User talk:Gigs/Archive 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I added an entry but it was marked for speedy deletion. One of my competitors (Optellios) has an entry that is more of a sales pitch than the entry that I submitted. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks..FiberSecurity (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Optellios_Inc.

Would you consider redirecting this article to Langhorne, PA right now? The article is obvious not notable in its current form, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining. I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd. Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.Ikip (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Another editor just commented already. Ikip (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Qaimganj

Hello Gigs, I saw that you renamed the article to "Kaimganj" after an anonymous IP address started to alter the article. I just wanted to inform you that the correct name of the city is Qaimganj. The city was named after Qaim Khan (source 1). One reason why the name is often transliterated to "Kaimganj" is because the Hindustani sound for q (ق) does not exist in English. Therefore, k, the closest sound in English, is often assumed. The name of the city in the native language of the region is properly rendered قائم گنج ([[File:Urdu_alphabets.png]]). There are various sources in the reference section which refer to the city as Qaimganj (source 2, source 3). Therefore, there is no need to rename the article. I have added Kaimganj as an alternate name in the lead for clarification. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 04:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

AWCI listing dispute

Hello "Gigs",

I hope I am typing this in the correct place. Your deduction concerning the AWCI listing that there is a dispute that involves industry and our profession is on the correct path. To clarify the problem: the user "time-further-out"/IP user is involved in the business of repairing/restoring vintage watches, specifically pocket watches. This person has claimed that several years ago, he intended to take our certification exam to obtain the "Certified Watchmaker" credential from us. We had absolutely no knowledge of his interest in taking this exam, and he had not contacted us in any way about taking this exam. We suspended (and eventually discontinued) offering that exam as it was obsolete in the way it was written, the way it was delivered/taken by the examinee, and also in how it was assessed. The content of the exam also did not reflect proper exam construction practices and did not do anything to validate the examinee's proficency on more modern watch movements. It had become a genuine liability to AWCI, and it was pulled from our services.

It was after we had suspended and then discontinued offering that exam that we learned of this person's interest in taking that exam. When this was explained to this person, the person claimed that he had begun studying for the exam and was told that he could take that exam. He became very unhappy and upset when he learned that he could not take that exam, and has carried this proverbial chip on his shoulder ever since. This person became a very vocal critic of AWCI policies, and was a prolific poster on our member-only discussion group on Yahoo groups. He wrote so much that many persons wondered how he found time to make a living repairing watches. That may seem like irrelevant information or hearsay that is not of importance to this situation, but I bring it up because it points to a pattern of behavior that continues with this incorrect and harmful editing of the AWCI wikipedia entry.

This person did end up being elected to our board of directors solely through his activities on our Yahoo discussion group. He continued his incessant criticism of AWCI policies. During this time period, AWCI had spent a large sum of money (six figures) to develop a new certified watchmaker exam that would be relevant on all points: content, delivery method, exam construction, assessment, materials, etc. We contracted with a person who had many years of practical experience as a watchmaker who also happened to be in charge of all standardized testing for the public schools in Indiana. He has an education doctorate and also has the practical knowledge to know how to design an exam from scratch, how to administer it, how to assess it, etc. We followed his suggestions and developed this exam, now known as the Certified Watchmaker 21st Century exam (CW21).

We did work very closely with many industry people. The word "industry" in this context would be many well-known Swiss watch manufacturers. One of the problems that has faced our (AWCI) members is access to genuine spare parts for these high-grade Swiss watches. These manufacturers were very reluctant to be associated with anybody who would spoil their hard-earned (and expensive) reputations. Watchmakers would fall into that category. These companies wanted to make sure that anybody to whom they granted a spare parts account would not tarnish their image. And for those who do not understand how important this is, one need look no further than a quote in the book "What They Don’t Teach You at Harvard Business School" from the then-CEO of Rolex SA, Andre Heiniger: A guy asked the Chairman of Rolex, Andre Heiniger, "So, how's the watch business?" Heiniger said "I have no idea". The guy said “What are you talkin’ about? You’re the chairman of Rolex.” Heiniger responded: "Rolex is not in the watch business. Rolex is in the LUXURY business". Image is THE most important part of any product that is marketed in the luxury goods world. That image has to be protected all the way along a product's lifespan, including during any repair or maintenance procedures.

