User talk:Vrac - Knowledge (XXG)

2316:

summarizes both sides of the heated arguments here on this page in a civilized, polite and acceptable manner, supported by solid peer-reviewed and published evidence. Emotions alone are certainly not sufficient to write a good Knowledge (XXG) article, and remember as well that my proposal also integrated the earlier criticism section on a 1:1 basis, without any changes. I am sorry to contradict Knowledge (XXG) editor DGG in a friendly way in an important minor detail: SENSE talks about "decent INTERNATIONAL" publishers. Whether we like it or not, the SENSE Consortium has a right to be represented here with what they say on a 1:1 basis as well. Sense, after all, IS a major consortium of very respected Dutch scholarship, and what they say has ALSO a weight. One cannot overrule their judgement by simply misrepresenting it. Decent is not lowest. Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

2217:

other section within the article because the incident addressed there was already covered in other sections: "Founding of BNP Paribas till date: 2000–present" and "Criticism" and in my opinion it gives the article an overbearing negative bias. However, the editor responsible for the first addition didn't consider my point relevant, and he thinks the creation of a new section is valid in reason of its significance. To avoid an edit war, I reverted the article to its first instance and opened a talk page discussion to give all the involved parts the oportunity to participate. What do you think? Do I have to "drop the stick" in this or not? Regards, --

1212:, Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. However while we encourage editors to patrol new pages, inappropriate tagging of articles for deletion is considered disruptive. Editors are allowed to declined inappropriate speedy deletion request and its often not constructive for the nominator to replace the template on the article. The best way to deal with issues like this when a nominator disagree is to initial a discussion on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the editor who declined the request stating why they feel the page is eligible for deletion under a particular criterion. Don't 22: 2552: 1277: 1105: 1898: 146: 2723: 2650: 1748: 1670: 180: 2055:

Oh, I see now. Thank you. I will be posting on this page in the upcoming weeks, because there is a lot of false information. But I believe, like you have been doing, that I can post on anybody's page. You are posting on my talk page right now :) Again Vrac, nothing wrong is being done and would argue

694:

Per the talk page and revision notes, I had enlisted the assistance of multiple editors and administrators in making this page as encyclopaedic as possible. Please accept my apologies if you found it to be anything but! However, I feel that the CSD were not appropriate to apply here; with its large

2337:

Hello, I've just renamed all those product pages Product (Company) as the syntax Company Product is not correct in Occitan (we'd rather say Word de Microsoft or Maps de Google, but as all are foreign words - and neither Microsoft nor Google have made any effort to provide an Occitan-language version

2216:

Hi Vrac. Recently, I made some edits in the BNP Paribas article, and, seeing you already edited it, I'll ask adivice to you. I removed the section "Paribas Sentenced for Conspiring to Violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act" and moved the content to

1995:

Dear Sir, I've researched. They said to "discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page." This is, I assume, your talk page. If it is not, please direct me. I do not want to violate any rules and my lawyer/friend indeed says that I am not. Please let me know what rules you think I violated. I

524:

Hi Vrac, I've made the revisions requested for Draft:Jeff von der Schmidt as requested. However, I am concerned about the duplication from other sources of items such as titles of projects, which cannot be changed or edited. Can you look over the submission and give me your opinion as to whether we

2457:

Vrac, I know, I've just gotten annoyed enough with these Chilean guys who don't let me do anything here without being scrutinized. The article was written on good faith. It had to be gone, yes, it had to be gone, I should have probably not written that , but this kind of situations is exactly what

2315:

Well, I should answer that - reading carefully enough my proposal - I say in all clarity "The result ranked Nova among the top global book publishing companies according to their output (rank 6 out of 100), and a lower medium average citation rate (0.25; rank 58 out of 100)." I think this sentence

890:

Hello Vrac, you recently deleted the curator/contributor tables from the zingmagazine wiki page. I work for the founder/editor/publisher for zingmagazine, Devon Dikeou, and she asked me to create these tables, which directly link to the respective projects on the zingmagazine website. These tables

1628:

for procedural reasons. The article had been suggested for a PROD in the past (2013-10-08, disputed via removal 2013-10-09) and is thus ineligible. However, I think that the article is sufficiently promotional in nature to qualify for a G11 promotional speedy deletion, which I am about to do.

1385:

I hesitated to CSD it but it was written by an account called LendKey and both the references are about LendKey, so someone hijacked a trendy-sounding neologism for self-promotion. "Cloud-based lending" isn't a notable topic any more than "Internet-based lending" or "Lending using computers"..

2735:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2623:

I have done the research, and the name Los Urabeños takes its name from Urabá. Whether the residents of Urabá prefer another name for themselves is a separate question that is irrelevant to this Knowledge (XXG) article. The article is about the criminal organization, not Urabá.

