User talk:Akradecki/archive/archive 3

	Archives
	1, 2

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! Akradecki 04:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art articles

Moved comments inadvertently inserted into other sections above to here Akradecki 18:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I very much apprecate your help. Please free to addit out what you think is wrong. Sincerely Yours, Marika Herskovic 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to follow your direction. Sincerely YOurs, Marika Herskovic 18:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Transition Initiative

Why are you reverting the links I am adding to this resource? Have you even looked at the site? [1]

What's your criteria for this action? I am trying to link relevant topics to this information, this should be helpful to all. Why are you removing my work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.81.2 (talk • contribs)

First, please post new comments at the bottom of a user page. Second, please sign your comments with four tildas (~). Third, I've stated my reasons in the edit summaries. Much of what you're adding is considered "linkspam". Please consult WP:RS and evaluate your links as sources. Much of what you're adding are not independent, verifiable references but rather POV essays that exist to promote a specific point of view. Wikipedia articles are not a place to promote your particular philosophy or world view. Additionally, some of the links are commercial in nature (ie, amazon.com), which are inappropriate. Akradecki 20:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Example: I added an external link in the Future Studies article to Great Transition Initiative-- a well respected scientific group that has published alternative scenarios of the global future (scenarios which have been picked up in UN assessments and elsewhere). I haven't linked to any Amazon.com, or any other "commercial" enterprises. Nor have I challenged the NPOV of any articles!! Your explanation not only makes no sense, it doesn't seem sincere. Please do not revert my work unless you have good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.81.2 (talk • contribs)

Again, please sign your comments. As to your reply, I strongly disagree. The site you have linked to has a clear agenda to present, and it doesn't appear that you are adding it to the article to support a particular statement or quote, but to promote that site's viewpoints in conjunction with the article. And I'm sorry, but a link that is "http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0151005575/103-8948210-4235827?v=glance&n=283155 Damasio: Looking for Spinoza" is clearly commercial. [2] Akradecki 21:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and from the pattern of your edits, it seems that you are sprinkling these references in many different articles, which is typical of someone from an organization who is trying to promote that organizations works and viewpoint, rather than trying to improve a particular article. If you are associated in any way with the Great Transition Initiative, that would make it especially inappropriate. Akradecki 21:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that link is not something i added -- what has created that confusion? I don't even know Damasio? Seems like you got your wires crossed. Also, if it is not spam then it is not inappropriate -- doesn't matter what organization I am from. The links I've added are under EXTERNAL LINKS -- you are supposed to refer people to valuable resources BEYOND wikipedia, such resources are often not NPOV. The links to the Great Transition Initiative are particularly relevant to the articles they were added to. What is your definition of Spam? Is the problem that I added a whole bunch of links at once? In which case, I should just do it one per day? sorry here's the signature 66.92.81.2 21:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that link is one that you didn't add, then that's an illustration of why you should not edit from an anon IP...you'll get blamed for others' errors. I put in the diff link to show you that the IP was the same as yours. I'd strongly suggest that you create your own username if you're going to continue to edit. By "spam", I mean what it is commonly used for here: the self promotion of one's website, product or point of view. A typical spamming technique is to visit a number of articles that are semi-related and drop the same references or external links there. And yes, it does matter what organization you're from, because WP has issues with "vantiy" posts. Also at issue is the independence of the links. The GTI website makes it abundantly clear that it is not presenting information from a neutral, independent point of view, but rather from an agenda. That makes it inappropriate. Akradecki 00:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming/Fish Tank Clan post

ok...this is an encyclopedia...so you cant post about gaming but you CAN post about all sorts of random shit and porn and stuff??? That is ridiculous...how about getting your priorities straight? Also, do you just go around and search for pages to have a problem with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saatana (talk • contribs)

Um, yes I do, actually. Well pages that have problems, that is. I do both New Page and Recent Change patrolling. See, some of us take building a reliable, academically citable encyclopedia seriously. I've spent hours writing well-referenced articles, and I also spend time helping sort out the entries that don't conform to our standards. You can certainly post about gaming - many people do - just make it encyclopedic. Your participation on the encyclopedia is invited, but at the same time, we ask that you educate yourself about how things need to be done. If you want to make a serious effort to do that, you'll find that I, along with many other editors, will bend over backwards to help and coach. Akradecki 02:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I never said that I didn't take this seriously. Also, give yourself a pat on the back for doing such a good job on writing articles and taking so much time to research them. Isn't the purpose of encyclopedias to teach people and enrich their knowledege base?? Because it was the last time I checked and thus, I posted about gaming and a group of gamers which informs the people about them and therefore, is encyclopedic. Feel free of course to argue if my definitions are wrong or something...not that you really need my permission because I know that you are going to do it anyway. Saatana 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just informing someone doesn't make it encyclopedic. What makes the article encyclopedic isn't necessarily its subject, but how it's written, how sources are cited, etcetera. Again, this isn't the wild, wild internet. Yes, everyone is invited to contribute, but we have a pretty well-thought-out set of policies and guidelines that are in place to ensure that all the articles are reputable. Akradecki 02:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How an article is written has nothing to do with it being encyclopedic. If you disagree then go lookup the definition. Also, its hard to cite sources when there really are none except for your own brain or the website of the people, which I put on the page. Everyone is invited to contribute, but only if they are conformist simple minded bastards? Thanks for helping my page get deleted again.

