User talk:Pmedema

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Talk to me... 2 Technical Support 3 Evoke engine 4 Twenty First Century Science 5 Radiant_(software) 6 Space exposure 7 Proton_card 8 Re: Academy of Learning 9 XPress Telecom Article re-written 10 Dewan Mokham Chand 11 List of Magical DoReMi Songs 12 Sanjay Ghose 13 Chinese Ghost Marriage 14 Proposed Deletions 15 Why 16 AFD and voting 17 AfD question: Recombinant text 18 CSSE 19 Measurement causes collapse 20 Sexuality and Space 21 Roland Nicholson text 22 Publius Enigma possible solutions 23 Back garden 24 New Messages 25 Publius Enigma 26 WP: SPA (possible vandalism) 27 Your NPWatcher application 28 Reply

[edit] Talk to me...

I'm all ears!

Ulteo deletion... why???

I've spent hours to write a documented article about Ulteo with many links from the press and you just delete it???

It's *not* a repost of what was previously on this page. Ulteo is notorious, just look the number of Ulteo entries in Google, and the article was fully referenced with really a large review of press links.

Please undelete my article about Ulteo, I really don't like losing my time and I don't understand why you are doing that. I'll warn wikipedia about you if we can't agree on that.

Regards

Getupstandup1 (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technical Support

Why did you consider this link spam? tech support edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.28.217 (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm, When I went to the site before, I had the destinct impression that it was someone trying to sell a book about IT with no further information. I looked at it again now and it says "Donate" (wants money). I followed the link to where the information is now and I've re-added the link to the page but directly to the information instead of the please donate page. --Pmedema (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks, I am in the process of writing it and in my research stumbled upon the wiki page. My primary motivation for adding the link was to provide the information in the article as a reference. Of course, I also want to see visitors on the page to get feedback on the work in progress. The primary purpose of the site is not to generate revenue (I have a job for that ;) ) but to make information available online for support techs. The donate link and ads on the site are there to cover hosting costs, even though they are not performing well enough to manage that (around 10$/month are the costs and revenue is < 5$/month). I was surprised to see it considered as spam, so I asked. Nothing more. (Wouter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.44.150.153 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Delete!! Hello Mr. Pmeda. I am new to Wiki and I was working on an article, Roland Nicholson, when I suddenly lost it. Mr. Nicholson was elected chairman of the Fortune Society in 1997. I understand that he has taken a leave because he has been recalled to military duty as a result of the Iraq War. I saw you posting and I do not know where to turn. My students and those of other teachers in the Carribean will be a good made a bit easier if I can finish the work on this page and preserve this page from deletion.

[edit] Evoke engine

Please remove your deletion request from my article, the article is not speculation about an engine that doesn't exist, but real information about an open source engine that is going to have its source code made available via my website. I have added a screenshot Evoke engine. It is notable in that its open source, and I welcome comments and discussions on the Wikipedia from users. Eclectus (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nope... my opinion stands.--Pmedema (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Twenty First Century Science

Monozygotic (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Twenty First Century Science is something is not covered in Wikipedia, i just thought it was needed, since all current Year 10 and Year 11 students are being taught this syllabus. CheersLindaaaaa. (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• After reviewing it again and with the thought of not being a Deletionist[1]I figured it couldn't do any harm, so I left it alone.--Pmedema (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol thanks:)Lindaaaaa. (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radiant_(software)

Hi there =) You added to the article that it needs some references and does sound like an advertisement. I rewrote it, was still in the process of doing so and i hope it's ok now, if you find the time, have a look. Would appreciate it very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinomade (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space exposure

Please feel free to insert a lead section and remove the "needs a lead section" tag. Let me know if you are unable to insert a lead section.Suniti karunatillake (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Put one in that will suffice but the real problem is with the layout of the article. The facts and information have to separated. You can't have the history mixed into the statistics, etc... I've put this into the discussion portion of that page. --Pmedema (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the lead section and suggested revisions. I will restructure the entry by 05 DEC 2007 and alert you to review the changes.Suniti karunatillake (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I failed to make revisions on the planned date. However, it seems someone else has refined the entry somewhat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suniti karunatillake (talk • contribs) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proton_card