2039:

that must be discussed. The default state of the article is the status quo (i.e. before you made your edits) until the issue is resolved, please stop edit warring and discuss on the Nova Science Publishers talk page. If you continue to revert you may be blocked from editing.

2145:

Hi. I was intrigued by your comments at the Cara AFD. I don't read or write or speak French so if you can update the article with some of the links you provided and add the award (Officier) he received so as to make the article better, I will certainly

2662:

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.

2570:

and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

2424:

gone, and the way it was going to be closed was obvious, so I just saved it from going into Knowledge (XXG)'s deep asshole, and moved it to my userspace. Is there a problem with that? Can you just stop discrediting my comments just because I am the

2095:

policy that you should read. The article stays unchanged until these issues are resolved on the article's talk page. Perhaps you are not familiar with Knowledge (XXG)'s editing guidelines, this is the procedure that is followed.

2458:

keeps driving off Knowledge (XXG) users, we all (content creators) get so frustrated with drama-whores. It's shitty, really shitty. I don't mind if I get blocked, it's better to stay well away. I can still write elsewhere.

2174:

I updated the article with some content and references. It's still a stub, but at least it is sourced. The frwiki article for him has lots of content but is woefully under-sourced (as is often the case over there...)

542:

Yes I think you can resubmit it. A few other things you can do to make it conform to standards: move the external links section below the references section and remove all the links except jeffvonderschmidt.com (see

2763: 2690: 1081:

to familiarize yourself with deletion policies/guidelines/procedures before you start de-prodding and tagging things for speedy deletion. This de-prod, csd, afd runaround is not a productive use of community time.

2516:. 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 1632:

In the future, don't forget to check the article's history before proposing deletion via PROD, as any article that has been PRODded and the PROD gets disputed/removed is permanently ineligible for future PRODs.

1014:

There is very little to no context identifying the subject of the article and has been tagged for speedy deletion per CSD A1. Having two completely different deletion requests open at the exact same time is not

695:

number of references, significant notability of subject, and the extent to which I worked within the community to get feedback prior to posting it, I would appreciate an undeletion (or your support in

2747:. 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 2674:. 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 2354:

Hola, como esta todo? I pinged you but I wonder if it maybe never went through therefore I thought I would notify you again in case you wanted to comment (no one else has in the last week). Cheers,

923: 891:

have become a valuable resource for the zingmagazine staff, its past contributors, and its fans. Please let me know what I can do to prevent these tables from being deleted in the future.

1408:

I agree, but the criteria for deletion must me met, otherwise it's not eligible. Maybe we can find a suitable redirect target? Quite honestly I don't think the term is widespread enough.

202:

Sorry, I didn't see your note about no references for this article until today and it's now been deleted. I based the page on a translation of the article about him on the Spanish wiki:

1941:

Thank you for your feedback. I will change my username from WikipediaNOVA. I didn't know this was a violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s rules. Do you work for Knowledge (XXG)? Thank you.

759: 2348: 604:

I have added a fair amount of information to that page with cited references including Forbes, Red Herring, Business Insider, Fortune, Wall Street Journal, Oracle and Intel.

1474: 1281: 1469:

Let's start with the easy one: the article is indisputably an orphan, so you should not have removed the orphan tag. If you have some doubt about that, check out

699:), even if you ultimately wish to support an AfD for this article. Within that AfD, if there are serious concerns of any type, I will endeavor to address them. 1863: 1557: 1516: 1322: 1176: 299: 802:

I can see no financial or employment data, which would help to establish notability, it's just about what you are trying to sell, rather than factual data

401:

Hi i am a bit confused with how to present the draft article on Doris Brendel in the required format. Could you please give me some assistance in this.

1048:

This is a blatant hoax. I am a Christian myself and this does not exist anywhere in my church calender I have tagged it for speedy deletion per CSD G3.

2406:

I, we, need you to stop behaving like Knowledge (XXG) is your personal playground. Closing an AFD yourself, on your own COI article, is just silly.

754: 340: 1119:" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of 1058: 1025: 2338:

of their products - it's better to use parentheses). And I'm still wondering about the eligibility of ads in the wikipedia :) Best regards. --—

2127: 1135: 1859: 1553: 1512: 1318: 1172: 295: 2777: 2704: 2541: 2439:

You've been around more than long enough to know what is wrong with doing a non-admin closure on an AFD for an article with which you are

239:"17:04, 15 January 2015 Graeme Bartlett (talk | contribs) deleted page Lisandro Aristimuño (Expired BLPPROD, concern was: Unsourced BLP)" 2279: 2072: 2012: 1984: 1957: 1546:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

2608: 2443:

and have a conflict of interest. You also know this isn't going to end well for you, do you want to get blocked? What's up with that?