You're most welcome. Akradecki 13:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up and explanation about the clan page. I really should have checked those deletion logs lol. Good to see that the correct result was achieved, and quickly. Happy editing! Batmanand | Talk 13:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RMS_Queen_Mary

There still seems to be some argument on the talk page, so I'd rather not unprotect it. You could always use {{Edit protected}} (or just reply to me) to have stuff added to the page. -- Steel 21:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hey, that's extremely kind of you. I really appreciate the words of support, most kind. All the best, Gwernol 23:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you earned it, as far as I'm concerned! Akradecki 23:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-Prize

Hi, I see you you are an expert on topic so respect your decision and removed the entry. --Nevit 08:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't know if I'm an "expert", I just work a few hangars down from them. I always come to work wondering what wierd stuff they'll have out on the ramp today... Akradecki 14:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mallory Jones

The fact that the article needed cleanup didn't influence my decision to tag it for deletion. I did some short research and found very little about the subject, so I chose to request deletion. Since you've raised objections, I have submitted the article for AFD discussion to generate further consensus. Please feel free to participate if you have more info about the subject to add. Thank you --NMChico24 22:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem...that's the correct forum. FWIW, your google search seemed to use the wrong name. Akradecki 22:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True v USAA

I see that Carnildo has already appropriately handled the matter. – Ch acor 00:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : New Art Criticism

Doesn't look like anything to do with notability - As long as it is not original research, as long as it is verifiable, go ahead. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Sanctioned Vandalism by Administrators

Free content....manipulate the masses through suppression of ideas and truth and wisdom, which they as yet have failed to attain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.47.149.74 (talk • contribs) .

Ok, I've taken the liberty to "edit" the really long diatribe that was posted here by a now-blocked POV pusher. If you really want to read it, here's the historical record: [3] Akradecki 00:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MARKSMAN ENTERTAINMENT CORP

Before writing about your own company, you might want to read WP:VANITY. Wikipedia does not exist to provide you a place to promote your company. Akradecki 20:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC) [pasted from User talk:Bigjay10]

wow you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigjay10 (talk • contribs)

9th Street exhibition

I redirected the second article to the first, and closed the AFD as a Keep. That should wrap up this little mess. Thanks, NawlinWiki 15:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you aren't me, and you know that I aren't you, and we both have tried to help Maricka to no avail. Truth is she's beyond anybody's help, and I hope she doesn't do any more damage. I've been editing since June, and I don't appreciate her comments. Modernist 18:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whew...I thought I was developing a split personality there :P ... I guess I'm a bit saddened by this, as Maricka seemed to be learning, and willing to be helped. I thought the articles were definitely improving, and the AfD was a no-brainer. Oh well, such is life, eh? I'm going back to editing the UAV pages.... Akradecki 19:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Akradecki: Please cheer up! I would like to apologize to you. I discovered that Akradecki and Modernist are not the same and I was wrong. There were number of events that were mixing me up: 1. You requested the deletion of the "New Art Criticism" before it could be cleaned up. I was just starting wikipedia. You probably realized that I learn fast and I was able redo it with full reference which made it full proof. 2. The first statement of Modernist was "art rambling" and it irritated me. I was aware of the fact that you knew the format for wikipedia very well yet you knew your limitations as well. 3. The second comment of Modernist written to NawlinWiki was very disrespectful: "Her accusations are like her editing -- not accurate." As you know I was the editor of two major books. One of my books earned the title: "Outstanding Academic Title" by CHOICE, Academic Library Magazine, 2003.

I realized that you could not make this comment but it had to be an "art bully". I figured out that the "code" will bring me to the person. I was correct:Modernist was writing incredible number of articles about Ronnie Landfield and the period of the 1950s all the way to the present. Suddenly it became clear that Modernist must be Ronnie Landfield. I called him. He apologize to me about his disrespectful rumblings. He is a talented person who has problems about the proper recognition of his art.

I was very impressed about your analytical conclusion: "Whew...I thought I was developing a split personality there..." I had the same thought. I read about it but I have never experienced it in a person until this time. Now we know that you are OK and I was wrong.

I did learn from you editing in wikipedia and there is more to learn but this little episode was educational and yet difficult for me.

Sincerely Yours, Protector 18:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Kelly TM

I left a note on their talk page about the non-latin characters username restriction and how to change their username. Hopefully they do so voluntarily. Georgewilliamherbert 17:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives
1, 2