. That's what the article reports. If you want to change that, you're going to have to establish consensus on the talk page of the article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which definition are you refering to? So people become a different ethnicity by acquiring citizenship, by what logic? The source i put up above is reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.208.167 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides you being obviously partial towards the civic definition of identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.208.167 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By any commonly used definition. Look it up in a dictionary. We're not talking about someone "acquiring" a new nationality. He was born French. He has never held any other citizenship. The source you provided is indeed reliable, but even that doesn't claim he's Algerian - it just says he's proud that his family come Algeria, which I don't deny. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's false, that is a civic definition of identity. That's something you don't mention. Because you obviously haven't done your homework. I'll refer you to the word http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civic and http://books.google.se/books?id=tTc8Pt8mX6wC&pg=PA27&dq=Civic+national+identity&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=TZOaUb_kL6fd4QTPwIGwDA&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Civic%20national%20identity&f=false, you have no way of defending your argument without conceding to the fact that you're using a civic definition of identity, which isn't universal, just civic 176.10.208.167 (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try typing "Algerian" into that dictionary site. You'll see it's "of or pertaining to Algeria or its inhabitants" (fails, since he's not Algeria or and inhabitant of Algeria) and "a native or inhabitant of Algeria" (fails, since he is neither). It's a far stretch to call him Algerian and not at all a far stretch to call him French. I have nothing more to say here. If you want to change the article you're going to have to gain consensus via discussion on the talk page. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You gravely misrepresented the definition in merriam webster, Here is what it says, quote "Algerian [ælˈdʒɪərɪən] adj (Placename) of or relating to Algeria or its inhabitants n (Social Science / Peoples) a native or inhabitant of Algeria"

Stop distorting information, he's a native by blood, nativity doesn't change by living or being born in another country. 176.10.208.167 (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user MarkMysoe is still socking and evading block by making disruptive edits in Kevin-Prince Boateng (not only there). He is doing the same thing as before, adding content not covered by sources or partially covered. For example in April he added unreferenced number of assists to statistic table[1], I removed them as no reliable source was given (they shouldn't be included per consensus at WikiProject Football anyway[2]), but he quickly reinstetad them with a link to non-reliable, user edited website transfermarkt[3], but a point is that number of assists on transfermarkt for most seasons was totally different than numbers he added to carrer statistics table. This is a classic example of his disruptive edits, adding a source that doesn't support the content in the article.

I also checked his earlier edit[4] and the same thing here. He added two awards for him in honours and named them "Premio Gentleman: 2013 (Special Prize Gentleman of the Year Gold Cup)" and "Premio Gentleman: 2013 (San Siro Gentleman Award Serie A)". I checked the source and it says that Boateng was only awarded by the 'Gentleman against racism'. I'm so sick of this user disruptive editng and got no time to check the rest of his contributions in Kevin-Prince Boateng, but per summaries all IPs started with 31.127.x.x, 31.126.x.x and 178.99-111.x.x should be his. I think that article should be semi protected to prevent socking at least from IPs.--Oleola (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that this is him, but I can't do anything about it as I'm far too WP:INVOLVED. What I suggest you do is take all this evidence and start an SPI report. Make requests for page protection as needed. Revert the changes that are unsourced. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know why Felix Kjellberg was deleted. I mean, he is one of the most subscribed channels on YouTube, and I don't see Smosh or the Fine Brothers deleted, hes probably considered more popular then The Fine Bros because he has more subscribers. Would a PewDiePie page be possible to have created? I just want to check with you and see if you've changed your mind considering his rise in popularity. ☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh) (Updates)}

01:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Wikipedia has its own set of rules governing what we should write articles about. Subjects have to be notable to warrant their own articles, and this is governed by the reliable sources that cover the subject in detail. Having "lots of YouTube subscribers" does not make a subject notable - this is an encyclopaedia, not a chronicle of internet fads. All of this information is linked in the big red edit notice you will have been confronted with when you hit "edit" on this page.

I haven't looked at those other pages you've linked too, but even if they're not appropriate, their existence is not a good reason to include yet more inappropriate content.

PewDiePie has previously been created, but was deleted for the reasons I've outlined here. He's just a guy who has uploaded some videos to YouTube - he has not had any lasting impact. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really should look at those pages, it affects the topic a lot. He is also considered a celebrity. ☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh) (Updates)}

01:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. This user is back at re-adding images that he was asked not to by several editors. Can you please take a look? Thanks, — Abhishek  ^Talk 16:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I want to say is that you're not doing yourself any favours by edit warring yourself - which you are to a mild extent. I have blocked him for one month because of his past history of edit warring and sockpuppetry, as well as the personal attacks aimed at you in his edit summaries, but I also have to warn you not to edit war. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I have edit-warred over it. But this guy just drives me nuts completely. I guess the best thing to do is stay from interacting with him. — Abhishek  ^Talk 16:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that, I've certainly been sat in your shoes fuming at another editor. But as you said, the best way to deal with it is either to discuss it rationally or walk away. It makes it harder for people to defend your corner if you start making mistakes yourself. Let me know if there are further problems. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've already agreed on the zinedine zidane page that it should be more neutral, that was a compromise. Why are you doing this bullcrap and undoing edits? 176.10.208.167 (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your eurocentricism is intolerable. We had a 2 day long debate and members agreed to keep the matter neutral, just because you're not convinced, doesn't mean that you have the right intervene and do you please. 176.10.208.167 (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]