I include that lengthy paragraph to clarify one of the aspects of our CW21 exam that has baffled, confused and upset many persons, including the "time-further-out"/IP user. That user has insisted hundreds (thousands??) of times that we are somehow in the control or under too much influence from "industry". On the contrary, we are doing exactly what our members mandated our board and AWCI staff to do - obtain access to spare parts so our members can make a living as watchmakers. We did that in the only way possible - by working WITH those same industry members who will be offering those accounts (and putting their own reputations on the line) to develop an objective and measurable way to assess the candidate's technical proficiency. There were no other options. Legal avenues are simply unavailable. I won't bore you with more text, but there are ample US Dept of Justice documents available that spell out exactly what manufacturers can and can't do. If a manufacturer does not want to sell their parts to an individual or an entity, they don't have to, period. Many of the armshair lawyers in our organization believe otherwise, and it has led to a lot of rancor and misinformation. "Time-further-out" has been one of the leaders on this propoganda crusade against AWCI, even while he served as a director of AWCI. This user insists that the CW21 exam is not relevant to the majority of our members, is too expensive and should have never been developed. This user also insists that there is nothing wrong with our old CW exam and he believes that it meets a much larger need than the CW21 exam. This user is wrong - we have had legal counsel and standardized testing experts tell us that our old exam is completely inadequate in numerous respects, not even considering the content (which is also inadequate). Our members in industry will not consider giving spare parts accounts to those who have not taken (and of course passed) the new CW21 exam.

This user is no longer on our board due to continuous misdeeds and failing to uphold his oath as an AWCI director. This user ended up resigning because of his dissatisfaction with the decision to shutdown the above-noted member-only Yahoo discussion group. That group was the SOLE SOURCE of his ability to influence others and try to get across his ideas. This user's ideas were (and still are) very destructive to AWCI. This user continues to be the proverbial thorn in our side, and it all began in this supposed inability on his part to take this old exam. We will not offer that exam ever again, and that user is steadfast in his refusal to take our current CW21 exam. As long as he is unable to get what he wants, he will continue to bully his way into any venue that he can to control the message to reflect his own message. This is patently evident on the wikipedia entry for AWCI.

I do apologize for this lengthy discourse. If you want everything available to you to aid in your decision making process, then there is a lot of information that I needed to include. I hope I didn't leave anything out. I do recognize the fact that I am very close to the situation and that it would be very easy for me to provide a subjective account of what has happened. In fact, the user "time-further-out" explicitly states that I am unable to provide any unbiased or objective content at all for the AWCI entry. I do believe I had originally created an entry that held true to the ideals of the wiki community and reflected an unbiased and objective description. I strongly believe that these other users have injected an extreme bias in their editing of this entry. The fact that there appear to be multiple user accounts controlled by only one person is additional evidence of the lengths that that user will go to to manipulate any information that is out there related to AWCI to reflect his own personal bias.

I thank you for taking the time to get involved in this case and for reading this history of the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchmaker (talk • contribs) 22:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mark Brake talkpage

Thanks for your comment on this page. In my opinion, editors have been duped. Someone who was previously convicted of harassing the subject of this article, Professor Mark Brake, has used a series of sock puppets t create the illusion of consensus that the article is in factual error. It is not. Another editor has commented that the article, "is well cited, written in a profession matter, and demonstrates notibility". And I completely concur with your one line rants! A few have them have been used against my article, by various sock puppets, especially "Citation Needed" does not mean "I disagree" and "The idea that people are not free to add unsourced knowledge goes strongly against the entire idea of a wiki." Rosit (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about Armando Ghidoni

Thanks for letting me know about lack of notability for Armando Ghidoni - I created the page possibly in error - I had a CD with tracks whose composer was listed as Armando G ... I tried to track him down and hit upon this guy in the French wikipedia ... I now think it wasn't the person I was after, I thought I'd look around a bit more but haven't had the time so am happy to see the article disappear for now; I'll nominate it for deletion myself. Thanks again. Stumps (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Western Australian Cricket Association

I did not blank Western Australian Cricket Association. It redirected to WACA Ground. The two are totally different from each other.--Karyasuman (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well my exams will be over on 23rd. I would write about WACA after that.--Karyasuman (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page Content

I didn't intend for the actual template I created to be used, just so as to give an example of the basic concept I am trying to convey. I think that there should be a series of warning templates that can be used to direct editors who have comments about various areas of the article to the discussion page.

