User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

hello ~ I try to accomplish "MIPRO" title which has been protected and can edit by administers only. just don't know how to start it. I used their microphone before ; really love this brand. - plus, I found so many relevant information about this brand to establish this subject. Somehow,it seems like this title has been destroyed already - no way to edit it. a little bit depress...

I found you from the list of assistant editor. My writing is not good enough and not really familiar with wikipedia policy, but I found good sources about this subject. hopefully we can work togher to accomplish this project. If you are intested in pro audio article, you can visit their website at www.mipro.com.tw and do some research from google. - you will find that this subject is deserved to list.

hope to hear your feedback soon. ~ Have a good day ! --Wilson0324 (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The article in question has been deleted several times, which doesn't look good. However, having looked at the article there may be a credible claim to notability that might have been overlooked. Either that, or the claim is not accurate. The article claims that ACT 〝Automatic Channel Targeting〞 is a world first technology, and that the ACT function is the most intelligent wireless system channel set-up feature and is fast becoming a pro-audio industry standard. A bold claim. What is needed now are references which support those claims. I found this - [1] - which leads nowhere, but this and this use wording which borders on supporting the claim, and suggests further research might be worthwhile. SilkTork *^YES! 08:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you SilkTork & great to hear from your suggestions. I spent a little bit time for MIPRO research as below: Audio Video consultant, Gary Kayye, commented top 6 new company from InfoComm2008 - 1 MIPRO relevant news, mostly from interview - 2 Audio Pro March issue 2009 from Indonesian,3 Pro Audio Middle East May-June 2006 from Chinese,4 Economic Daily News from Chinese,5 e technology asia July/Aug 2008, 6 United Daily News 2008/07/05. also, I found their product review MIPRO ACT-82 7 MIPRO ACT-82, and TEC Award nomination 8 TEC Award nomination. 9 Pro Sound News Europe -reports David Davies /March 2008 So far, I found those information - It's time consuming. please check first to see if it's okay for the reference. please let me know your thoughts - thank you ~--Wilson0324 (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the sources and check back with you. SilkTork *^YES! 16:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What we are looking for is something that says the company is notable. I've taken a look, and there's certainly stuff which is on the borderline. It could be that an accumulation of this material will be enough.

• Gary Kayye, commented top 6 new company from InfoComm2008 - 1 says: "MIPRO: MIPRO Electronics is a new manufacturer to the US -- based out of Taiwan -- and they have some very powerful and simple wireless microphone solutions. I was impressed with the simplicity of operation but the prices stunned me. Check them out at: www.mipro.com.tw" It's simply a mention, and though Kayye makes some claims for himself, the publication appears little more than a blog. I doubt if it would pass as a WP:Reliable source

• MIPRO relevant news, mostly from interview - 2 Audio Pro March issue 2009 from Indonesian - this source simply mirrors the next one ([http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:qsTUJBhrAUsJ:www.mipro.com.tw/link/pr/2006pdf/Pro%2520Audio%2520East%2520Middle-05.06-Eugene%2520Q%26A.pdf+MIPRO+Eugene+Chen&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk 3 Pro Audio Middle East May-June 2006 from Chinese0, which merely uses MIPRO's own website. See Wikipedia:Reliable_source#Self-published_sources - the wording is: "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable." See also Wikipedia:Org#Primary_criteria. These sources therefore are not very good. Number 5 - technology asia July/Aug 2008 - is another mirror of the same article.

• 4 Economic Daily News from Chinese MIPRO is mentioned briefly in an article about Ka Keung Electronics.

• No 6 is a blog - not a reliable source.

• No 7 is a decent looking, full length review from a reliable source - http://svconline.com/ (Sound & Video Contractor)

• No 8 is a TEC Awards nomination. That's very good. A nomination for a significant award would be acceptable by most editors as evidence of notability.

• No 9 is it! Bingo. I can't see any editor now denying the notability of a product which has been nominated for a significant award, AND has an article in a reliable source about how the President of the United States used MIPRO equipment during his campaign.

