User talk:Kusma/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kusma. 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. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Happy Kusma's Day!
 |
Kusma has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Love, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
I'm so happy you liked the little surprise, dear Kusma :) You deserve this, and so much more, my friend. I hope you enjoyed your special day, and please continue to gift us your excellent work and your kindness every day... it's because of people like you that this project is so wonderful :) Love, Phaedriel - 22:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 03:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Your thoughts on the placement of a spoiler tag at the top of this article about a series of nature documentaries would be greatly appreciated. --Tony Sidaway 21:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 32 | 6 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Dietrich Man
I hope this is the right place to reply to your request for further information about him and his family. There is a certain amount about them in Oskar Pusch's history of the von Below family (Dortmund 1974). They appear in a number of old documents of the period, from 1296 onwards.
Kind regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Hale (talk • contribs) 14:23, 7 August 2007
Meerkat Manor/spoilers
Hi, I would like to say that I beleive that we should keep the spoiler tags on the meerkat manor article because of all the trouble that has happened lately. I realy don't care if they are on but lots of people do. Many people think of meerkat manor as a soap opera, so they don't want to come on here one day and without any warning get told what happens next. Others think of it as a documentary, and beleive there should be no spoilers. I beleive it is a docudrama. A documentary that is set up in a way that makes it feel like a soap opera and make more people get interested. I think that we should leave the spoilers just to make those people who feel it is a soap opera, because, in a way, it kinda is. I think we should leave them on or there will be another edit war that will lead us to being blocked from editing, again. If you don't think that it should be treated as a drama then that's ok, but it is listed under documentary/drama, so these people all have the right to think of it as a drama. If you have anything you would like to say back to me then just tell me on my talk pageMattkenn3 19:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia talk:Spoiler and its archives for the reasons why we usually do not use spoiler warnings anymore. Kusma (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Revertion
Do not revert any H case edits on the admin noticeboard. Thank you. --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 19:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have marked it as resolved. There is really nothing to gain from pursuing this. Kusma (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
african elephants
that wasnt nonesense...i heard that on the news.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charmedxximsure (talk • contribs) 20:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Then cite your sources for an edit that looks like it is related to Stephen Colbert. Kusma (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
chad
im so sorry! i dont want to be banned, it was just a joke! but really...you have to admit. that was funny.
Chinese username
And how exactly am I supposed to communicate with the user, other than telling them very clearly on their talk page to stop creating non-English articles? It's clear the person has a grasp of English, the names of the articles is the Chinese characters spelled out phonetically. I'm not exactly sure why you removed my nomination, but I'll be replacing it. GlassCobra 06:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- He was not a vandal, but a good faith editor using the wrong language. I talked to him in Chinese, and he replied that he didn't know there was a Chinese Wikipedia. I don't think anything is to be gained from blocking this account, especially as he is using Tor proxies. Note that "wrong language" isn't even a criterion for speedy deletion - we have a translation service at WP:PNT for such pages (the very short pages he was creating were not worth translating, though). Kusma (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you need specialized warning templates for "contributes in the wrong language", you can check out Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English/Templates for user talk pages. Unfortunately we don't have a Chinese version (and I'm not really confident enough of my Chinese skills to create one). Kusma (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, sorry if I was a bit harsh. It seems we have another Chinese user, would you mind taking a look? The guy's name is Docruan. Thanks. GlassCobra 08:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am also sorry, I didn't want to sound like I expect you to leave messages in Chinese for other users. I tried to talk to the other guy. Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, sorry if I was a bit harsh. It seems we have another Chinese user, would you mind taking a look? The guy's name is Docruan. Thanks. GlassCobra 08:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| I know you don't need this award to continue fighting vandalism regarding one certain wikipedian, but I want to express my appreciation and deepest sympathies, and I hope you can and will act as swiftly in future as you're doing now. Greetings, – sgeureka t•c 19:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC) |
- Thank you! It is a very nice change to hear something other than "Stop foolish actions!" after blocking another SU sock. Kusma (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
