Yuu.david
AfD nomination of 24 Hour Knowledge Factory
editAn editor has nominated 24 Hour Knowledge Factory, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 Hour Knowledge Factory and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
An Automated Message from HagermanBot
editHello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, 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 name 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! HagermanBot 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the article has already been deleted as a result of this discussion. You are welcome to bring this information to Wikipedia:Deletion review, or just recreate the article with reliable sources, but the information you've provided may not be enough. --Coredesat 21:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I second the above. (in responce to message on my talk page). Also, I am not an administrator, so there is no way for me to see what the content of the page was. ffm ✎talk 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- According to the deleted history, you weren't the creator of the article, so you'll need to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review; emailing you the content would constitute a violation of the GFDL. Also, I wasn't saying the content was unreliable, I was just saying you'll need reliable sources if the article is recreated. --Coredesat 21:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is the deletion review article:
- 24-Hour Knowledge Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Sources are Reliable and Reason for Delete was Frivolous Yuu.david 21:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC) I would like the page "24-Hour Knowledge Factory" to be reopened. The reasons for its deletion were nothing more than a handful of wikipedians marking it as spam, 'akin to a Dilbert cartoon', or 'created by a pair of single-use accounts'. Below is a copy of the deletion 'conversation':
This is blatant spam created by a pair of single purpose accounts ConfuciusOrnis 07:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
* Speedy delete - without prejudice to recreation. Spammy article that sounds like it comes from a Dilbert cartoon Part Deux 17:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
* Speedy Delete as spam. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
* Speedy Delete as it's spam. Acalamari 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
* Speedy Delete per above. Lemonsawdust 21:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
* comment - this isn't anything to spam. At best it's a concept that's written like a business paper, and it mgiht actually be worthy of inclusion, but I have to do more research first. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
o Noted. Can you hit my talk page if you find something? I'll change my mind if you can. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
* Delete or redirect to "offshoring" - although it would be a shame to lose an article that's had so much written on it, it boils down to saying "people in different time zones are awake at different times" in 10000 words - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
* Delete per Part Deux. obvious spam. ffm ✎talk 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
One of the reviewers have stated that there is nothing to spam, with another agreeing if anything else could be found. Another has said that it boils down to saying ""people in different time zones are awake at different times" in 10000 words", attesting to their and others' lack of reading the sources and understanding the concept behind this article. Does this mean that just because a few contributors do not 'get' the article, that it can be deleted at their leisure?
One reviewer posted twice that it is spam, and others have said so with what looks like no review at all. Does garnishing extra support by one's buddies to label something as spam without any review whatsoever really allow for deletion?
It took me a substantial amount of time to write this article, and the entire thing was done in good faith, with extremely reliable sources, that apparantly people have not taken the time to read. The bias is easily seen in the comments above: the idea is being made fun of, and others are professing their criterion for deletion to be based on what they think is laughable about the article. This is completely unprofessional and a waste of this author's time. I would sincerely appreciate that the views of those who are 'single purpose users' are looked at with the same amount of respect as those who are constantly using wikipedia, as I feel as though I have been blindsided just because I am not a consistent user.
I understand that it was already deleted, but being a novice, I did not create a back-up of the page, and would enjoy to have my information returned. Additionally, I do not understand where the contention of 'unreliable sources' comes from, as 100% of the work comes from academic papers published by scientists. What is unreliable? Has anyone read any of the papers and/or sources? If these are unreliable, what is reliable? They are posted on SSRN, one of the world's leading sources of academic papers. And, the information provided in the link above is documented by a well respected news source. What is unreliable?
I implore you to please check the Social Science Research Network for this global work paradigm and read over some of the many papers that deal with this new framework. Many companies including IBM have adopted and are in the trial stages of testing the efficacy of this paradigm. A link to one of the most recent research grants given to [Dr. Amar Gupta], the creator of this paradigm, is here:
Thank you. --Yuu.david 21:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I looked in the wrong location, and you are the creator of the article (without a hyphen). However, you have to follow the instructions given on WP:DRV - deletion reviews are held there, not on your talk page. I will move it to the correct location. --Coredesat 21:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. I had to fix it because it didn't show up; make sure not to post inside the comment marks (<!-- -->), or else it won't show up properly. --Coredesat 22:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yuu.david (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- 66.249.85.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "XDnateDX". The reason given for XDnateDX's block is: "vandalism-only account".
Decline reason: Please disable Google Web Accelerator as instructed at Wikipedia:Google Web Accelerator and you should be able to resume editing straight away. -- Netsnipe ► 02:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Please enable an email address on your account (in Preferences) and I will send you a copy of the last version edited by only you (I can only send you that version in accordance with the GFDL). --Coredesat 04:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Done. --Coredesat 18:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Goldman Sachs, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you.—DMCer™ 04:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I added an edit summary. Additionally, my removal is justified by my entry on the talk page of the Goldman Sachs entry. --Yuu.david (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- My mistake, I just saw the talk page. It looked suspicious at first, sorry about that. Carry on. :-)-DMCer™ 06:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)