1455: 1072: 1054: 1021: 458: 725:

Sorry I've completely forgotten what this was about, I suggest following the refund process. I'm not an admin so I can't undelete.

1683: 2773: 2700: 2537: 578: 478: 2756: 2683: 1913: 1856:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1550:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1509:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1478: 1315:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1169:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 968:

Sorry, twinkle failed in the middle of its run so I reverted the edit to Riogate and re-ran it, didn't know about the log...

643: 292:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 106:

to your deletion nomination. Please have a look at this second page to see if it changes your mind. I doubt it will. Thanks,

1127: 2323: 1139: 2032: 103: 2528:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

2768: 2695: 2533: 651: 1848:, Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1547: 790: 544: 661: 439:. Or you could follow the example of any biographical article in Knowledge (XXG) on a well-known person. Regards, 2123: 1501:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1307:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1247:

Then state your case why you disagree on the talk page like the template says and leave it for an admin to decice.

1161:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

284:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

412: 392: 334: 2463: 2430: 2396: 2246:

Thanks Vrac, I already left a response there. Let's see is someone has something to bring into the discussion. --

1473:

for the definition . As for context, the article is not written for users with no knowledge of the subject, see

68:

has been nominated for proposed deletion before, so it doesn't qualify for this process. Feel free to take it to

65: 900: 44: 2360: 2319: 2194: 2170: 2153: 35: 2744: 2671: 358: 426: 408: 388: 330: 2459: 2426: 2392: 2275: 2068: 2008: 1980: 1953: 1772:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

1694:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

265: 215: 121:

Thanks for the heads up, I'm going to wait and see what Mr. Troutman comes up with before I weigh back in.

2604: 2267: 2115: 2060: 2000: 1972: 1945: 904: 566: 2612: 1916:

using reliable independent sources and thus demonstrate its Notability, I hereby award you this Barnstar.

1459: 1040: 1020:

If you would like to discuss this, please post a message on my Talk Page. I will see it there. Thank you.

647: 2529: 1122: 832: 668: 349: 2587: 2563: 2271: 2119: 2567: 2440: 1213: 1131: 436: 1815: 1202: 431:

The best advice I can give would be to follow those two help articles I cited in the draft comments:

1849: 1805: 1736: 1423: 1387: 1242: 1221: 233: 187: 111: 77: 2731: 2658: 2640: 2505: 2496: 366: 2576: 2355: 1356: 1349: 1162: 934: 842: 762:. Although you gave references, they were generally of low quality for one of the following reasons 574: 532: 525:

have addressed the copyright issues adequately? Many thanks, katya1812 (name changed from swmusic)

472: 2740: 2667: 2525: 2509: 1822: 1792:. It then reappears in the Val dera Artiga before reaching the Val d'Aran, then through France and 1470: 811:

provide custom, personalized services" to enterprises he saw as being "ignored" by other providers

696: 487: 432: 236:

if they will restore the article into your user space. Here is the deletion record for reference:

2232:

I gave my opinion on the talk page; I agree with you that the section should be removed. Cheers,

2086: 2064: 2026: 2004: 1976: 1949: 1638: 1586: 1411: 1380: 1366: 1308: 625: 261: 227: 211: 50: 2092: 2036: 1217: 2251: 2222: 1921: 1879: 1603: 1580: 1532: 1338: 1292: 1192: 1147: 989: 959: 708: 496: 315: 285: 161: 2752: 2679: 2521: 2513: 2189:

OK, thanks. It looks a lot better. I didn't have to withdraw the nom, obviously, as it was a

1621: 1502: 2583: 2559: 1834: 1625: 1614: 777:

They were reporting interviews with company chiefs rather than providing independent comment

680: 629: 46: 21: 2755:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2748: 2682:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2675: 2524:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2517: 1826: 1209: 1078: 896: 672: 504: 69: 2031:

Content disputes are resolved through discussion on the article talk pages, that would be

1801: 1797: 1752: 1732: 1728: 1674: 1426:, I spent some time looking before I CSD'd it and that was the best I could come up with. 982:

No problem, I've been having a few issues reporting users to AIV myself recently. Cheers,

184: 107: 73: 2111:

Dear Vrac, why should what's written on wikipedia stay unchanged if its untrue? Michael

1996:

would very much like to know so we can solve this issue amicably and fairly. Thank you.

1142:. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – 2551: 2371:

Sorry, I remember seeing the ping but must have gotten distracted with something else.

2139: 1312: 930: 856: 836: 570: 528: 468: 1897: 1870: