Jump to content

User talk:GlassCobra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.50.197.207 (talk) at 18:23, 7 June 2010 (→ze bieber fever). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User talk
Awards
Contributions
Edit count
Edit count
Logs
Logs
Subpages
Talk
(message) 		Awards Contributions Edit Count Logs Subpages
Skip to the bottom

SEVEN Networks

Trying to find out why this page was deleted? I see you noted A7: No explanation of the subject's significance, but I included a number of article references for SEVEN Networks?

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=SEVEN_Networks&action=edit&redlink=1

DJADave (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references included were either internal links from the company's website, or from various unimportant other websites. Wikipedia requires substantial coverage from independent, third-party sources in order to verify a subject's notability. GlassCobra 21:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our post contained references to a number of sources including publications such as CNET, Connected Planet (formerly Telephony) and Wireless Week. These are all very respected telecom industry publications. SEVEN Networks’ customers are primarily wireless operators, content providers, and device manufacturers so it is unlikely that publications such as the Wall Street Journal would cover this company at this point, but with more than seven million active accounts and growing, I believe these articles show the company's noteworthiness. DJADave (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with my deletion, please feel free to contest it at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks, GlassCobra 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request on User:Godfather of NBD

Godfather of NBD (talk · contribs), whom you blocked indefinitely, is requesting to be unblocked. I endorse the unblock request. I believe this is a rare case where an editor is adding himself into articles and has support for his inclusion, per the links in his unblock request. I've pointed him to WP:COI while we're waiting, to make sure he's aware of the guidelines for conflicts of interest.

Do you have any objections to the unblock, or are there any mitigating circumstances I should be made aware of? —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you receive written confirmation that he understands that he may not write an article about himself or otherwise violate the COI guidelines, I've got no problems with an unblock. GlassCobra 04:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22

New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan
Last: 03/21/2010
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution - prolife page

I have no idea how to do this and at the same time, if it is being disputed, shouldn't the person disputing it allow it to stand until his dispute is determined to be correct? At the same time, you didn't answer my questions about balance. Don't you believe there should be a topic on violence on pro-lifers while there is one for those who support abortion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.223.52 (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the disputed material is removed until a consensus is determined to include it, please see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which I've already linked you to. I have no particular interest in the topic itself, only to apply the rules on edit warring consistently. GlassCobra 15:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Therefore anyone with a beef on my topic, in this case Andrew, can dispute it and remove it. He states that my material is copyrighted which I have proven to be false. Therefore, it is being disputed because of a bias. Since you have no interest, I would then ask you to verify that my material is not copyrighted. Unfortunately, wikipedia has garnered a reputation of being very one-sided on many topics and abuses have been known to frequently occur, such as this one. I therefore ask you to verify that my material from www.abortionviolence.com is not copyrighted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.152.52 (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "beef" is an inappropriate way to characterize Wikipedia's consensus model. If contentious material (which, I assure you, nearly any material when discussing abortion is) is contested, it is removed from the article and discussed on the article's talk page until a consensus agreement is reached on whether or not the material ought to be included. Please take advantage of dispute resolution, including third opinion and requests for comment. GlassCobra 17:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explain the difference between MyLearning article and the JoomlaLMS arcticle

Hi there, I would like you to explain the reason you kept JoomlaLMS and not our article. Your automated system message only tells my why you deleted ours. I'd like to know how it was deleted when JoomlaLMS was kept.

Thanks,

Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatbigmassive (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see the note left on your talk page, and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Thanks, GlassCobra 19:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your saying to look at my Talk page... it's a system message that isn't answering the question I am asking you right now...

The question again is...

Why did my article get removed when it was using the same template as JoomlaLMS with our own relative company and product information in it. The reason for the article is to provide an additional resource under the Virtual Learning Environment article which lists Learning management systems. Our article is a relevant resource for that area.

So again, the question is... why did you remove my article when JoomlaLMS is the same layout with exactly the same intention and significance to the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatbigmassive (talk • contribs) 19:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the note on your talk page more carefully, as it details the need for reliable sources to be included with your proposed article to prove its notability. As for the other article, I point you again to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, which says that the existence of one article has no bearing on the existence of another. Your article needs to stand on its own merits. GlassCobra 19:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so first, thanks for bearing with me here, I appreciate it.

