User talk:Scott.wheeler
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Vidor
I am a little disappointed in your editing of the article on Vidor, Texas. I believe that your are taking out a lot of relevant information without adding anything back. Please let me know if you disagree.
--Mrtrey99 08:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry Mrtrey99, I didn't see your comment here before reverting on the Vidor page. Please follow up on the talk page there and we can try to come to a concensus. Scott.wheeler 11:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Music sequencer
Hi Scott
Re Music sequencer, the point of the 'main' and 'other' categories was (as in the Scorewriter article) to distinguish between those that are widely used from the obscure ones, which I should think is useful information for at least some people.
The big 4 in terms of market share are undoubtedly Logic, ProTools, Cubase and Cakewalk. (I have some industry stats on these.) I'd guess that Digital Performer comes next. Of the rest in the list, Reason and to a lesser extent Acid are quite widely used; GarageBand increasingly so too, though the fact that it is effectively free makes it a special case. But most of the rest are very obscure products AFAIK.
Ben Finn 23:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Huxleygame"
In your edit summary, you said: "revert, again. if this happens again I'm going to semi-protect the article for a few days.", in response to an IP address that added a link to "huxleygame" to the external links.
If it's just one person making these edits, why not block him or her instead of semi-protecting the article? You may already have reconsidered, but I just wanted to catch you before the aversive edit is made again.--Heyitspeter 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Heyitspeter -- they have all been from different IP addresses, unfortunately (and not even all in the same range). Even in the event of such happening, the idea would be to only leave it that way for a couple of days; alternatively though, if it continues I may try a warning template as a next step. Cheers! Scott.wheeler 00:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ahhh. To be honest, I saw the '86...' at the beginning of each and assumed they were identical. Thanks for the response, though!--Heyitspeter 02:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie
Scott -- Sorry I had to delete your compilation of the voting in the above AfD. It's my understanding that closing admins are generally opposed to such compilations and thus I didn't want to bias the closing admin against finding a consensus. --Metropolitan90 19:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Metal Forms Inc
I have re - added this business back to famous Beaumont businesses. They have been in Beaumont since 1968 and are world known metal fabricators. I am unsure why you removed it as spam - I don't think half of the other business listed are world known or have even been in beaumont more then 25 years. And Conn's is famous.. for ripping people off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.62 (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm removing it again because (a) it makes clearly advertising like claims and (b) does not seem to meet the notariety requirements that the other mentions do. I checked for independant sources for each of the currently mentioned businesses a few weeks back. The first few pages of Google hits for Metal Forms, Inc. do not turn such up. Scott.wheeler 23:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Well obviously you are doing research via the web. Metal forms has not really changed the way they do business since 1968, so it is doubtful you will find anything on the internet except for the site. And the site is Number one ranking for "metal forms inc." Try researching through the local newspapers archives.
I am unsure what "it makes clearly advertising like claims"? means.. ALL SITES LISTED UNDER THAT SECTION DO THAT. It is a listing of business so it seems redundant to say they are advertising.
What kind of Notariety are you reffering to? World wide distribution and recongnition? Local business that has been in the area for a time (almost 50 years) -
I believe the problem here is that you relying entirely on the internet to research a business that is not listed (except for the site) on the web. If you do research via local newspaper archives or even the local libraries you should find the notoriety you are reffering to. I read your page and it appears that you no longer live here. So I am completely confused on how could possibly have researched this business correctly - offline.
Please reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.30 (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again -- it seems that you're not yet familiar with how WP works on matters like this. Let's use Conn's as an exmaple since you seem to be fond of it :-) :
-
- Conn's - Chain of Appliance and Electronic stores
- That's a claim that I can verify. Others can easily verify it. There are a number of third party sources (see the WP guidelines on "reliable sources") which establish that Conn's is in fact a chain of appliance and electronic stores based in Beaumont.
- Contrast that with:
-
- Since 1968 Metalforms, Inc. has earned a worldwide reputation for turning work around in half the time of other fabricators.
- That asserts that:
- Metalforms, Inc. has significant international notoriety
- The international community is aware that it averages half of the industry standard turn around time for fabrication jobs
- As both of those are rather bold claims, they need to be verified with sources. (Note the highlighted link under the editing window -- it gives more info on what this means in WP context.) From my searching (online) I've not been able to verify that it's notable within Beaumont, much less internationally or that it has a specific reputation internationally. This is the guideline that I was loosely applying when I recently cleaned out the Beaumont business listings.
- If you can produce specific sources that verify your claims please post those to the Beaumont talk page and we can try to come up with a reasonable wording. Note that for such sources, non-local sources would be preferable since that would do better for establishing general notability.
- Oh, and almost forgot -- welcome to WP. :-) I don't mean to discourage you by being a stickler on this point, but I recently spent a few hours looking up every entry in there and removing those that were not up to spec. It takes a while to get into the WP swing of things and I hope you'll stick around for such.