May I research and come back to you? I am fully aware that I deleted this article, but it was in the context of an AfD, and as you are obviously aware, the link that I posted does not lead anywhere; no do I recognise the restored article. I think that I may have failed to spot a redirect. I will find out. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 09:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. I deleted Sex Terms via AfD. The final version of this article redirected to Sexual Slang, which I wholly failed to notice, and hence linked to the wrong article. My bad. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 09:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- As I say, I have not intentionally done anything to the article Sexual Slang. Please treat it as you think it deserves. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 10:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
some SU G5s
Hallo there, glad to see that you are still watching out for those socks and dealing with them appropriately. You deserve all the world's barnstars for your great work dealing with this. I've just returned from wikibreak and briefly glanced at some User:Allenhand contribs, which mostly involved his bizarre categorization of people into made-up groups. The categories (Category:Hungarian-Czechs, Category:Polish-Austrians, Category:Czech-Austrians, also perhaps Category:Moravia) are pointless and confusing (as usual) and should be deleted, I don't know where he comes up with this stuff. The cats will also have to be removed from all the individual pages but I can do this rather quickly. From what I can gather from his editing he is still in Vienna and seems to be visiting a lot of cafés. I will try to make a short list of some recent sock articles I think should be G5'ed and report back later. I'll also be watching for socks now as well, since he shows no signs of slowing down... shoeofdeath 15:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have deleted the categories and emptied all but Category:Czech-Austrians, which I don't have time for right now. Kusma (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange
List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange (third nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 33 | 13 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
CSB
What's up for
{{csb-wikipage|1=Template:Notitle}}?
mean this page is scanned for dup ? Indexed by search engine like Google or Yahoo? Roded86400 23:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Roded86400 10:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- It tries to search for copyright violations, but I don't know how. You might want to ask the bot's owner, Coren about it. Kusma (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
not a conspiracy theory
It is not a conspiracy theory. WP determined this fact itself and the BBC reported it. Warningwarningwarning 21:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you, Kusma. This user is a troll at best. If the information is accurate, the manner of providing and the tone is exceedingly poor. Just thought I'd lend a word of support. VigilancePrime 21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 34 | 20 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
SA school alumni
Hi, A. Klapaucius has edited quite a few South Australian school sites, removing all alumni references, quoting a policy and directing queries to this talk page. Can you provide some background and direct me to such a policy? Thanks Murtoa 13:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- The background is that there is no reliable secondary source that says Henry Keogh went to Saint Ignatius College, South Australia. I went a bit far and just removed the whole alumni section on the article. The general policy is our verifiability policy, but it says that content needs to be verifiable and references should be provided in good articles (and contentious claims should be backed up by good references). As a general note, as an admin I have access to a few extra technical things, but I do not make rulings over content and do not create policy (you have just as much right as me to make content decisions), and it seems A. Klapaucius is overestimating the importance of my edit. I will talk to him about that. Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 35 | 27 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Markus Meckel
Hello Kusma! How are you? I am RS2007. I am relatively new Wikipedian. I joined the Wikipedia community on July 15, 2007.
I am happy to know that you are a German and a mathematician. I created the biography of Markus Meckel. I don’t speak German. In fact, I don’t know anything about German! Well, I know some German people and I am interested in the culture of Germany. However, I don’t speak German. I faced many problems when I was creating the biography of Markus Meckel!
The biography of Markus Meckel should be improved. Most information about Markus Meckel is in German websites. Please improve the biography. And, if I made some errors, please don’t say anything negative about me! I tried my best. And, please reply on my talk page. Good luck, RS2007 03:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 36 | 3 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 03:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 37 | 10 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 20:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Powell, Ohio
Thanks much for protecting the page! Nyttend 15:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's only 24 hours, though -- I hope the vandals get bored quickly :-) If not, drop me a line or go to WP:RPP for more help. Kusma (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler tag in 'Akira'
I noticed that you removed a soiler tag on the Akira page. There is currently a discussion on that article's talk page on whether or not a spoiler tag is warranted. The argument is over whether or not the article is an exception to WP:SPOILER. As I'm sure you know, there are exceptions to WP:SPOILER detailed in the subsections, When spoiler warnings may be appropriate and When spoiler warnings should not be used. And, further, WP:SPOILER is a Wikipedia Style Guideline and, therefore, not set in stone. If you would like to participate in the talk page discussion, you are more than welcome. Regardless, it would be appreciated if, in the future, you would check the talk page discussion before making changes to a feature of the article that is under review there. To quote the spoiler guidline itself:
- A reminder: before adding or removing a tag it is helpful to check the talk page; others may already be discussing the tag in question, or may have consensus as to its presence or absence.
