User talk:MelanieN/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

iNetClean

Hi Melanie, since the page deletion it caught quite good press coverage nationally and internationally. I would like you to restore the page. I can then add independent sources / references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshkrshukla (talk • contribs) Comment added by Jim Carter per this. 14:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Sureshkrshukla Could you show me a couple of links to this press coverage? In a quick search I couldn't find any. I did find this link [1] which suggests to me that you might be the owner of the site iNetClean; is that true? If so, you need to read WP:COI and declare on your talk page that you have a conflict of interest with regard to this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Melanie, Yes, the link you found is related to same product and derivative list of porn sites. Inetclean is a product from company Karpa IT Solutions LLP. I am owner of this company. Few more links: Hindi Press - [2] [3] [4]

BBC coverage: [5]

Sureshkrshukla (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC) SureshKrShukla

Thanks for your note and for the additional references, Sureshkrshukla. In my opinion there is still not enough information or references to support an article about this product. The original article was deleted because it did not have any independent reliable sources. It had four references: two links to the iNetClean website, one to the app store that sells it, and one to Facebook. None of those qualify as independent sources. Now you have proposed four new, independent references and I have found one. I can't read the Hindi sources, but it looks to me as if they don't even mention the iNetClean product. The BBC and Times of India story mention you, and they say that you have written an anti-porn filter, but they do not name iNetClean. So I find no independent coverage of iNetClean. In a separate search I could not find anything about Karpa IT Solutions. It appears there is little or no coverage about the iNetClean filter to justify an article here. There is some coverage about you, but not enough to justify a biographical article, which in any case should not be written by you. So in response to your request: I am not going to restore the article. If you wish you can post a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review, saying that additional sources are now available, but your request is not likely to succeed. In fact, if you keep trying to get an article here that is basically about yourself and your own company, you could be sanctioned for conflict of interest. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Melanie, "I can't read the Hindi sources, but it looks to me as if they don't even mention the iNetClean product."

Let me help here. Most useful excerpt from reference 1 "आईआईटी बीएचयू से साल 2000 में केमिकल डिपार्टमेंट से इंजीनियरिंग करने वाले सुरेश शुक्ला ने पत्नी सोनल शुक्ला और कुछ स्टूडेंट्स के साथ मिलकर INETCLEAN.COM नाम का एक सॉफ्टवेयर तैयार किया है।" Second reference - mentions price, site to download and all the features.

BBC does mention "who now runs a company based in the holy town of Varanasi selling anti-pornography solutions and filters." TOI mentions "Along with the affidavit, Vaswani's lawyer also submitted the list of websites from Shukla's company database. This, Suresh says, is the list that the government eventually sent to various internet service providers asking them to block the websites in question. "It took us eight months to create it and we had feedback from around 3,000 users of our filter to refine it," says Sonal. The database has all kinds of samples, from completely adult stuff to 'sex stories', she says."

You got me wrong - I am neither interested in article on myself or my company.

I want to introduce article about parental filter iNetClean, which would be useful to many. It gives monitoring mode feature and thoroughness (including social media page scanning), not provided by many freebies out there. It raises the awareness level of interested about new trends in internet adult content.

You could argue that it is to attract sales, but again no. If our product has a little price tag, its because laws of my country don't permit wikipedia type finance model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshkrshukla (talk • contribs)

Suresh, I just noticed a message from you on NeilN's talk page, saying that you now understand about your conflict of interest in writing about your company, and you will not keep trying to write about it. Is that correct - that you now understand what the problem is and why Wikipedia is going to have a hard time accepting an article from you on this subject? And that you are no longer asking me to restore the article for you? --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Beatrice International Models

Hi Melanie,

I hope you are well. I don't know how this Wikipedia works, may I ask you how I can send you a private message. I would like to discuss about a page that you have deleted in september. Its for Beatrice International Models. I company has exchanged hands and I believe the previous owners wants to take it down, when they clearly don't have any rights to do it anymore. Please message me , I would like to explain in detail. The email address is rchopra@beatricemodels.it

Regards,

RC

Hello! I prefer not to go to email; we can discuss it here. The article was deleted as a result of a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatrice International Models, where it was decided that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria to have an article here. So I don't understand what you mean by "they want to take it down". It was already taken down; there is no article. In any case, it's not up to the previous owners, or the current owners, to decide whether this has an article at Wikipedia. They have no "rights" to decide whether the company has an article or not. That is determined by Wikipedia policy, as detailed at WP:GNG. I will be away from the computer for a while, but if you don't understand, ask your questions here, and someone will see and answer them. --MelanieN (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Melanie for replying to me. If you can notice that request to take the page down was made by 2-3 people in a span of just 2-3 days. We are in the process of acquiring the brand and taking over all the IPs. If you would like to google beatrice international models/ beatrice models or wikipedia it, you will find a lot of evidence of its presence. I would kindly ask you to re-consider its deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit beatricemodels (talk • contribs) 11:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please be aware that "evidence of presence" is not sufficient to establish "notability" for a company in Wikipedia terms, which requires substantial coverage in independent reliable third-party sources such as news reports, journals and books: Noyster (talk), 12:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

---

I agree, if you google it, you will find plenty of information. There are so many blogs which talks about Beatrice Model management and its presence in fashion market since 1976.

Delete : I can't find any reliable sources. MirandaKeurr (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Delete - Notability is not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Delete as there's not even minimally good coverage (my searches found nothing good). SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC

How come only between 12-13th September 2 people realised that there is no reliable source or notability is to established ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit beatricemodels (talk • contribs) 11:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm not sure what you may be suggesting here, but the listing of an article for possible deletion ("AFD") attracts the attention of more editors, and is intended to attract that attention. Please note that all who contributed to that discussion were experienced editors with a year or more of tenure and many hundreds of contributions: Noyster (talk), 12:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes but how come all the editors, just decided to comment on it in a span of 2 days! This sounds weird to me. The page existed from a very long time. The links to beatrice models from other pages of celebrities existed too..

