User talk:Macpl

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced to multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring and sockpuppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Lastly, if you are editing an article about an individual or group of people, please adhere to Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! tedder (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the prod tag without putting a reason in? Why are there so many troll accounts trying to protect that article that blatantly lacks sources as per Wikipedia guidelines? Trust me, you're not the first one to protect that article from the brink of deletion. It's been kept alive several times before, mostly by the same person using a different account. The question is, why is he trying THAT hard to keep it alive?

Just in case you aren't a troll account made by the author of that article, that article was first noticed by me THREE years ago, and I still am not sure how long that article had existed before that time. It was deleted with much effort after the admins had agreed that there were a lack of sources. This new revision made by that same author has improved significantly from the original article, but still lacks citation. The citations provided by the author are simply insufficient to be used as a way of referencing his work. One link provided by him is already dead, and the other looks like a newspaper article that gives very limited information about the author. Indeed, this latter source does somewhat confirm the existence of the author, but it is still very unclear why there is a need for his entry. There are no peer-reviewed sources that have reviewed his work, and a Google search with those titles he provided goes back to a personal webpage which indeed does link to his poems.

I will most definitely suggest this article be deleted through other means again, and if you have a problem with it, please feel free to join in the discussion. AWDRacer (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- before you add more text and links to http://www.softwaretop100.org, please go to WP:RSN and initiate a discussion about the reliability of that site as a source. It seems like borderline advertising, and is an unknown source lacking in authority (see WP:RS). Further, adding it to the top of large articles makes it appear to be spam, promoting the website. tedder (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that I needed to confirm that a site was verified as reliable before using it as a reference, but I have followed your advice and searched through WP:RSN. This source was discussed here and was found to be reliable. Macpl (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I just found that discussion too. However, it still does not belong in the lede: it isn't the most important thing about the companies. For instance, with this, it isn't more important than everything else in the lede. It might belong in the main part of the article; the lede is supposed to summarize the most important things about the company. It might belong in the lede next to the text about being a Fortune 500 company. Again, including it indiscriminately makes it appear to be spam, done to link to softwaretop100.org more than to improve the article. tedder (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that my link helped you to find the discussion that you advised me to initiate. I have also found WP:LEAD, which tells me that the information that I have added to those few articles does belong in the lead. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points Macpl (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see from your User page that you are an Administrator. What does that mean? Do I need to edit the way you tell me to edit? (Are you giving me advice or orders?) What happens if I disagree with you? Macpl (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that I'm an admin. Much like Animal Farm, we're all equal. Anyhow, yes, the lede is to summarize the important bits, but it should reflect (repeat, duplicate, echo) content that is explained further in the article. For disagreements, getting a third opinion is often helpful- I'd suggest looking at the options at WP:DR.. perhaps WP:CNB? tedder (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The site adds to confusion when LM at $4186M (software alone) is not listed at http://www.softwaretop100.org/software-top-100/global-software-top-100-edition-2009 , but Dassault and Thales are. I don't know what to make of it.TGCP (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mons Daveson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mons Daveson. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Karanacs (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jean Carlos Gamarra, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Carlos Gamarra. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Janggeom (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing prod's just because there was no edit summary is considered disruptive editing. Continuing to do so will result in a block. -DJSasso (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prods can be removed for any reason, but the person nominating the article for deletion MUST leave an edit summary. It is written in the policy. Macpl (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually prods should only be removed for notability reasons. And you are supposed to discuss them on the talk page before removing them. Edit summaries are not required but are suggested. -DJSasso (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is a discussion at the administrators' incidents noticeboard regarding an incident with which you may be involved. Please note that this thread is not about you in particular, however you may be involved in the circumstances leading up to the event, so I figured it was wise to let you know of its presence. Please don't take this notice as any indication you have done something wrong. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]