  1. 1 References - Granted, we need references (school testimonials, documentation etc?)
  1. 2 Merit - Isn't the fact that a company has existed and is developing products for the education sector for 5 years enough merit to deserve an article about it?

I would have happily just submitted the article in its own right but I just assumed the point of Wikipedia was to lead people on a learning path and that my article needs to be a part of a path in order to be found on the path of knowledge. So they either look for us directly on Wikipedia, or they come across us via our main market.

Example: Someone goes into google and types "Virtual Learning Environment". They hit Wikipedia.. ooo, Learning Management Systems, lets see what's out there.. Ooo, "Joomla", never heard of them before 'CLICK'... Ooo, "MyLearning", never heard of them before 'CLICK'. What possible difference is Joomla's article to MyLearning's article if both articles are about a company that just happens to be named in a list of Learning Management Systems and both do the same thing.

I hope you can appreciate my confusion there as I'm not a dumb chap, I'm just trying to understand your wave of thinking as I know you have to go a billion of these things a day and you must get really hacked off with people like me moaning :))

I will go away and get references and try to understand why Joomla's got accepted. I just hope there's nothing biased going on, that wouldn't be right. I'd have to write an article on the word 'biased' and get that rejected too!

:) All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatbigmassive (talk • contribs) 20:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you need reliable references from third-party sources not affiliated with the subject of the article, the guidelines are at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In terms of "merit" as you describe it, we need these sources in order to verify the importance (what we call "notability") of MyLearning, so that we can tell that it is, in fact, worth inclusion. As for Joomla, I've never heard of the company, nor have I seen their article on Wikipedia. That's all well and good if MyLearning does the same thing that they do, but again, MyLearning must prove that it passes the notability standard for inclusion; the existence of Joomla's article is completely irrelevant, as I've said.
As you appear to possibly have a connection to MyLearning, I'd also like to point you to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; it's strongly discouraged for people with paid interest to edit or create articles about those topics. GlassCobra 20:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karamu High School Maori motto

Hello, just wondering why you reverted my change to the school motto on the Karamu High School page, I added the Maori translation. Thank you.

Lightningboult (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Lightningboult[reply]

Deletion review for SEVEN Networks

An editor has asked for a deletion review of SEVEN Networks. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DJADave (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed at with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rats Of The Maze

Hi there,

just found your name on the deletion log for "Rats Of The Maze". As the creator of this article, I would be interested to know why this entry had been deleted, especially without asking me to possibly add the content that was deemed missing, if any.

Thank you in advance for shedding a light on the matter,

--Dorthonion (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?; the article had no reliable sources to verify its notability. Thanks, GlassCobra 15:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

ze bieber fever

Re [1], wouldn't it make more sense in the interest of the ongoing development of the article to simply issue immediate VOA bans for auto-confirmed users vandalizing the article? –xenotalk 15:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had fully protected it in response to this threat, the planned date of which has now passed. If you feel like VOA blocks are better, I'm cool with it. GlassCobra 23:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Especially if it's a coordinated attack like that, it just seems easier to go the VOA route, since those accounts will be new, have few edits, etc. so it shouldn't be too hard to spot. And their vandalism will be obvious. Gary King (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes a lot more sense now (as to the full protection). The lengths some people will go to! Cheers, –xenotalk 04:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bah. Looks like those groomed socks are still out there. Fully protected for another week. –xenotalk 18:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I will be editing that article anytime soon, but another week will probably not change much. His popularity isn't likely to wane over a week. Gary King (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the above-linked thread that incites users to create autoconfirmed accounts vandalize might die down. Maybe?... I'd hate for this to have to remain fully-protected forever just because he's the heartthrob-of-the-week... –xenotalk 16:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those autoconfirmed accounts will remain autoconfirmed even after the article's protection is lifted, so they can be used any time in the future, anyway. Plus, it's our own fault as Canadians for releasing him into the wild in the first place. Gary King (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a way to block all the Anti-Bieber vandals instead of restricting everyone else from editing it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.197.207 (talk • contribs)
Yeah but it would also require that you register an account so you can edit the article when it drops to semi protection. Gary King (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The end of July seems a bit too long. I think the vandals have got the message -FutureMrsBieber

Help

... well, nothing too important, but take a look at my latest posting here, basically I need someone with more Massachusetts experience than I have to take a quick look... You don't have to do anything if you don't want, but I just wanted a few more eyes on it. AlexiusHoratius 13:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GlassCobra&oldid=366612269"