User talk:jonny-mt

Here because I deleted your article? Read through this first to find why.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

[edit] Now even more confused.

Jonny

I am in discussion with nancy on the page you have deleted. We re-submitted for her to look at as the original edit appeared to have disappeared. I feel our content was much more relevant than an existing listing which I used partly as a guideline to get things right - Loomia - can you explain what the difference is?

Thanks

Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmob66 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm literally about to step out, so I'll be brief--take a look through User:jonny-mt/CSD, and please note that sentences like "Their software makes websites more efficient by adding machine intelligence, and helps visitors find or do what they want more quickly by dispaying highly relevant and targetted content to them." are the kind of things I look for when deleting articles written as advertisements. --jonny-mt 10:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Jonny

Hopefully you will pick this up when you get back. I can now see what you mean and having made a further comparrison on what has gone before would this be more suitable?:
ClickTorch was founded in 2007 and is one of the first companies to offer website product and content recommedation systems based on research into artificial neural networks which the founders of ClickTorch began in 2002. This research resulted in a new type of neural network called the predictive profiler. The system uses a websites clickstream data and applies artificial itelligence technology to more accuratley predict website content that is relevant to the website visitor. The company was founded by Paul Edmunds (CEO). Paul was educated at Oxford University and Essex University where he studied Computing and Artificial Intelligence and developed an interest in machine intelligence. The company is privately held and headquartered in Elford, Staffordshire, UK.
RobRobmob66 (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rob,

Unfortunately, the version you specified would qualify for speedy deletion under criteria A7 (the criteria Nancy used), as it doesn't have a claim to importance that would indicate it is a notable company. Even in the presence of such claims, you have to have verification from independent, reliable sources (preferably secondary sources) to bolster your claims, or it can still be deleted via a slower, more thoughtful process. --jonny-mt 01:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HEY!

MT u r the first wikipedian I've met who is a newer newbie than myself, I saw your adoption page and would like to say u and I share rather similar interests and so I offer u my friendship, as well as say, no on second thought that's all I have to say --Milst Epja 23:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

¿Qué?

On a more serious note, if you're asking for adoption I'd be glad to help out. Have you found any areas that you are particularly interested in? --jonny-mt 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:UNC-CH Logo.png / Image:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill seal.png

I think user Tolivero has just reuploaded the logo I assume you speedily deleted at Image:UNC-CH Logo.png over the existing image at Image:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill seal.png. I've reverted the image page, but am not able to delete the image, which appears to be an imitation of a register trademarked image. From what I can tell from the article history/talk page there seems to have been disruption in the past, so I don't know if some form of protection would be appropriate. Hippo (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not up on my Tarheels trivia, but I wasn't able to verify that the current seal is the correct one, either. Based on an apparent history of problems with copyright issues, I went ahead and left a warning on User talk:Tolivero, but since the first deletion was done primarily because it had been superseded by another version and less because it fit the criteria of WP:CSD#I9, I'm inclined to let the alternate version alone (see [1] and [2] for sources, by the way). For the time being, though, as long as the image doesn't get too big it's all right under WP:NFC. --jonny-mt 15:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not sure when the logo was changed and registered. BTW one of those sources was a WP mirror ;-). Hippo (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So it was...clearly it's time for bed >.< --jonny-mt 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSD

Your deletion page is cracking, I'm not gonna copy it though, I'll have a blast at making my own (inspired by yours): a good way of polishing one's knowledge I feel. I've already made my own welcome template - feel free to use it/mercilessly make your own version of it if you wish. The syntax is {{subst:User:WilliamH/Welcome|YourUserName}} ~~~~

Regards, WilliamH (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About my contributions

Hi! I have answered your question here Thank you! Menschenfressender Riese (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jonny-mt,

Thank you very much for doing the job for me! I was wondering how did you change my username even if I was not online?Rollyta (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

'Twasn't me, it was a bureaucrat who renamed you. I just filed the request with enough evidence to show that you wanted to be renamed :) --jonny-mt 06:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Yara Lorenzo

Hi Jonny-mt, I may have just left a mssg. but I can't find it so I will try again. I was wondering why Yara Lorenzo was deleted? There was some discussion of notability on the page but I did not think there was consensus. Her article was comporable to other activist stubs and there were a few sources. How can I change it to get it back up there for her? Thank you for your help! 65.212.108.131 (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

Thanks for your question. I closed the deletion discussion after it had run for the allotted time (technically twice as long as the standard allotted time) and deleted the article based on the consensus that she is not a notable individual--that is, she has not received significant coverage in secondary sources.