Hi, I have a question about the entry Proton_card. I understand it can be seen as blatant advertising when I mentioned the owner of the copyright. I removed the link to their website (I'm not employed by them btw). I then assumed it would be ok to leave the mention of what it is and where it is used, much like the entry on Mon€o. Granted, that one is more elaborate, but as it is, I haven't even had time to put more text on the page before it was deleted. Isn't wikipedia about making small edits and letting other people add stuff? Anyway, since this was one of my first additions to the pedia, I'm a bit miffed :) cheers, --Repo stef (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

edit: Ah, but I understand now I think... There was someone who created the backlink without a page on the smartcard entry. That one has been removed as well. There was never a stub article in the first place. Anyway, my remark about mon€o still stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repo stef (talk • contribs) 08:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've been a user of Wikipedia for a long time and have started doing some editing and learning the ropes, etc. I can understand that having an article that you have written is removed. In future, if you do make another article, as a suggestion, look through some of the articles about writing an article. If you are finding that there is not alot of content right away and that you are "working on it" I would suggest going to Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance and use some of the 'inuse' templates.  :) --Pmedema (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That should be a great help in the future. --Repo stef (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Academy of Learning

Hi. It should be OK now. Check again and clarify what's wrong if it isn't. Thanks. Visor (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification tag removed - Thanks --Pmedema (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

XPress_Telecom==

Hello, regarding XPress_Telecom new article, i have expanded the article after it was completly deleted based on the speedy-deletion request you made, please leave a message on my talkpage if you have any concern

Sincerely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basem (talk • contribs) 16:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XPress Telecom Article re-written

I've re-written the article from a neutral perspective as close as possible to Wiki's articles guideline with original wording using the same Company article template, I've requested a copy of the company's Logo from the company itself.

Sincerely

Basem —Preceding comment was added at 08:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dewan Mokham Chand

The ref have been provided please remove the banner you have put .
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Pmedema (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Magical DoReMi Songs

Yeah, it's a dumb unencyclopedic list, but I'm afraid that CSD A7 is very specific about the topics that constitute grounds for speedy deletion, and as this section explains, anything not explicitly listed is not A7. IceKarmaॐ 05:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looked into it more and I think this article will be best served with a merge to the parent article that points to it. I've tagged the proposal.--Pmedema (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sanjay Ghose

I removed the speedy deletion tag because the article has several indications of importance/significance, which is the test for WP:CSD#A7. If you read that criterion it specifically says "this is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources". Lack of sources may qualify an article for deletion by AfD, but not for speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Ghost Marriage

Hi, just to let you know that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on this article. It doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and certainly not the 'patent nonsense' of CSD:A1, though it definitely needs proper sourcing. You might like to take it to AfD if you still think it needs to be removed. Regards, — BillC ^talk 02:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I did take the time to read two or three of the pages I had discovered on Google, here, for example. The topic certainly appeared to be of questionable notability, but that question is best resolved at AfD. Regards, — BillC ^talk 03:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

For reference... the article was one line that stated "Chinese Ghost Marriage" or "sprit marriage" is when two presumably dead Chinese people get married. Sigh...--Pmedema (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well subsequently, the article has been re-produced. This one very worthy of Wikipedia. Glad to see the system working.--Pmedema (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Deletions

Hi Pmedema, if a proposed deletion is contested, even for weak reasons, it should then go to AFD, not have the prod tag re-inserted (except in the case of blatant vandalism i.e. replacing entire page with gibberish). Thank you for your vigilence. --Sajendra (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

*When a known disruptive anonymous editor is removing a prod with no reasoning, that is a vandalism. When they add a header to an article when there is MUCH more to do and then say that it is wiki'd, is disruptive and counter productive. To use that to circumvent the prod is also vandalism. Please don't come to my talk page and advise me about a 'even for weak reasons'... I am fully aware of the policies involved...

Thank you for your attempt at giving me guidance but I fear that you have to look into matters further before you start to issue warnings to people. Thanks.--Pmedema (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Daniel Case has put Babies in Toyland up for AfD. The prods should not have been removed and it was a vandalism by an anon disruptive editor. BUT... I digress, and apologise to you for my hothead... I will consider AfD's more often then the prod process as it does not seem to work with disruptive, anon editors.--Pmedema (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why

Why is the Dragon Ball OF article being deleted? User:DrVonDre —Preceding comment was added at 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please attend Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball FO to discuss the article. In the future, please don't remove AfD tags.--Pmedema (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFD and voting

Hi there! Before I start, I'd just like to thank you for participating in the AFD process; the more the merrier to develop consensus and hopefully save some articles. Now, in your recent edit summary here you referred to AFD as a vote. That isn't inexcusable, but I'd just suggest thinking about it differently; instead of a vote, think of it as consensus. AFD is meant to be less of a vote and more of a discussion process, like RFA, where instead of straight-out declaring their opinion, people can present evidence for or against an article and have it discussed by other editors. Anyway, cheers! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 18:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you - At an attempt to not be verbose in my summary, I use the literal dictionary meaning of the word which is "a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals.[2] I know that in WP:AFD it says that discussion is not a vote, but my statements will never say ‘vote’. I will take into consideration what you’ve said though and omit the word vote for the reasons that you stated. Happy New Year!--Pmedema (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

True, true. I usually just go along the track of "commenting" or "my opinion". Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 19:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD question: Recombinant text

I have very little experience in AfD matters, and am asking for your input before nominating an article for deletion, because, quite frankly, I do not want to be seen as someone who capriciously nominates articles which do not meet AfD standards.

