User talk:Terrillja/Archives/12/2010

remove pros & cons ?

Hi, we are non profit academic group dealing with all Tablet pc aspect (review ,Pros & Cons , History , apps ,Technical and more ..) we notice that pros and cons issue is missing. plesse advice? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.65.53 (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and I can't figure out from your contributions. Which article are you referring to?--Terrillja _talk 14:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OR is generally a bright line

Regarding this. WP:OR is one of our core content policies. After catching a short discussion on WP:AN, which rightly advised cutting the material, I removed it and pasted the talk page note. Am now also waiting for input on what is best to do with the other articles; to be clear this is admitted Original Research and must be removed. As it is a core policy I do not think article level consensus is sufficient to create an exception - and have indicated to the editors how best to get community input. I'd recommend reverting your re-addition under WP:V, WP:CHALLENGE and WP:BURDEN. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd tend to disagree.--Terrillja _talk 14:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Care to clarify why? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

See the article talkpage, where I replied, as stated in my edit summary. I hate repeating myself over and over.--Terrillja _talk 14:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Seen. I'm afraid your rationale is incorrect and won't work. I've requested help from WP:NOR/N (the correct forum) to explain this and work on the best way to remove (or source) the content on all of the albums. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Bronx salute

I removed the reference because it's reporting a cite-error at Category:Pages with missing references list. I would otherwise not have known it was there.  -- WikHead (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.--Terrillja _talk 20:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks

I do not really understand why you removed the information I've added nor what “reliable source” you'd like to see cited. I _AM_ an expert regarding DNS, knowing all the standardising RFC nearly by hard. I could cite them but what value would it add. This is simply how it works. It's about the same as if you'd request a citation for "1+1 = 2". --Cálestyo (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

While I don't doubt that, your personal interpretations/experience are not considered verifiable. If you have a proper source to support what you are saying about the DNS not being affected by that type of attacks, then please provide it, but saying "trust me, I know" isn't verifiable and is considered original research.--Terrillja _talk 22:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

And how are any ref's to newspapers (which the English WP seems to consist more and more of) better verifiable? It's just a claim from someone who has a more official-looking-like website. And who defines what a "proper" source is? The only proper source is the definition how these things technically work so I can ref the RFC. --Cálestyo (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Proper source as in WP:RS. Something like a PC world article that says the same thing would be such.--Terrillja _talk 16:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

editor deletion

I don't understand why you keep deleting the editors on the pages I have contributed? There are plenty of magazines that have it on there including Time and Readers Digest. (Kleinjj (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC))

The difference is that those are publications which employ notable editors and writers. Non notable staff writers are not relevant to the article.--Terrillja _talk 21:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

These magazine are leaders in their niche, and many of the editors frequently speak at industry conference, etc. Not being a member of the community, it is not reasonable for you to judge if they are noteworthy or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.163.34 (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Then there should be some sources out there that imply notability by wikipedia's standards. Hearsay and unsourced personal opinion do not imply notability. Given that you have absolutely no clue what I do, you can't say whether or not I am "a member of the community" and to be honest, it isn't relevant, since wikipedia has impartial standards that do not require specialized knowledge of a very specific industry. --Terrillja _talk 17:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

deleting awards list for investment advisor and research magazines

I don't understand why you are deleting the award listings from these magazines? Many magazines include their longstanding industry awards, such as people magazine. These awards have been going on for decades and are noted in their industries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.163.34 (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. The articles are about the magazines in general, having an awards table that is far larger than any of the other content places undue weight on that specific item.--Terrillja _talk 17:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Your redirect

Mind explaining this edit? — KV5 • Talk • 20:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. Must have read it as middle school rather than middle/high (though the distinction between the two in terms of redirect to district or keep in place is a tenuous one to me). If it actually had to pass our tests for notability as an org, it doesn't look like it would, but either way, I'm fine with your restoring it.--Terrillja _talk 21:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

WT:NOR

Weren't you the one who told me last time to stop feeding the trolls? I mean, if you're enjoying yourself, go for it, but I think it's pretty obvious you're never going to change GoN's mind. Heck, given past circumstances, xe's highly unlikely even to let you have the last word. My feeling is, at this point, telling GoN to stop beating a dead horse is itself probably a dead horse. As long as xe's not getting any traction any where, no reason to really worry ourselves over it. Just my feelings, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if he keeps it up at this point, I'm just going to take it over to ANI. He has wasted enough of everyone's time. If I felt like he would just keep arguing on that page and everyone could ignore it, I'd be fine with it< but at this point he is still finding new places to say the same thing over and over.--Terrillja _talk 14:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Terrillja. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation.
Message added 05:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Flowdrill

Could you show me where you thought the copyvio text was from in this article, as I couldn't find it. I reverted your speedy of this article temporarily. Thanks. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a very close paraphrase of the entire site, however the copyediting that has been done has made it reasonable, albeit still somewhat spammy.--Terrillja _talk 18:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)