When making this close, though, I recognized that a couple of commentators had brought up sources that could potentially be used to establish her notability. However, there had been no further discussion or significant changes to the article in the four or five days since this possibility had been raised, and so I closed it with an offer to userfy the article--that is, restore the deleted article in a registered user's userspace so they could continue to work on and improve it if they so desired. As the article was deleted for failing to properly establish the notability of the subject, rectifying this problem could turn it into a viable article. --jonny-mt 01:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response! I am working on my stub (this is the author). I'm working on the stub, but my question to you should I delete stuff? Change the wording? I added every source I had which was about 10, and a couple articles. I can alter content to make it sound more neutral but, in terms of my sources I thought I had many more than a few of the activist I had seen up on here and felt a little snubbed! I know you guys are doing your job, so any additional guidance on this would be great. Thanks again for your help. Yara 69.246.171.153 (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollyta

Hey jonny-mt! Since you're the first administrator that I came to know, I would like to satisfy my curiosity to know personally from you or to any very reliable staffs of wikipedia if I can edit an additional information to some of the content or already existing articles of wikipedia immediately at anytime that I may please?--Rollyta (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

But of course you can! All editors are encouraged to be bold and make changes. You'll make mistakes along the way, but trust me when I say that it's impossible to really screw anything up. I've left a (much belated) welcome message on your user talk page that will provide you with the basic information you need to get started. Just approach things with a collaborative mindset and you'll be just fine.

Happy editing! --jonny-mt 06:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny

I don't think a prod would be advisable for the article, since it is sure to be disputed. The article has gone through AFD 4 times, and I think it would be best if it was put through AFD. bibliomaniac15 01:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ack! I just glanced at the history and the talk page and when I didn't see a big fat banner I thought it was all right. Thanks for the heads up--it seems that the previous discussions were rife with WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, but hopefully we can come to a solid decision on what to do with the article this time. --jonny-mt 01:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollyta

Thank you very much for the advices! It is a very big help to me as a new editor and as a person (self-confidence, esteem, sense of belongings, etc.). By the way I quit my college ten (10) years ago, I was already in third year majoring in Bachelor of Science in Electrical engineering but at present I am currently leading a team of engineers for the patenting of a new machine that will generate electricity without consuming any form of fuel at all! I call it a "Magnetic Motor" and I hope my team will also agree. The motor is composed of magnets alone and uses the energy of magnets also to generate torque which will then drive an electricity generator. I hate to say this very early but maybe it's for the best.--Rollyta (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, jonny-mt, Where and whose talk pages will I sign my votes for?Rollyta (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you mean "vote"? --jonny-mt 02:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a new comer and I do'nt care about voting at this time but I think I saw an invitation to vote in every heading of the page that I went a few days ago but I do not see it now...--Rollyta (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think I deleted the whole article of "Halfwave Antenna" instead of the edits that I made that was supposed to be cancelled!

By the way, feel free to open my contributions to see it personally and tell me the best thing to do to recover the contents...!--Rollyta (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

All right, first thing's first--have a look at WP:TALK, which describes effective ways of using talk pages. While I'm glad you're enthusiastic and leaving me lots of messages, it's easier to follow the conversation when you keep threads together and indent your responses.

Second, I didn't see anything on Halfwave antenna, but your contributions show some edits to quad antenna--is this what you were looking for?