I'll help you write up the article. SilkTork *^YES! 18:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've userfied each deleted version of the article toUser:wilson0324/MIPRO. That is the place to work on the article and use the reliable sources indicated above. You may work on the article in User:wilson0324/MIPRO as much as you like - but please do not attempt to restore MIPRO or any other mainspace article until I say we are ready. SilkTork *^YES! 19:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you SilkTork ~ Yes, I won't do anything until you say "yes". - It's great!

If you need more information, please let me know. I will do the best to see if we can get more relialbe sources. cheers ~

--Wilson0324 (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork. I've started a discussion at WT:F1 regarding the changes you have made recently to the infoboxes in several Formula One circuit articles. You may care to participate. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The March 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We are primarily an encyclopedia. Of necessity we form a community to assist in the building of the encyclopedia, but we shouldn't let the internet community attitude over-rule our primary objective. I clicked on all three of those links expecting a serious discussion. That simply wasted my time and irked me. That is non-productive, and reduces the value of what is an important asset to the project. If there are objections to a practical joke, those objections need to be listened to, not over-ridden. There are enough jokes taking place on Wikipedia today without abusing a valued asset to serious discussion. If you continue to feel that Cent should be used for practical jokes, perhaps we should open a discussion on the matter on the talkpage. In the meantime I feel the safe option would be to remove the jokes. If the consensus on the discussion is to include the jokes (or one of them, if not all three), then the jokes can be replaced. SilkTork *^YES! 10:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a filibuster; by the time a consensus is reached either way, the matter would be past relevance. We had this discussion last year at Wikipedia:Pranking, and implementing controls on April Fools stuff was rejected. flSiet (aklt) 10:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I just looked. The discussion wasn't about CENT, and the options given were not clear. There's no harm in having a discussion today about the use of CENT, and if consensus is that people find that it's cool to use CENT for practical jokes, then so be it. But let's at least have the discussion! SilkTork *^YES! 10:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Would you be so good as to undo all the redirects you changed, as this merge has been reversed? Whether the article was a stub or not, I think this merge really needs discussion prior to completion. I rather think that the George Foreman Grill article is simply underdeveloped, rather than being incapable of growth. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is simply an unencyclopedic product which has gained attention because of the association with a notable person, and that notability is not inherited. I can see the potential encyclopedic value of an article on a Contact grill in which the George Foreman grill is mentioned, but I am not clear on the need to have a stub article on a particular brand purely because of the amount of promotional advertising and sales.

My personal feeling is that it is a minor topic - I felt I was doing the best thing in placing it in context within Grilling (or another parent article), but if you feel strongly that a stub article on this product serves a better purpose than the information being embedded in a contextual parent article, then so be it. I disagree, but the GFG is not that interesting a topic to get into a dispute about. Do what you will, but if you feel that way, then you need to do the work yourself and not ask me to do the labour for you! SilkTork *^YES! 21:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a question. I f I had added my opinion in time, would it have make a difference, or not? Can this decision be reverted? can you check on this article, I proposed for delete Gaetan BucherThanks.--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't have made any difference. Even though I only became aware of it after I had closed, I did read it to see if it would have changed the decision.

I've taken a look at Gaetan Bucher. There are sources, including Time.com, but there doesn't appear to be enough to justify a standalone article. I removed the puff, and then merged the main points into the Independent Financial Centre of the Americas article. He doesn't appear to be notable beyond that company, but is enough of a part of that company to be mentioned there. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 19:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled by the outcome of Patrick Muldoon. He is a candidate for Lt. Governor in one of only two states to hold governatorial elections in 2009. Yet, eveyone was dismissing him as an unsuccessful candidate. Any insights? Racepacket (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

the AFD duration discussion and policy change werent' well advertised - no notice on WP:AN or the Village pump policy section, as far as I or anyone else were able to tell. This was brought up on the Wikien-L list and concerns raised in two areas:

1. Lack of acceptably wide notification for the discussion and poll, given that it's a policy change.
2. You had voted on the proposal prior to closing it.