(talk page stalker) Please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ at the end of the post. This will put your signature and the date stamp on. Thanks. As to the request for deletion, it was made by one person who listed the article at WP:AFD. This is a list of articles to be discussed, and anyone can comment there. Regular editors look at the list and comment on the articles. After about seven days (usually), an administrator will do one of three things: delete the article, or decide to keep the article, or relist the article for longer discussion (or possibly go away and leave it to someone else if they can't make their mind up). That is why the short time scale was there. An article can have been created on Day 1 of Wikipedia, and still be discussed over 10 years later. The article claimed that the company had represented various famous models, but the only evidence was the company's website and a listing at a database site. Please be aware that notability does not transfer from client to business or the other way. Please see WP:CORP about notability for companies and WP:RS about the reliable independent sources needed to prove it. Please also do be aware that taking over a business does not include the Wikipedia article, if there is one. It is not a possession of the previous owners, or of the new owners, of the company. It is an encyclopaedia article, not a directory or database listing, and it is not like Facebook where the page belongs to someone. Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, and they may contain information that the subject does not like - so long as it is reliably and independently referenced. Peridon (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

--Thank you for the reply.

   As I said earlier I totally agree that evidence should be from independent sources. You said the only evidence was the company's website and a listing at a database. May I politely request you to at least go on those Model's Wikipage and see if they have been represented by beatrice models in milan. If there was no evidence, then Beatrice's name would not have been mentioned on their page. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, I think Beatrice has the right to have its presence like other agencies like Wilhelmina, Elite, Boom etc. We don't want to use it for marketing but want people to be aware of its history and the people who have been associated with it. I would politely ask you to look into it. Rohit beatricemodels  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit beatricemodels (talk • contribs) 14:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC) 

Melanie.. May I ask you to kindly reply to my post please ?- Rohit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit beatricemodels (talk • contribs) 01:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(me again...) I'm sorry, but there is no 'right' to have a page on Wikipedia. Nowhere on here does it say that there is. We even have WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Being listed on a Wikipedia page as having been represented by Beatrice is not a reliable independent source. Wikipedia is freely editable, and things get added to articles sometimes that are not accurate.We do our best to keep on top of it. Other editable places such as forums, other wikis, and blog sections of the press are not reliable independent sources, either. Nor are blogs by people no-one has heard of. Certain notable ones like The Huffington Post are regarded as reliable, but the vast majority are not. A blog by the model would not be independent. Apart from all this, if a model is notable, does that make his/her accountant notable too? Very important to her/his career - but notability is not inherited. Peridon (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Peridon. Rohit, To emphasize what Peridon said: just because some other agencies have articles, that does not mean that every agency in the world meets Wikipedia's criteria to have an article here. Wikipedia pages and blogs do not count as independent reliable sources. There has to be coverage ABOUT the agency, not just about the models it represents. And even if Beatrice has clients who are notable, that does not make Beatrice itself notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. A typical model may be represented by a dozen agencies during her career; that doesn't make them all notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back

We've kept the cat watered, the plants fed, and put the elephant out each evening. Peridon (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Peridon, the place looks great! Except that the elephant is moping. I think she misses you. Want to borrow her for a while? --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've gone down with a bad cold, and having seen a tapir with a cold, I don't want to see an elephant with one... Peridon (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about your cold. Have a cup of tea, with honey. Great for a sore throat. Which reminds me, I need to brew a vat of tea for the giraffe. --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Request un-protection of my talk page

Hey MelanieN! You were the admin who protected my talk page by request. Requesting page unprotection of User talk:Optakeover, as I am returning to vandalism patrol, and I require my talk page to be open for communication. I will monitor my talk page to determine if my page will require further action in future. Thanks, Optakeover^(Talk) 11:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Optakeover: Looks like Zzuuzz beat me to it. Welcome back to the trenches, and let me know if it needs protection again. Thanks for helping keep Wikipedia clean. I love the picture on your userpage! --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup, sorry about it. As you were away and it was a little urgent, I went to approach Zzuuzz because he/she??? happened to be active. Thanks anyway. Optakeover^(Talk) 22:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Adam9007

You are right; I misread the timestamps. Not sure a few days are necessary though; the lesson either sunk in or it didn't. I don't see more leeway as helpful. —Swpb^talk 17:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever dealt with someone with AS? It can take time, patience and a lot of care in how you talk to them. With a lot, you must avoid idiom as assiduously as you should when preparing something for a machine translation. 'Hell for leather'? 'Clogging it'? 'Ton up'? No. 'Going very fast'. Yes. I'm used to it as I do quite a bit of talking to non-native English speakers (and I'm quite good at descriptive gestures too) and have dealt with AS as well. Most people aren't used to communicating with nnEs or AS people, and don't realise how tricky idioms are. Peridon (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. I'll watch it. I don't know how I'm going to manage the descriptive gestures, though. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Welcome back! Jim Carter 04:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Adam9007

You are totally right. A user got under my skin, and I have not handled this discussion with the maturity I generally hold myself to. I am removing myself from the discussion. I am quite embarrassed; I like to think I am a productive editor, and I do not like the impression I fear I have left with you. —Swpb^talk

LOL, no problem! I had a feeling that might be out of character for you. (In fact I was wondering why you aren't an admin, but then I saw the box on your userpage.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20