Request for Comment got bounced

Inre this diff... your request for input got bouncd. Perhaps the question might be posed at the talk page at WP:Signatures? Or at the talk page at WP:Username? Or perhaps even better over at WP:Usernames for administrator attention? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:81.96.244.255

I edited Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:81.96.244.255 for clarity, with this edit summary: "WP:NAC" -> "(Wikipedia:Non-admin closure)" (the former redirects to the latter); removed extra spaces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjd (talk • contribs) 03:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Kahawa

Hello Gigs, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Kahawa has been removed. It was removed by Phil Bridger with the following edit summary '(contest prod - a Google Books search for Kahawa+Nairobi finds hundreds of sources)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Phil Bridger before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The future in English

Hello Gigs

Browsing through my scant wikipedia contributions I noted that you wrote of my section on the future in English:

After looking at the current state of the article, and comparing it to the one before the rewrite, I have reverted it back to before the rewrite. The new version was entirely unreadable. The old version, with its alleged inaccuracy at least was readable and structured well

OK. I cannot say much, objectively, about the (un)readability of my version except to say you are probably right. Aware of my own weaknesses, I posted this on the discussion page:

Having seen the request for a rewrite, I have prepared an article, complete with plentiful citations, that is, I believe, up-to-date and accurate. However, I am a wikipedia virgin. I do not wish to upset the system by simply deleting the original article and replacing it with my own. So, what should I do? Paste my article on this page for comments, or what? Your advice would be appreciated. Gramorak (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I later posted this:

Well, I waited three months, and got no response, so I have gone ahead. Comments and criticism would be most welcome (gramorak (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So, my question to you is: Why the **** did you not respond to those postings? Why, instead, reinstate the pre-rewrite article without the common courtesy of talking about it? As I requested - twice.

I am fully prepared to concede that the original was more readable and better structured than mine. The problem with it was , as the editor wrote:

This section may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, as it is factually inaccurate and out of touch with modern usage. For instance, be going to is as important as will and shall, yet there's no mention of it; on the other hand, the traditional shall/will distinction is now obsolete. There's no mention of such constructions expressing futurity as I'm about to leave, I'm leaving tomorrow, the president is to announce a plan, etc.

Now, my version may be unreadable, but it is factually accurate and in touch with modern usage. So, where do we go from here? I am not going to reinstate my version, only to have it removed by you and replaced by the original and ... etc etc. That would be a waste of everybody's time. I suggest, therefore, to avoid a silly war, a choice of two possible paths forward:

1. Assuming (as I do) that you are up to date with current thoughts on English grammar, you help rewrite my version to make it more readable.

2. Assuming (as I do not) that you believe that the pre-rewrite article is more factually accurate than mine, then we hunker down for feud.

So, can we work together to promote wikipedia's reputation for accuracy and readability?

Yours optimisticly

Gramorak

--gramorak (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Glad you responded to my somewhat intemperate mail to you. I accept that my version may be unreadable for some, but feel strongly that the article you reverted was so inaccurate that it cannot be redeemed by minor changes. I am having another bash at mine.If you are interested, I'll send my revision to you before I attempt to post it. I'd appreciate your comments. gramorak (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD on NetSPI

Gigs,

I rewrote the article on NetSPI, adding a reference to coverage in Wired Magazine and speaking engagements at a number of security-industry conferences. The article is on my userpage, [[1]].

Before I add this revised article to the DRV page, I wanted to ask you for your take. I think the case for notability is stronger.

BTW, I modeled the organization of the article after those on QuietMove and Qualys, two other firms in the same industry that seem to be OK.

Thanks for your consideration.

Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

RfM on economics guidelines

If you'd like to participate in a Request for Mediation of economics guidelines issues (including over the question of whether there should be guidelines at all) and a Mediation if the Request is approved, then please add your account to the list being assembled at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#New Mediation. —SlamDiego_←T 21:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Findsources

I see that you recently updated this template, supposedly to add a Google web search. This search has in fact always been there, so now we have two links to it in the template, which seems redundant. There have been other changes since, so, as I'm not conversant with template coding, I won't try to unpick this myself, but could you take a look at it and fix it? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If people have been confused by the original format then I suppose there's no great harm in having a redundant link. It's not really a big deal - I just happened to notice a comment about this when I was on the template talk page reporting another issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tortilleria

Hello! Your submission of Tortilleria at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LargoLarry (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Tortilleria

On October 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tortilleria, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

JamieS93 00:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: FFD

Hi Gigs. I'm using Twinkle to post at WP:FFD. Yes, you're right, perhaps unencyclopedic isn't the best term to use here, but all of the images are orphaned and without purpose of use, qualifying them for deletion at WP:FFD. Best, FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 01:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not necessary for you to do that because in a week or so, the closing admin will review the images before deleting or keeping them. You can make comments if you like but there really isn't a need for it. Regards, FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 08:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gigs. You have new messages at Koman90's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.