I posted an AN notice [2] recommending that anyone who objects start a new discussion on the AFD talk page. I also added a new section below the closed poll section on the AFD page noting the concerns that were raised.

On the first matter, I think that this poll probably was an accurate gauge of wider community feeling, despite the lack of wider advertisement. I believe we need to go through a wider review, but I think the result will remain.

On the second, I think that we may want to have another uninvolved administrator reopen and reclose the discussion, to avoid the appearance of impropriety. While I think you clearly called it right based on the obvious 3:1 margin, we do want to try and keep closures as much as possible by people who weren't in any conflict of interest over the results.

I'm posting this here to let you know about the issues and the Wikien-L discussion. I don't see this change as wrong or a mistake, but the process could have been handled better, so we should try and clean that up some.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I stand partially corrected - there was a Village Pump notice, now archived at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_63#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days. I didn't see it at the time or when scanning the archives to check, but it was there.

The AN discussion is leaning towards more open discussion and review so far, FYI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I have responded in both places. I can see that you are well intentioned, though I think that the process that has taken place is enough, and any more would be in itself unnecessary, and in general would be encouraging of a bureaucratic attitude that is not conducive to the well being of the project as a whole. What I am more concerned about now, is how to encourage a change in behaviour away from the creep toward early closures. I suspect it will be a long slow uphill struggle to get people to change the habit of closing early. It will be interesting to see what will happen. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 18:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Oleg. Following this discussion, AfD discussions now go for seven days rather than five. Would you be able to adjust MathBot to take this into account? Regards SilkTork *^YES! 16:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vestryhall.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --fuzzy510 (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork Hope you are well ~ I just found one more link from wiki mentioned about "TEC Awards" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEC_Awards. MIPRO products have been nominated couple times. I think it's useful for MIPRO article. - any update, please let me know. thank you --Wilson0324 (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:SK, I can actually withdraw the nomination ("No one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion.") Should the user who voted delete want to continue the discussion, he would have to Open a new AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 Arizona State Sun Devils football team (2nd nomination) Cheers. I'^mperator 13:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Only if nobody else agreed with the deletion. Take a look. User:Townlake said the article should be deleted. You'll need to put it back up for the full seven days. SilkTork *^YES! 17:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I felt that since consensus had been clearly established, IAR was applicable. I am quite astonished that a rule discouraging SNOW closes has been set, but that's bureaucracy for ya. :) Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I know what you're saying! But people feel that not everyone is on Wiki every day, so a full 7 days (therefore including a weekend) is really needed for a full consensus. SNOW was designed to cut through "pointless" bureaucracy, but the new rule actually makes sense so SNOW doesn't apply to AfDs. There's going to be a few people who are not aware of the new situation, so there'll be more SNOW closes over the next few days. They are not worth over-turning, but the closers should be made aware that the situation has changed. SilkTork *^YES! 17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I thank you for the message on my talk page, but I have decided to stop editing the Van Morrison pages for the time being (unless my help is absolutely vital). I think that you and user Agadant will do a good job on making the article GA. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you could keep an eye on the talkpage and chip in with your view now and again that would be helpful. It's useful to have a different perspective, and for edits to be challenged. Agadant picked up on the negative comment on Morrison's live performances in the lead and I think he is right so I have removed that. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 12:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed you removed my massive grilling photo sequence. I was wondering how long it would last, after I first added it last year. :) rootology (C)(T) 16:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking back at that diff, that was quite a busy and complex edit I did. I must have spent ages on that! I liked your grilling sequence and pondered long and hard before removing it, as I felt it had value. But the inconvenience of the size of the image outweighed against the value of seeing the meat being gradually grilled. Anyway, the clincher for me was adding the cheese in the last image, 'cos that aint no Royale with Cheese! SilkTork *^YES! 11:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)