Ivo

Welcome!

Hello, Ivo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Harvester42

A tag has been placed on Harvester42 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Rob Banzai (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Harvester42

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Harvester42, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Largo Plazo (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Harvester42

I have nominated Harvester42, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvester42. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Largo Plazo (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Largo Plazo (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Proper procedure"

I just saw the note you left on your own user page, ".ivo is currently absolutely frustrated because wikipedia "admins" delete articles without proper procedure :-(", and I wonder what you think the "proper procedure" is, and whether you can show me the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that show them to be something different from what's been done. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvester42, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Largo Plazo (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

hi again....ok we are entering second level logic...which means you try to prove that your are admin and i am only a simple user....agreed...i am only a stupid little scientist contributing my knowledge to the wikipedia. let´s stick to the original topic...i can´t understand your argument...."harvester42 is just another meta search engine" there ...apparently no reason to keep it....i am speechless....does this mean that there is knowledge about more meta search engines (a topic we are very interested in) and these articles have probably been deleted?.. is there somebody (a higer admin?) i can ask for help? is a single person allowed to delete knowledge? (tilde point taken) Ivo (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, you are persisting in understanding this whole thing to be something completely different from what it is and you keep bringing up questions that are irrelevant to the matter at hand. I see you were given a bunch of links at the top of this page to information about how Wikipedia operates, and I gave you a relevant article. Rather than continuing to be puzzled and frustrated, inform yourself about how all this works. See if you can form any constructive arguments against deletion that address the basis given for the deletion proposal, doing so in terms of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. That kind of approach can be effective. Drama—hand-wringing, sarcasm—won't be. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• ok i am trying. i contributed an article about a free new software tool hosted at our institute. i wrote some details. voila. Thats the way it used to work (at least for me) i take something i give something...i appreciate all the links ..merci... Ivo (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know what relevance the other articles you wrote have to this one. Perhaps they were about notable topics and your article made their notability clear. Perhaps they weren't about notable topics but nobody caught them; in that case, the kind of argument you're giving is like telling the policeman who stops you for speeding how appalling it is that he wants to give you a ticket now given all the times that you've exceed the speed limit on the same road before without getting caught. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

AFD

You seem like a nice guy, hope there are no hard feelings. Remember, we all appear to be more rude when on the computer than we really are in real life. Sorry if it seemed I was stepping on you in the AFD, I didn't mean to. I was just trying to !vote in an unbiased way, but sometimes my typing is more harsh than my spoken words. Often it is very difficult to get good sources for very valid articles, I do understand. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• :-) i was just thinking about the energy that could be harvested if all the "article beginners" would be actively motivated instead of corrected?! by corrected i mean that keeping wipik at high level there is probably no other way than the one we have just experienced and correcting is the only efficient way...

every day...new article -> admin: reading,filtering, every day...wow and instead of "admin you did a great job"...emotions from every side: -) ...blabla what i wanted to say...a very common procedure in the german wikipedia is that new (bad?) articles are flagged with "welcome..and nice job BUT reference is missing..did you see this that...etc"...this keeps the crowd motivated...there is a lot of knowledge out there...there is a lot of (new) people out there but many people are shy ... and would never come back if one of their articles (maybe the first one) would be deleted ...:-) Ivo (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• • The english wiki is much, much larger, and as such, is subject to much more vandalism, spam, abuse. Sometimes the editors seem grumpy because they are. When you see dozens of articles an hour that are obviously not notable, time after time, you get really fast at filtering them out. If you don't do it fast enough, there is more garbage than good articles. On the english wikipedia, 10% of all edits are vandalism. And that doesn't count spam, bad articles, etc. I try to spend about 20% of my time finding references for articles that need them, to help out. As a side note, I am guessing that English isn't your first language, and sometimes things get lost in translation (I work with Germans, Belgians and Eastern Europeans somewhat regularly in my job). Both sides can irritate the other, simply due to translation. A perfect example is Eurpeans habit of saying "ja ja ja", meaning roughly "yes yes yes, I agree" but to Americans sounds like "yeah yeah yeah, whatever..." a smartass comment. Add the fact that we are all typing instead of talking, and it just gets amplified. When starting an article, I make sure I always have two good sources before I stub the article, or I KNOW it will get up at AFD, and I have over 6000 edits over 2 years here. We probably DO spend too much time in AFD, but the sheer volume of new articles don't give us a lot of choice. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • you are right in all three comments: -). question regarding the references: i found articles about meta search engines without any references (short ones too) BUT maximum ranking on stumbleupon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainboost). in my opinion this short article is exactly what i wanted, but there if no scientific publication/ reference etc. (still 5 stars stumbleupon ranking). Regarding the >10% noise in wikipedia...many years ago spam/noisewriting was not so common...autsch...i didn´t know...perfectly explains your..."run and filter method" ok back to efficiency (German cliche :-) ...i will upgrade the article and hopefully improve it. my current argument NOT to delete it is above (other articles, same size, same style and very helpful (at least for me)......greetings Ivo (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • You can always create the article in userspace, as a subpage on your page, and develop it there, seek out the sources (some may be print only) and when/if it passes, then move it over to mainspace. PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Harvester-kit.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Harvester-kit.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sciencenet

The article Sciencenet has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Searches clearly found nothing better than some passing mentions, simply nothing to suggest better notability and improvement.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)