If you have time, please take a look at this article. It was created by the person who—as the intro asserts—is the very person who coined the term. Most of the edits are by that person. Most, if not all, of the sources link back to this person. I mean, at best it appears to me to constitute OR, at worst, self-promotion. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. What do you think?

I selected you and many other editors pretty much completely at random; I picked one day's AfD archives, and clicked on the talk pages of the first two or three dozen editors' talk pages I came across. I hope that in using this selection method, I will get editors who are well-versed in AfD policies, yet who also represent a good cross-section of AfD philosophies. I will monitor your talk page for your response. Thanks. Unschool (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSSE

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSSE? I changed CSSE into a disambiguation page with the organizations you mentioned. They're all redlinks, but are potentially notable enough to have articles write about them. --Eastmain (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perfect!--Pmedema (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Measurement causes collapse

You wrote, "What a learning curve... had fun trying to figure this one out. I seem to come down to the one statement at the start of the article which says "measurement by a conscious observer" which directly puts it as an article that is already covered by Consciousness causes collapse."

Actually, "measurement" is the very thing that CCC doesn't require. And really what you're stating is a simply clarification rather than a merger or deletion. Remember, those supporting deletion never made any attempts to improve the article, which is not in the true spirit of Wikipedia.

I respectfully ask you to reconsider.

Lordvolton (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I, by no means, am not an expert in this scope, but I am a thinker, a person who likes puzzles, the universe and everything. Lordvolton stated "Actually, "measurement" is the very thing that CCC doesn't require. And really what you're stating is a simply clarification rather than a merger or deletion. Remember, those supporting deletion never made any attempts to improve the article, which is not in the true spirit of Wikipedia.

I submit that what you are separating CCC and the act of measuring by a Conscious mind... but that is the same as a CCC is inherently measuring all things, contextualizing, spacializing, etc... therefore the act of measuring is already covered by CCC... am I wrong? --Pmedema (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just responded to you in the discussion section of the article... I also made an edit to the opening paragraph of the article that I hope will better explain the intent of the article. That being said, it's still a work in progress.

Lordvolton (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality and Space

Hey Pmedema, I've made a large revision to the Sexuality and Space article. It's very much not the article it was when it hit AfD and I'd like you to take a look at it and see if you feel differently about it now.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roland Nicholson text

--Roland Nicholson-- Good day Mr. Pmedema, I was working on an article, Roland Nicholson (a/k/a Roland Nicholson, Jr., Roland Nicholson, Jr.Esq, Ron Nicholson and Nick Nicholson) when I suddenly lost it (the article, that is) I am a new Wikipedian and students in my class, who are working on a project involving American government have asked why they could not find Mr. Nicholson in Wiki, when those who worked on the same project in the fall semester had no such problem. I am not the only teacher in this part of the world who assigns such work so I am certain that I speak for others. I understand that Mr. Nicholson, who is listed in the last Fortune Society Annual Report as chairman and who I know to have held this office because I have seen him on CNN, Fox News, Talk News Television in tht capacity. If you do a search of the New York Times and Amsterdam News websites there are numerous references to him holding this office. Also the same link was cited when Nicholson was a candidate fot Congress or The State Legislature (See all New York News Outlets,NY City Board of Election 1982). I also understand that Mr. Nicholson is on leave from Fortune because he has been recalled to active military service because of the Iraq war. That should not be held against him nor should it inconvience students. Thank you. Guyana Barrister

• Sorry... too late. You can see the descussion here [3] or speak to Daedalus

[edit] Publius Enigma possible solutions

I don't see why you had to delete the whole article I wrote. Please tell me what was different than the two above it? And mine makes more sense and is easily verifiable by the pictures I included. I just don't have a source to include, because it was destroyed by hackers (Publius Enigma.com) I guess the "opinions" of Wikipedia will always prevail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 938HBOM (talk • contribs) 21:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Back garden

Why is "back garden" unencyclopedic, whatever that means.

Your picture depicts you against a snowfield. If I look up that in wikipedia is rhere such an entry.

You bet there is. Chasnor15 (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise for this guy - he's taken against me for proposing his 'back garden' article for deletion (have a look at the talk page on the article if you want a laugh), and seems to have taken against you because you agreed with my request for deletion - he (or she) seems to be someone who can't take criticism - so apologies for having been dragged into a somewhat pointless argument :-) CultureDrone (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a a funny bone... it's lower then most other peoples but... nvm... :) anyways my answer to Chasnor is that I'm on a FROZEN LAKE and no there is no article for frozen lake.