And finally, while I'm more than happy to help you in any way that I can, you might (occasionally) get a faster, more thorough response to your questions at the help desk. Happy editing! --jonny-mt 05:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM WebSphere Business Events

Please reconsider your close of this discussion. Your rationale does not adress the significant improvements made to this new article during the discussion and the substantial number of editors who opined that the article should be kept. Your close therefore seems contrary to WP:DGFA#Deciding whether to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing - while I'm not bothered either way about the article itself, I really didn't think there was anything resembling a consensus to delete it at that AfD - three keeps and two deletes, all reasonably well-expressed, would at best be a "no consensus to delete" in my book. ~ mazca ^talk 12:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys,

Thanks for the polite messages--I think this is the first time anyone's actually followed the procedure at WP:DRV and asked me to take a second look before listing it =D

When weighing consensus, I give particular weight to those arguments based on existing policy and practice per WP:DGFA#Rough consensus. In this case, the two deletion comments (plus the nomination) cited WP:N/WP:CORP as their basis--while it's true that these are guidelines rather than policy, they are inclusion criteria that have been agreed on by the community. Of the three keep comments, I discounted the creator's comments totally because they gave no reason for keeping the article other than that they wanted the piece on Wikipedia. Of the remaining two, Warden's was the most compelling in that it advised against biting the newbies, but on the flipside of that you have the fact that the article was written under a conflict of interest in a manner not unlike an advertisement, weakening the basis for that argument.

The other keep comment simply pointed out that this product is sold by a major/notable corporation to major/notable customers--since notability is not inherited I largely discounted that opinion. Finally, the changes to the article were definitely to its benefit, but they don't seem to have been enough to address the underlying problem of notability that was raised by every commenter supporting deletion.

So I'll tell you what. If you want to continue working on the article, I'll be more than happy to userfy it to a location you specify (I usually make that offer in my closing statement on articles that could use it--don't know why I didn't do that here). If you'd rather have the article restored or the discussion relisted, though, then I'd prefer it go through WP:DRV. While I know that most deletion discussions are commented on in the first couple of days they're up, this discussion still ran for four days longer than the normally allotted time and had what I consider to be sufficient discussion for the purposes of determining consensus.

Let me know either way! --jonny-mt 13:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for going into depth on the thinking behind it, I agree with your rationale. :-) ~ mazca ^talk 16:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• DRV is usually unsatisfactory as it so often turns into AFD#2. I am content to have the article userfied since it is a new product and so will be attracting more sources such as reviews which can be used to improve the article for resubmission. The diagram was the most important piece of content and was quite good work IMO so please save that too. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. I've userfied it to User:Colonel Warden/IBM WebSphere Business Events. The image was never deleted, although apparently it's up for deletion (simultaneously?) at IfD and PUI. Good luck! --jonny-mt 14:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look at the image licensing - another matter which is difficult for a new editor to get right. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm getting a good education on the nuances over at Commons, but I think the key to this one is going to be determining the license status of clipart from Microsoft Word. The smart money says it's probably free.... --jonny-mt 14:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your personal attack accusation

Excuse me, I wasn't aware that wikipedia policy meant that responding to an originating personal attack and impugning of honor by said attacker constituted an attack. You are blaming the victim here and might wish to actually look at what is going on. Thank you. Thamarih (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Thamarih (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at what's going on--your talk page is a virtual battlefield. More to the points, Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks is pretty simple: don't do it. Don't do it because you're upset or because you had a bad day. Don't do it because your opinion is not being implemented or because you feel your contributions are being slighted. Don't do it because they did it to you. There is no excuse.

More to the point, you seem to be approaching Wikipedia the wrong way. This is not the place to defend your honor or fight for The Truth. This is not a place to right wrongs or start fights. This is a place where like-minded people come together with the goal of compiling and distributing a free encyclopedia. You can disagree with things in the project and work to change them, you can present one idea after another only to see them shot down, you can be bold and get reverted and still be a valuable contributor, but when you cross the line into tendentious editing and personal attacks on other editors, it's time to rethink your approach.

Wikipedia is Existentialism at its finest. There is no honor or betrayal, no absolute Right or absolute Wrong. The sooner you stop thinking in these black and white terms of tit-for-tat and start focusing on content rather than on editors, the happier and more productive you'll be. --jonny-mt 12:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that didn't stop him.

This on Talk:Ayahuasca "Our belief is that the only reason Mr Russell is here is for sectarian harassment purposes, and we are happy to stand by this assertion in any context." and "It is our belief that Mr Russell is following a guideline and directive by the Internet committee of the Haifan Bahai organization to harass us, so we hereby reserve our rights at law."

I have no interest in Amazonian hallucinogens, but I have had had to deal with this guy elsewhere so I followed his contibs to see what damage he was capable of elsewhere. Apparently a lot.

Thanks for your attention. Do I need to open another incident report? This is a complete waste of time. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)