- Cheers,
- Scott.wheeler 10:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
First off I would like to apologize, I completely misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were referring to the link - that the web site was making "advertising like claims" - not the text in wiki. I see what you are saying, but could you please explain what makes Conn's notable? Because I cannot find any evidence other then nasdaq and hurricane rita articles. Conn's is notable because they are profitable?
Also it is highly doubtful that will be any non-local sources available, They do not even use email for correspondence. So there is very little if any digitized information available for this company. But if profit is all that is needed for notoriety, I am sure there are records that can be produced that show Metalforms is a very profitable local company. So to be notable, a company needs to only be an economic powerhouse?
Additionally pagerank in Google shows notoriety. You have to understand that pageranking is Google is estimated to be 60-75% based on "referral links" meaning to rank number one, several other pages are linking to metal forms. So wouldn't pageranking in google be considered notable if the company has managed to beat all competitors in pageranking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.36 (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- WP defines notability as "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In theory being publicly traded (in this case NASDAQ) doesn't make a company fullfill that, but in practice it does: there are regular, third party performance reports for virtually every company on a major stock exchange.
- Metalworks using or not using email has no effect on its notability as information provided by an organization itself is not a determining factor in notability.
- And yes, I'm very familiar with Pagerank (I was involved in IR research for a while), but that's not really relevant because the types of sources that WP editors look for when trying to determine notability are those that are not the company's home page. For example, I remember when looking up one of the people in the people list I found an article in Texas Monthly about her. That's a good example of a source that establishes notability.
- Scott.wheeler 15:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering why this anonymous person was oddly vehement. Turns out it was just another case of "If I can't have my link, then they can't have theirs." -- Cyrius|✎ 00:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
First off noone is anonymous here and everyone is anonymous - its the internet and yes my ip is my signature (I cannot log in via Hughes Satellite network without going through secure connection with which satellite tends to time out).
Second, if you think that was being vehement you must live a very sheltered life. Perhaps you do not understand what the word means. Oh what cyrius? Did you just take offense to me insinuating that you lack intelligence? Well now you know how I feel about being called vehement. Please desist with the personal attacks, thank you.
Aside from the personal attacks by Cyrius - I still do not see any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" So you are saying that only notability that is needed is economic, for "famous businesses" - I do not equate fame with economics, unless you are talking historical references. But if that is the only requirement - then metal forms made 3x more per store then Conn's in 2006. And this is easily verifable through local records. But you are stating that third party performance reports are what make this company notable? If that is the case then any company can "Buy" their way into Wiki. I thought that was what Wiki was trying to avoid all along.
Still confused as to why economics equates to notability - it would seem to me that a company would have to have some significant economic factor to be considered - or at least make the top 100 of the fastest growing companies/top 100 companies.
Also with pageranking I was referring to looking at the "referal links" as coverage independent of the subject. Not the actual homepage but all the other sites that link to it. I assume this is not covered under Wiki guidelines, but I think it would be a good topic for discussion, since pageranking is synonymous with notability, online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.86 (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Here's an example of a reasonable source article on Conn's. Motley Fool, its name aside, is a reputable non-local publication. There are quite a few out there actually. The rest of your arguments are contesting WP policy (and that I personally disagree isn't really relevant), which is open to debate, but that should happen on the respective policy discussion pages.
- The only one that I'll directly comment on is the Pagerank comment. All that Pagerank confirms is a certain topical clustering around a specific query string. If I enter a search for the guy I share a desk with's name, he's the first hit. This does not make him notable, it just means that he has a suffeciently uncommon name. I on the other hand, have a more plain name, so despite being closer to notability (Even with over 100,000 hits for myself in Google, I'd be borderline.) I'm not the first hit. And in fact, there is an entire policy page called "The Search Engine Test".
- For now I'd like to close this debate. Per current policy you'll need to find appropriate sources if you want to re-add the link. Please bring this back up on the Beaumont talk page in the future if those are available.
- Cheers!
- Scott.wheeler 15:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Zeitgeist (video)
- A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 21:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] About sensomusic Usine
hello, just few comments about Usine,
Usine is a young soft (a year) and has a 2000 users community which increase around 20% each month... How can you decide that it's not a 'notable' soft?
I'm a spammer because I've included a link on max/msp page? If you look at the French version you will see that the page contains around 10 links to related softwares... So on the English version of the article I have only reproduce the same kind of link. If I resume the 'related software' section is allowed in French but not in English? It's not a problem but I didn't know!
Also the article has been rewritten to fit to 'wiki spirit'.
Regards Olivier Sens
- It's considered spam because it doesn't meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. Also, please see the autobiography guideline as there's more information there about why in general you should not be writing articles about yourself or your company. If you check the talk page that I mentioned in the remove log, you'll see where I mention a long list of sequencers which were removed for similar reasons. Scott.wheeler (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks for fixing city hall pic - besten Dank- MfG 6 February 2008
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.64.78 (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Native Instruments
Sorry for not responding. I had intended to then completely got sidetracked and forgot about it. Yes add the links and flick the tag. No problem. Cheers, Sting au Buzz Me... 05:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
