User talk:Aecis/Messages 397-408

Eh?

[1]--Doc^g 01:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, got your reasoning.--Doc^g 01:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal Leerdam

Hallo Aecis, Het inkorten van het artikel akkoord. Berlage had wel een link/Danone heb ik er nog maar aan toegevoegd/Delftware (exportproduct/imago) kan m.i. niet onbreken, zelfs als je gaat schrappen. Tenslotte Glasstad Leerdam: Rond Royal Leerdam van levensbelang. Lijstje musea weg: ja waarom eigenlijk? Zo wordt het een bedrijvenartikel en mijn doel was nou juist een glasstukje te schrijven. Ik weet het je kunt het niet iedereen naar de zin maken. Het lijkt wel een bedrijfssanering. Nou ja, je kijkt maar c.q. doet maar. Mijn aanvankelijke akkoord is dat eigenlijk ook niet meer. Cheers--GerardusS (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Aansluitend Aecis, ik zie eigenlijk nu pas, dat het artikel is gelinked naar Nederlandse bedrijven. Ik had al het gevoel dat er iets niet klopte. De rest zou ik het liefst tussen enorme haken zetten: Royal Delft spreekt over de overname van 20 man en een omzet van enkele miljoenen. Dat willen we toch niet aan de grote klok hangen, dat we hier eigenlijk praten over een patattent, alleen wel een met een enorme uitstraling. Collectors, musea ,stromen toeristen in Leerdam. Dat was mijn insteek.

Overdenk het a.u.b. nog eens.--GerardusS (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Better?

Will appreciate your comments --Shompi (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Gazh etc.

We're completely in sync now, Aecis. Why I contacted you and Fram during the RfA was because I was sure that the two of you understood exactly what I meant by my last comment on Gazh's talk page. When I saw what you said at the RfA, it was obvious that I had made a big error in judgement in the comment. There was no point in me protesting anymore why I said it because, like you commented on my talk page, it's not just what you say but how you say it.

It was far too rash a way to phrase what I intended to say. Looking back at it now, I'm know that it must have sounded like a "buzz off" rather than the "calm down" that it was meant to be. Coming after my comments on English Potato Famine - especially Gazh's response to my comments and since I had interacted with Gazh on a friendly basis before - it's clear that he would have interpreted it as me coming to his defense. His attack afterwards, which I didn't see until the RfA, was, I'm sure, aimed at you and Fram on the belief that I was on his side ("Et's above en beyon many not frem these lans." = "It's beyond those not from these lands.")

There's nothing else to be said about it. My hands are up. The two of you are right. What I wrote was wrong. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your request about a change to the Page on Milovan Destil Marković

Hello, sorry for the late reply. I think I understand why the paragraph might be a bit confusing to understand and I will try to rewrite it. However I poured a glas of water over my router back home so I only am able to go online at uni, so it'll only be done in the next minutes. I also have a question: Milovan Destil Marković -> do you think that I should make some redirect page where the Marković ć is without the accent? Or is Wikipedia not case sensitive? Am not a pro yet... Or maybe for De Stil Markovic. If the artist is still using that name. Should be contributing a few more articles on contemporary artists over the next weeks. Have a good Christmas, Ben

Changed what I thought was the confusing bit (guess the phrase just got a litte long there...). I hope it's now understandable B.stegmayer (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've given a response to B.stegmeyer [2] following the link from the WikiProject Visual Arts. As ever it all comes down to facts and references.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

APM Terminals

I've redone the page and posted it in my personal space. Would you mind reviewing the content and then giving me some constructive criticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertatmindcomet (talk • contribs) 23:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made the revisions that you have suggested. Do you feel that the "Environmental & Safety Efforts" section should be altogether removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertatmindcomet (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Giraffes and lightning

Hi Aecis,

I'm curious why you deleted the section on lightning hitting giraffes. I'd appreciate a comment. Thanks. --April Holladay (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

1345

First question answer: I think the timeline article could potentially be useful, as a list of births and deaths and important events in a simplified form. I don't really care as much about that, though, as I do about the future of year articles, at least for now. Second question answer: it was discussed briefly on the FAC talk page. Wrad (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out those other discussions, by the way. I wasn't aware of them, but now, the deed has been done. I think it's a pretty good article which will only get better, and I think it would be wonderful if all year articles were as good. Wrad (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit of a trick, because we have to keep other year articles in mind, and they should probably follow the same format if turned into prose. Articles about later centuries could more clearly be labeled "timelines", but earlier years don't have enough information to provide exact dates for everything in a chronological list. Chronicles might be a better title, now I think of it. Wrad (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Review for the deletion of BeCheeky.com

Hi I already emailed you yesterday and thought I would attempt communicating on your talk page as I got no response to my email.