Thanks! Cheers, ask123 17:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I suspect that the tag would have been removed anyway via consensus. ask123 17:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I thought I had checked the talk page and history, but must have been imagining that... Sorry (and I commented on the talk page), Kusma (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 38 | 17 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
DRV
Re [1]. Flattery is such a useful tool :-) Please close the DRV, it's not worth it (certainly not worth getting blocked over) - I'll slap a few cautionary templates on the article and be done with it. Perhaps a rider to the CSD policy would be a good idea, as I assumed it would be upheld and hasn't been? --Joopercoopers 14:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- It was surprisingly difficult to get the DRV closing templates to work, but somehow I managed. Anyway, if you do have something to say about what made you leave, I'll be listening. I don't know whether anything can be done about it, though. Good luck at Citizendium - I am curious whether the project will really take off at some point. Kusma (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that - the talk page seems to have disappeared though :-)
- leaving - erm, prior to today's drama I had vowed to go quietly and leave the door open, which I still intend to do. A spat at GA/R[2] finished off a friend - an expert in Mughal history (and a novelist) - they were enforcing a blanket in-line citation requirement regardless of the 'likely to be challenged' bit - I'm just not going to write somewhere where everyCite error: There are
<ref>tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)., lastCite error: There are<ref>tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). syllCite error: There are<ref>tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).ableCite error: There are<ref>tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). needs an inline citation. This isn't so much of a problem as the contempt that 'writers' are shown by admins and 'reviewers' at FAC, FAR, GA/R (LaraLove, Tony1, Lucifermorgan etc.) - the supreme arrogance to sit in unqualified judgement over the work of others and yet feel entirely justified in rarely contributing oneself is a real turn-off here (see User:Joopercoopers/Zen and the art of good reviewing, [3][4]) - to be called a troll for trying to effect change wasn't something that bothered me, but would others. But mostly, the refusal of any of the 'management' to do anything about it and to be content to just sit back and watch it happen time and again beggars belief. - An encyclopedia which anyone can edit will float at the lowest common denominator of content and the highest denominator of style, because high school students and young adults can enforce punctuation rules and other such binary decisions but they can't necessarily be relied upon to exercise some of the erudition, tact, diplomacy, judgement and thought that comes with maturity (and a frankly, a degree). We have absolutely no bars to entry, which is not in itself a bad thing, but equal voice is. Effective governance requires someone to weigh the arguments properly, admins can't do this because their numbers are statistically skewed towards the techy and/or the young. The alternative, what I see we have now, is mob rule by children and the endless arguments. There's no real imperitive in that system towards an increase in quality, only quantity. I had, until today thought I might keep a foot in both camps - use both CZ and WP to complement each other - copyedit review here, content review there with both projects benefiting from the content - I'll sleep on that one, but for each new good editor you attract it seems there are 3 leaving and twice that many immature editors of pop-culture articles arriving. Wikipedia is a busted flush as a serious attempt at an encyclopedia. --Joopercoopers 15:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're not the only one who finds the current GA/FA process counterproductive. Ignoring both FA and GA is one thing that has helped me keep editing here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah I've thought about that - but the place just breeds drama, sucks people in to the shouting, there's no feeling of community or common purpose, just adversarial hair-pulling politics, I'd rather go and play with the grown-ups. --Joopercoopers 16:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is quite difficult not to fall into the "inline citation" trap, just as with other style requirements. The lack of content review by experts is probably the largest problem of our GA/FA processes and makes it easy to replace it by demands for perfect style and brilliant prose only. It is quite difficult to organize and keep experts, though. Our WikiProject structure might help, but takes very much effort until it really takes off (I have tried to run WikiProject Germany for a while, without much result - I'll try again when I have new ideas). Anyway, I must admit that I haven't written an article in the last six months -- I should try to write another FA and see how bad it goes. Adminning for a while and then writing for a while usually helps me to stay relaxed enough in both areas. We need more ways to make Wikipedia less stressful.Kusma (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're not the only one who finds the current GA/FA process counterproductive. Ignoring both FA and GA is one thing that has helped me keep editing here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- leaving - erm, prior to today's drama I had vowed to go quietly and leave the door open, which I still intend to do. A spat at GA/R[2] finished off a friend - an expert in Mughal history (and a novelist) - they were enforcing a blanket in-line citation requirement regardless of the 'likely to be challenged' bit - I'm just not going to write somewhere where everyCite error: There are
- Thanks for that - the talk page seems to have disappeared though :-)
