User talk:Voice of Clam

User:Tivedshambo/Contents

Welcome to my talk page. For ease of reading, if you leave a message here I'll reply here unless you request otherwise. My responses will be in italics for clarity. If I leave a message on your page I'll be watching it for a while, so feel free to reply there. Please don't use profanities, and remember to sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Messages more than about a month old will be moved to the archives.

Click on this link to post a new comment

signing new articles

When we write up a new article are we allowed to sign the article using four tildes (Bradgouthro 17:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)) or are we only allowed to use this in the talk pages?[reply]

Bradgouthro 17:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only talk pages and other discussion pages should be signed. Articles are left unsigned. Hope this helps. — Tivedshambo (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G. Chaldakov article - atherosclerosis

Hi, I have removed your autobiography tag, because I am not Chaldakov, you can see my profile. However I had the chance to listen some of prof. Chaldakov's lectures, and they have changed my vision of science. I have tried to clear the entry from unnecessary biography, and have focused on science, and his contributions on atherosclerosis. Everyone wants to be considered as important scientist, however it is impossible to run back the time. Even if there are now millions of scientists how work on atherosclerosis, they cannot be pioneers in the field, but just followers. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 19:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of SMS abbreviations

The article now has an introduction and is above an abominable standard, so there is no need for RfD. Rintrah 07:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted, but I hope you understand why I Prodded it. — Tivedshambo (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Talk page

The one you copied it into is also incorrect, as it is the main Talk page for the article, not the proposed guideline. The Talk page I created for the proposed guideline is the one that the standard proposal template points to. I guess one of us must be confused here. Crum375 17:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the problem arose due to the link created by the 'proposed guideline/policy' template. Yes, obviously it should to into the proper space, but not into the main article's Talk page. Thanks, Crum375 17:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as of now I am still not sure where the page should go, assuming it can't stay where it is. The link you posted in your message on my Talk page just points to the proposed guideline page itself, not its Talk page. Crum375 17:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message about going offline - I just hope no one is going to delete the Talk page without finding the best new home for it. Crum375 17:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega

The article has much better sourcing than last time. -- Avi 13:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the notability that I am questioning, not the sources. — Tivedshambo (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I roiginally thought so too, but other than the small group size (of which I am not a member by-the-by) I have come to think that it is notable. Further, a group focusing on a level approximately 600 times more selective than Mensa, for example, is bound to be much smaller. I do not think a speedy is called for for G4, because this is fundementally a different article, and I do not think a speedy is called for notability. If anything, the standard AfD should be used. -- Avi 14:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwernol's talk page

Hi, I'm not Gwernol but I don't have anything better to do at the moment so I thought I'd save him some work. When blocking IPs, admins have the ability to block registered users using that IP as well or just anons. My suggestion would be to put {{SharedIP|NAME OF COMPANY}} at the top of the IP's talk page so admins know it's a shared IP which is likely to have legitimate users. If you want I can put an additional notice at the top of the talk page to clarify that there are legitimate users on that IP and blocks to it should always be anon-only. -- Steel 22:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Any additional clarification you can give would be appreciated. — Tivedshambo (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that extra notice. Hopefully that's sorted everything out now. -- Steel 22:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. — Tivedshambo (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAS GmbH

I am requesting assistance on why the page was deleted. The content on here that was originally posted was an exact copy (in terms of layout) of the Siebel Systems page, making sure that content was not presented in a manner that could be deemed advertorial. I then created supporting pages to communicate who the leading personnel are in the organization, what is they do and how anyone who had not heard of CAS could benefit from that information. I do work for CAS, and do have an interest in communicating who we are but the main point I find a little galling is that bigger companies are allowed to post without retriobution and yet smaller companies are not. I recognize that you do not want to become a Yellow Pages, that is understood, but at the same time you must have one rule for all parties. Either companies are able to list their site, industry, foundings and achievements or they are not. As you have let other companies post I am at a loss as to why my post was removed for almost identical content.

Please explain, your comments are appreciated.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RazorBrades (talk • contribs) 22:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). I understand that you feel it unfair that large companies can have articles when smaller companies can't, but that really is what notability is about. I didn't write the rules for Wikipedia I'm afraid. If you want to request the article to be undeleted, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. Another point to bear in mind is WP:Vanity. It is not a good idea to write about your own company, as it is very difficult to avoid bias.

By the way, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages with ~~~~. Hope this helps. — Tivedshambo (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RSB, now SWML

What exactly in the engineering book of yours are stations like West Byfleet, New Malden, Earlsfield on? As in line. Simply south 22:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the Engineer's Line Reference? According to the Quail maps it's BML - which covers the line from Weymouth to London Waterloo via Bournemouth and Basingstoke. Hope this helps. — Tivedshambo (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dalton

I created the stub, and a few seconds later swift Wikipedia deletionists are already proposing to delete it. =D--Wormsie 11:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You created an article with no evidence of notability or citations. What you said about him may be true, but equally it could be a libellous slur. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. — Tivedshambo (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, you did see, that the article name already implies he is a porn star? Therefore any Mark Dalton who is not a porn star will most probably not be offended by it. Anyway, I'm going to edit the page a little, see if it remains or if someone wants to remove it. I created the article because there were red links. I usually do that when I see a red link and know something of the subject.

If there are good reasons for the article to be removed, I suppose there's nothing I can do. But I hope otherwise, and personally dislike deletionism...--Wormsie 12:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]