Here's what I posted on the AFD:

my answer - No... Im on a FROZEN LAKE. No there isn't an article called Frozen Lake. I still say, how can you make the general term "Back Garden" notable (not to exclude all general terms). I might as well make an article called "Desk sizes". There's lots of WP:N there and lots of WP:RS trust me.... you will get a million ghits... Lets remember everyone... this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Back Garden is un-encyclopedic. --Pmedema (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Messages

Thanks for the kind words. At least someone kinda agrees with me on the AFD's. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Publius Enigma

It would be rather difficult if not impossible to cite all of the changes that were necessary to keep the article properly organized and accurate. In fact, it's very much a work in progress. The reasons for most of the edits should be pretty obvious, unless you really want me to break it down bit by bit and explain each and every one of them. 'Citing' them would take quite a lot of this. The only reasonably citable edit that was made was the addition to the 'Clues' section which states the fact that the word 'enigma' appears on page 13 of the booklet. It clearly links to an image which proves this to be true.

Other major changes I will attempt to explain so you can see where I'm going with this:

1. Storm Thorgerson and Nick Mason are not 'known' desigers of the enigma. There was no reference for this 'fact' because it isn't conclusively true and was therefore removed because it was not only unproven, it was misleading.

2. The quote by Nick Mason was reorganized to include the same information, but without being redundant.

3. The 'Clues' section was formed from existing information in the article because that's exactly the subject matter of the bits that were categorized under that header. The information is not about the Current Status of the Enigma, it is about the clues associated with it. Therefore, a new section was necessary.

4. 'Possible Solutions' are NOT solutions. They are partial theories. It's as simple as that. When it comes to enigma discussion, 'theories' are groups of ideas which follow a single direction and usually lead to significant results and discoveries but do not qualify as being a complete solution. While there are many other theories that need to be included in this section (and in time, they shall be), neither of the two that are listed (let alone any of the others) meet the criteria for being a complete solution. When it comes to the Publius Enigma or the music of Pink Floyd, nothing is set in stone unless it is confirmed by the band. Therefore, the author of C.D.C. has not "found exacting relationships," he "CLAIMS to have found" them. You can also see that Theory 1 is listed in bullet format with a title but the second is just a paragraph. I edited this so that the second theory matches the formatting of the first. It's all about organization and logical flow of information.

I hardly see it necessary or efficient to include this much information in the Edit Summary, but if you insist upon my presenting an entire essay when the appropriate changes are needed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinagreenelvis (talk • contribs) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

*Citations are not needed in the edit summary but in the article itself. Any "theories" are more then likely a violation of WP:OR and will not pass WP:N and most definately violate WP:V. Wikipedia is not a blog or forum but I've been lenient with not saying much if these "Theories" are in the discussion portion of the article. If What you say is true about the sourcing of the article then perhaps it should go up for AfD because, what you are saying is that the article does not pass WP:V as a whole... PS: don't forget to sign your talk page entries. --Pmedema (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Conversation moved to Talk:Publius Enigma - Please continue conversation there.

[edit] WP: SPA (possible vandalism)

Not to flog a dead horse or start any kind of war, but I noticed that your original revert of the changes I made to the Publius Enigma article contained those words and phrases. I know I've already discussed with you the changes that I made and the reasons for those changes and that subject is finished entirely, but I would like to point out my initial offense taken from those phrases. I read the article on WP:SPA and wanted to make sure you were re-exposed to the following segment:

While a new user who immediately participates in a discussion without an edit history in the area may be an illegitimate sock puppet, the editor might instead be someone who has seen something of interest and wishes to contribute. For this reason, statements regarding motives are not recommended without an examination of the user's edit history. The term should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a specific non-neutral agenda is clearly established. Users should be informed of relevant policies and content guidelines in a civil and courteous manner, especially if a tag will be applied to their comment.

You were pretty quick to accuse me of possible vandalism, and to me, that just makes it sound like you didn't even read the edits that I made before reverting them. Whatever the case is, it's done, it's over with, I don't want to turn this into a fight. I just don't want people going around suggestfully accusing each other of things which are very, very off the mark. --Chinagreenelvis (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you feel that way. It was not my intension. Lets move on and work on the article as per Wikipedia policies and proceedures. It's interesting enough that if it gets wiki'd enough we might be able to get it as a featured article. --Pmedema (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your NPWatcher application

Dear Pmedema,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I am on AOL as WeWachoviaMoney, and I spend a lot of time on the #en-wikipedia channel on IRC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)