On a minor related note, can you please restore the talk page? MrZaiustalk 16:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have restored it. Kusma (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Signature
I have done as you asked and opt out. Have I done it correctly? Can you check? Thanks. -- Cat chi? 15:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like you did it correctly; if it still doesn't work the next time you log in, the bot is probably broken and you should ask the operator to fix it. Kusma (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Why do you find it necessary to alter our project guidelines without consensus to basically say what it already says? Are you just trying to stir things up or what? LaraLove 15:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ah. In reading your talk page, it has become obvious. LaraLove 15:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ain't she The Gal - makes your heart bleed don't it? How she hasn't been blocked for disruption (or at least megalomania - "I've already limited who can review the articles") before now is a mystery. I can only assume the spirit of wikipedia is less of an aspiration these days. --Joopercoopers 13:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I do not currently have the time and energy to fight this fight against establishments, hierarchies, and the impression that some parts of the project need to operate under a deadline, but I will try to use "megalomania" as a block reason sometime :-) Kusma (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent idea! although I also like the term "wikidominion" as in "Blocked for attempting to enslave wikipedians under his/her wikidominion". :-) --Joopercoopers 17:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I do not currently have the time and energy to fight this fight against establishments, hierarchies, and the impression that some parts of the project need to operate under a deadline, but I will try to use "megalomania" as a block reason sometime :-) Kusma (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ain't she The Gal - makes your heart bleed don't it? How she hasn't been blocked for disruption (or at least megalomania - "I've already limited who can review the articles") before now is a mystery. I can only assume the spirit of wikipedia is less of an aspiration these days. --Joopercoopers 13:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 39 | 24 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
World In Conflict plot
it contains spoilers, thats why the thing was up there. I'm gonna undo ur edit. If there are further complications please debate it on the World in conflict article discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kliu1 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- As a section called "plot" should contain spoilers if it is sufficiently comprehensive for our encyclopedic mission, I have reverted your edit and commented on the talk page. Kusma (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Lauterbach
Hello Kusma, Lauterbach, Baden-Württemberg still has the WikiProject Germany|class=Start tag on the talk page.Is it still needed? Best Hans --Hans555 13:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have rerated it as B-class; while it might still use some style improvement, it seems to be reasonably complete and referenced. Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your edit on the page and thanks for the input. I just found the article yesterday and decided to adopt it but I do not like spoilers hanging out in the middle of everything with no warning. Plot works just fine though.
Have you seen an article on a book series that struck you as very good? I am in need of a model.
Thanks, again. GLKeeney 13:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have tried to find an excellent book series article, and haven't found any. Most book series articles move the complete plot summaries to individual articles (like A Series of Unfortunate Events or The Matrix (series) or Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn). An example where everything is in one article is at Mars trilogy, which has a far-too-detailed "Characters" section with a pointless abundance of infoboxes, but otherwise a reasonable-length plot summary. Try to write as much as possible real-world information about the series and trim the in-universe details per WP:WAF. Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent. I will check those out. Thank you. GLKeeney 14:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Query: Why was my article deleted
Dear Kusma,
I had created an article under the title, 'PointCross'. This was an article detailing the activities and work that my company Pointcross (www.pointcross.com) does. You will find details of the company on our website mentioned above.
I have been asked to recreate this artice, and am wondering what i could do this time around to avoid deletion. As i notice there are several companies that are listed in wikipedia, and i would very much like to have an article on my company too. We work on making Decision Support Systems and Electronic Content Management systems based on a unique architecture and would like to recieve feedback and inputs from other users who would stumble on to our article.
Please advice,
Thanks and regards, Pranav Anthrax p11 18:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia discourages editors to write about their own company, see our conflict of interest guidelines. Usually, once your company is notable enough, others will write about it. If you do write about yourself, be sure to use and cite as many as possible reliable sources that are independent from the company itself. Your new page, despite having more content than the one I deleted half a year ago, still does not make it clear to people who haven't heard of your company why it is important enough to have its own article. Hope that helps, Kusma (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)