Archives

October 2008 - February 2010 March 2010 - July 2010 July 2010 - March 2011 End March 2011 - End July 2011 August 2011 - December 2011 January 2012 - /barnstars

Hi! You indicated you'd like to help us beta-test the new MediaWiki 1.19 extension for the Education Program. Click here to get started.

Thanks, Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mabdul. You have new messages at Czarkoff's talk page.
Message added 00:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Actually you might want to participate in Articles for deletion/Clear Books, as it seems that you have something to say on this topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – I like this bot... mabdul 11:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Bynari, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Microsoft Exchange and Plugin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mabdul, Why did you edit Bynari's page and plant negative information on purpose? It was updated by me, the president of Bynari, Inc. Do you profess to know more about my company and products than I do or are you simply trying to sabotage our company's page by planting information you know very well is incorrect and out of date? This is vandalism, especially coming someone who seems to do a lot of good work on Wikipedia! Since you seem to know so much about Bynari, it's amusing to see you put back the name of Hyun Kim who hasn't been with the company for almost 3 years:-) If you have time to play Wikepedia cop then you should have the courtesy and professionalism to at least contact us to confirm that the changes came from us; unless of course you have some ulterior motives for vandalising our page as a favor to a competitor that couldn't beat us on the marketplace!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bynariteam (talk • contribs) 21:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

Hi Joel,

I really suggest that you get a new username since it violates our username policy.

"plant negative information" - sry? what are you talking about? Everything I changed and/or added was done in good faith and always cited with reliable references.

"you know very well is incorrect and out of date?" - all what I added was cited - if they are out of date, then this is because I simply didn't find any actual reference and I wasn't aware that these information were out of date - more over I rescued this article now two times for being deleted!

I removed the CEO from the article as you can also see in the history of the article.

"at least contact us to confirm that the changes came from us;" - no! that is simply not how Wikipedia is working! We try to cite every fact by using information which is accessible in third party, reliable and thus independent sources.

I really suggest you that you also read WP:COI (or our simple guide/version is located at WP:PSCOI)

Regards, mabdul 11:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mabdul,

Thank you for the response but I find it laughable that you call a 10 year old article "Reliable"! Is it more "reliable and current than our website"? You do realize that in 10 years companies change alot: Executives, Addresses but mosly products? None of the products you've listed are made by Bynari anymore or have been rebranded. You insisted on taking an article in German and translated it into terrible English to give us a page which frankly now is a joke and makes no sense to the reader. It'd have been better if you just kept it blank. Just for clarity sake, what was wrong with the update that we did?

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bynariteam (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

moved discussion to the correct header; added indents; mabdul 16:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's a wiki which everyone can edit! Feel free to improve it, I just wanted to improve the article and I did rescue it. I can use only references that I found - and please don't blame me - that they aren't up to date. You showed me, that there are some companies who simply don't want to get any improvement on their articles and I won't touch it any more and waste my time and energy on that. Please reconsider if that wasn't a bit a bit bitey and harsh for somebody who tried to improve an "unreferences" spammy and advertising article. mabdul 02:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have a proposal regarding WP:AFC (and WP:AFD, actually) process that I would like to discuss with someone. It actually comes from my thinking over several AfDs of "Clear Books" article. The idea is that the special process is created for WP:AFC submissions for articles previously deleted in WP:AFD. This process should look like AfD – the article is passed after reaching the consensus among several editors. What do you think about it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmh, no. Please not. We already have a backlog regular with over ~500 submissions waiting for a review. The AFC should only hold off submissions which are clearly bad and getting deleted (CSD, PROD, AFD, doesn't matter) (and still getting the IPs and non-confirmed users the possibility to create new articles). Normally an article which gets deleted in an AFD should get restored over a WP:DR - in the case of the Clear Books - this is a special case because since the company is/might be not notable, you simply (can) chose writing "an identical" article about the software which might be notable (will check in a few minutes!)

Really the idea to get a (automated) way to discuss articles (on something like a new board) (esp salted ones) which were deleted before because of an XFD (mostly 'CSDed articles can be sorted out because they are mostly deleted because of G11/12) is a great idea. Yes, I think in these cases AFD participants should be informed. mabdul 13:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, the main problem is that current WP:AFC process doesn't give a chance to create a discussion, as the process is template-based. At least the template can be changed so that each AfC editor can express his concerns... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't not true! A user/reviewer is able to move the submission to the WP-space and start a discussion at the WT space. It is also possible to start a discussion at the WT:AFC board or the WP:AFCHD. Another way to discuss is able to do this over {{AFC comment}} (depending on the length). mabdul 18:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of that is quirky. It would make much more sense to initially plant the AfCs in WP space, change the template to point to WT counterpart and have the opinions there. Both allows for better communication: in the end, the whole idea was to help the newcomers and to set a bar on non-notable topics – both of these are better addressed via discussion. And then the article gets moved to the mainspace with a talk page already containing the concerns and replies, so that it saves time for further discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not our fault! The article wizard is also (or esp.) for users without accounts (IPs) and nonconfirmed and they are simply only able to create in the talkspace pages and not in the normal space. mabdul 11:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would make more sense to have article submissions in the Wikipedia: namespace. However, from a technical standpoint, that is currently impossible. IP addresses cannot create pages outside of talk namespaces, which is why Articles for Creation was created in the first place. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mabdul,

I am about this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cerebro_%28software%29&diff=480889300&oldid=479866206

You comment was - "remove section, we have a comparison list for that!"

Where I can find list for ading comparison a visual review systems? see list Competitors on CineSync page

--Khar khar (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a directory and if there are lists and comparison articles, then these "competitor lists" should go in there. Cerebro is already listed in the Comparison of project-management software, but I don't know if there is a visual reviewing system comparison. (feel free to start a new list if you can't find any) FYI: I also removed the list in the CineSync article since it violated additional WP:EL/WP:ELNO. mabdul 02:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an article for Netscape Navigator 2. Thought you may be interested.Smallman12q (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ... In response to your requirement for footnotes. I thought that the references at the foot of the article were footnotes. Would you please be so kind as to tell me specifically what you require? Many thanks - daybydaiboy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daybydaiboy (talk • contribs) 23:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]