I felt my article was notable and worthy of inclusion because the company had the following notable facts:

1. It's recent pioneering work in launching KnickerPicker.com which has already created a buzz in the Fashion press that I mentioned and correctly referenced in the article

2. Because it is currently the only UK Lingerie online retailer to offer a FREEPOST returns service as standard practice throughout the year

3. For it's association with ASOS.com - the massively succeful fashion website, whose founder is now one of the original founding members of BeCheeky.com

4. For the notable business press for the significant investment it has received

5. For winning Risk Taker Of the Year Award at the SmartEdge Business Awards in 2007

6. Danielle Lloyd of Big Brother 2007 UK fame (who has her own Wiki Page on which BeCheeky is mentioned) was the Face of the brand for a short spell between the time of her winning Miss Great Britain and entering the Big Brother house.

For these reasons I believe the company is notable and worthy of these facts being presented. If you wish to remove the 'extensive' product list that you commented on that is fine, simply replace it with their broad categories - i.e. something like 'women's lingerie, swimwear, jewellery, men's underwear and more or even BeCheeky.com is primarily a lingerie and swimwear provide for both men and women.'.

You list many other lingerie brands on your pages, including Figleaves, on which you warn that is sounds like an advert, is not referenced correctly and is biased! So i'm not sure why you won't accept this one, or maybe put a caution warning on it like Figleaves has. I was careful to find credible links such as Glam.com, Marie Claire and The Sun whose interest in the brand surely reflects it's notability.

However, I am a newbie, so if you still disagree can you please explain your reasons to me so I might have something to work with?

I look forward to your reply, preferably by email - my contact details willl be in your email inbox from when I emailed you yesterday.

Thanks,

P.S I don't know how to "talk" to you on Wiki so any tips on that would also be appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelingeriefan (talk • contribs)

In response to the following message, please find my reply in bold: As I said in my first or second message to you, I deleted the article, because it contained advertising or advertorial language for the company, and it didn't assert the notability of the company. To respond to the six points you raised on my talk page and in your e-mail to me:

1. You mentioned Marie Claire and Glam.com mentioning KnickerPicker.com, but you did it in such advertising language and corporate hyperbole that it easily qualified as blatant advertising.I feel it was in a similar style to the tone of other wikipedia language, but if you disagree can you give me some tips on how to ammend it so it is more acceptable?

2. Offering FREEPOST doesn't make a company notable enough for Wikipedia. Please read WP:CORP.

3. How does this make BeCheeky.com notable?Given the rapid success of ASOS.com i think it is notable for people to be aware of what the founders have gone on to launch. You do already have an ASOS stub which is asking for expansion of the article, this factor could easily be included to add more detail to that page and provide an internal link within wikipedia to the becheeky.com page.

4. Could you provide some examples of this "notable business press"? I already did, they were all referenced in the article, I can give you the links again if you like, just let me know

5. Is this a notable award? Yes!

6. Products endorsed by a notable person do not automatically become notable themselves. I don't think your definitions of notable are very consitent so it's hard to follow what you mean here. Wiki notability guidleines say an article may be notable if "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive, and it also mentions 'secondary sources' from 'reliable media' and that one of these criterion may be meet for it to be notable, as i have provided links to secondary, reliable sources from a range of credible media points I think I have more than proven the notability of my article. I would like to request a review of the deletion please, so can you talk me through how to do this? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelingeriefan (talk • contribs) 14:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Dante the magician and lazyness

Re: your comment. In my opinion, deletion of valid material (whether a copy vio or not) should always be the last resort of a committed editor. We have a vast spectrum of editors here who love to slash, delete, add aggressive templates - all tactics seemingly designed to throw their weight around. But very few read the existing material, confirm the information and rewrite the text. I did not originate the article (admittedly a copy vio and poorly written). It came to my attention when one of our editors, in slash and burn style, was trying to speedy delete. He asserted the man was not "notable", evidently not even "Googling" the name. I am simply trying to save the information - hoping the original editor will return and provide more material including sources. Having patience with others, even here, is a virtue. Preaching that others have "the responsibility", then failing to take the initiative and put some time into editing work, is, in my opinion, one of Wikipedia's biggest problems. WBardwin (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

Based on editing history and account creation date of yesterday, when the last sock was blocked, I indef'ed User:TalesGr. The duck quacks at midnight. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)