feel free to add topics..... at the BOTTOM, please...

Older talk:

• /Archive1 - The Beginning to 2007-04-30
• /Archive2 - 2007-04-30 to 2007-12-22
• /Archive3 - 2007-12-23 forward

Happy First Day of Summer!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Summer 2008! Mifter (talk)







If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Winter not Summer then I wish you a Happy First Day of Winter 2008!

Give this greeting to others by adding {{subst:First Day of Summer}} on their Talk Page.

If his website isn't valid, then what is?? It's standard biographical info (about an important trumpeter, but then that's just my opinion as a music critic and journalist) that's not available anywhere else.

Please remove the 'unreferenced' tag--you're just being unreasonable.Cbrodersen (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:RS? I can create a website with any name I want to, and put any information I want to on it, and _from the website_, there is no way you can tell the truth from a complete pack of lies. If you can point to 2 newspaper articles about him stating that he's an important trumpeter (even newspaper articles you've written yourself, if your editor approved them!), there's no problem with the article being unreferenced, and common practice is that you can even add information from the website as long as nobody challenges it - but as it stands, I can't even verify that the guy actually exists from information given in the article. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on! Did you even bother to look at his website? There you will find many press notices and reviews from well-known publications such as Fanfare and Grammophone. OK, how does anyone know they are for real? Well, you could look up each individual review, but who's got the time to do that, right?

Then there is his discography on several well-known labels such as Deutsche Grammonphon and Naxos, complete with snapshots of album covers. Yeah, unless you go to the DG and Naxos websites to painstakingly verify each one, they could all just be hoaxes.

Then there is the first prize that Eklund won at the Altenburg competition. Again, verifiable if one takes the time to look it up.

I submit that there are many, many Wiki articles on lesser-known musicians that rely solely on the artist's bio (often taken from a website) and that DON'T have an 'unreferenced' tag at the top. They certainly don't provide a footnote or link after each 'fact'--it would be 'overkill' in a non-scholarly article. I could give you examples, but I don't have the time right now. Why is this article any different?Cbrodersen (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to acquaint yourself with a few core Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Verifiability. Yes, there is much material on Wikipedia that doesn't conform to this core policy. No, that's not an argument for compounding the problem.

You have plenty of time to fix the article; the tag is just a tag. Once you have 15 minutes to spare, you can do the work that you think should be done, and copy some of those links into the list of references. Then we have no difference of opinion about the article. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have added References at the end of the page to establish the credibility of Cyberoam. Does this addition suffice to remove the marked for deletion message at the top of Cyberoam page Mermaid2008 (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a marked for deletion message, it's a tag saying that there are worrisome things about the article... I've removed the "unreferenced" and "notability" tags given the references. I think the article still has problems - it reads like an advertising brochure, which might get it tagged as spam. You're also missing references for quite a few statements, including the Infosecurity awards you claim for it and its certifications, and membership of the VPN Consortium is not a certification.

Rewriting the article to say what the product does and how instead of gloating about how wonderful it is would be a big improvement. But the references help a lot! --Alvestrand (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am all for helping any user understand Wikipedia better, as people did with me when I was a newcomer, and even to this day I'm always learning new things about Wikipedia. I just feel that if someone is going to be that ignorant to policies after being warned multiple times, what other option is there? I would never request a permanent block, I do feel this is right, I just believe that if someone is warned and continues to vandalize, if they're blocked for such misconduct then they may learn. Just my personal opinion, which is why I took the case there after warning in edit summaries and the talk page. but if the potential block is countered by a more experienced editor/admin, I will not argue the case. Happy editing. --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the warnings were within six minutes. Not that long a delay. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For finding the sources for Merck headquarters, couldn't have done it without you! MBisanz talk 19:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the Mt. Vesuvius page; just above the disambiguation template, there's a random "Hi everyone". As it is protected, I cannot revert it, but please do me the honours. :D

Cheers.

Some random user...