User talk:WebHorizon
Welcome!
Hello, WebHorizon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as DeusM, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Starting an article
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of DeusM[edit]
A tag has been placed on DeusM, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- The first two references appear to be press releases - so not independent. I can see nothing to indicate their significance, and as such I find the Speedy Deletion nomination to be justified. as such, I have deleted it. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh please, I don't object to fair decisions, but those were absolutely not press releases. Did you follow the links? They were citations of articles in national publications, completely independent of the subject of the article. "Significance," as I'm sure you know, refers to content, and in neither case was DeusM a "trivial mention." I just can't rationalize speedy deletion on this basis. Can you explain how you mistook the publications for "press releases"? "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases."WebHorizon (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon
- Firstly, the "significance" I mentioned above was not referring to the amount of coverage in the individual references, but to the significance of the company itself. Secondly, having re-read the two references at min Online (part of Access Intelligence, "a leading worldwide information and marketing company") and Direct Marketing News, I still see them as being based on (if not actually) press releases. They do not read to me as being independently written by the writers in those publications. I noticed that the 3rd reference at Security Technology News was a press release from the company, although I recognise that you have not said otherwise! I still see the references as being press releases - and can find no non-press release coverage elsewhere. As such, I believe that my deletion was correct. However, please feel to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review to ask other editors to consider whether it was indeed correct or not. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I should also add that as none of the sources (min/min online; Access Intelligence; Direct Marketing News) have articles, I did look through the Reliable sources noticeboard archives for any discussion about their reliability as sources, but found no discussions about them. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly, the "significance" I mentioned above was not referring to the amount of coverage in the individual references, but to the significance of the company itself. Secondly, having re-read the two references at min Online (part of Access Intelligence, "a leading worldwide information and marketing company") and Direct Marketing News, I still see them as being based on (if not actually) press releases. They do not read to me as being independently written by the writers in those publications. I noticed that the 3rd reference at Security Technology News was a press release from the company, although I recognise that you have not said otherwise! I still see the references as being press releases - and can find no non-press release coverage elsewhere. As such, I believe that my deletion was correct. However, please feel to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review to ask other editors to consider whether it was indeed correct or not. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh please, I don't object to fair decisions, but those were absolutely not press releases. Did you follow the links? They were citations of articles in national publications, completely independent of the subject of the article. "Significance," as I'm sure you know, refers to content, and in neither case was DeusM a "trivial mention." I just can't rationalize speedy deletion on this basis. Can you explain how you mistook the publications for "press releases"? "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases."WebHorizon (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon
- I hate to throw Wiki jargon at you, but speculating about how the authors came to write those articles is pure OR. They were written, edited and published. In any case, use of press releases by journalists, for reference purposes, is standard practice; otherwise nobody would issue press releases. I understand you were referring to the significance of the company itself, but that's exactly what WP:NOTE is designed to test, rather than relying on the judgment of individual editors:
- "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
- There can be no doubt that DeusM is addressed directly in those sources. Finally, the test for reliability of sources is not, of course, whether they've been discussed at Reliable sources noticeboard. Is there any reason to suppose these sources are questionable? They are national publications (print and online), and independent of the topic of the article.
- I'd ask you please to reconsider whether the characterization of sources as "press releases" or your reading of WP policy on significance are defensible. Thanks.WebHorizon (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)WebHorizons
- I have re-read the sources and the deleted article. I have read your arguments above. I still stand by the deletion and the reason for which it was nominated. As such, if you strongly disagree with the deletion, please go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and start a review - if you do so, mention this discussion, and notify me on my talkpage using the template mentioned in the review instructions. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking another look. As I don't see you continuing to claim that the articles are press releases or that the coverage they provide is not in WP terms "significant" - both of which would be very hard to defend - the reasons given for deletion are not operative. So yes, I'll ask for review. WebHorizon (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)WebHorizons
- Please note that although I did not "continue to claim" that, that does not mean that I changed my opinion - I thought that the language in my last reply would clearly show that my position has not changed in that regard, and so I did not want to assume that you could not understand that. For clarification: yes, I do still believe that those references were based on press releases, and no, I do not believe the coverage meets Wikipedia's definition of "signficant coverage". Just so you know where I stand! I still feel that the article has no place on Wikipedia, and in fact neither does Internet Evolution - but the fact that I am not rushing this second to put that up at AfD does not indicate that perhaps I think it should stay, but rather the fact that I need to get ready for work, and then do my night shift - I will deal with that in a couple of days when I am not working, and have the time to do it properly! Please do not make assumptions about how I am thinking just because I do not repeat myself all the time! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 15:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking another look. As I don't see you continuing to claim that the articles are press releases or that the coverage they provide is not in WP terms "significant" - both of which would be very hard to defend - the reasons given for deletion are not operative. So yes, I'll ask for review. WebHorizon (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)WebHorizons
- I have re-read the sources and the deleted article. I have read your arguments above. I still stand by the deletion and the reason for which it was nominated. As such, if you strongly disagree with the deletion, please go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and start a review - if you do so, mention this discussion, and notify me on my talkpage using the template mentioned in the review instructions. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I hate to throw Wiki jargon at you, but speculating about how the authors came to write those articles is pure OR. They were written, edited and published. In any case, use of press releases by journalists, for reference purposes, is standard practice; otherwise nobody would issue press releases. I understand you were referring to the significance of the company itself, but that's exactly what WP:NOTE is designed to test, rather than relying on the judgment of individual editors:
The article Internet Evolution has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Advertisement for a non-notable website, related to WP:Articles for deletion/DeusM. References are to a NYT blog entry that does not obviously mention this site; and to press releases and a raft of non-notable trade awards, most of which were conferred by a single entity that was also heavily involved in the promotion of DeusM.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Re: Catchafire[edit]
Re your message: Thank you for the note. The deletion back in 2010 was due to a copyright violation. The editor copied the content from the Catchafire website. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 25[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aneel Bhusri, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Workday and Dropbox. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Mirantis has been accepted[edit]
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Deadbeef 20:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Peter Shankman for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Shankman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Shankman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. LaMona (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]
Hello, WebHorizon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)