:Please let me know if you have any questions - be ''concise'' please - and please sign your post with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 14:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:Please let me know if you have any questions - be ''concise'' please - and please sign your post with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 14:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid I did not explain myself entirely in my first talk to you, so this has led to some confusion. I am a student at Cornell taking a class taught by Lee Dyer that teaches students about what an agile enterprise is. In the second half of the course we conduct a simulation where we strive to share the knowledge we acquired in the first half of the semester with others, the simulation includes us being an organization called "Agilon" and our mission is to be the premier providers on knowledge of the agile enterprise because we want to teach others what we learned and hopefully help them to understand the concept of organizational agility better. So I understand completely your concern that we were trying to sell training because of the Agilon website, but that site is much more about how we function as our class organization. If you look, it has our work process and some projects we have worked on. But I have no problem not putting a link to that, or any other consultig website on the page about the agile enterprise.
I am currently revising the information I had put up before to include many more references on the information and also have updated information for the article that was just a working paper before. I hope that once I put up this page again, it will meet the guidelines of wikipedia.
There will probably be many edits done by me again, as I am just learning how to format and post on wikipedia. And much of the information will be similar to what is on the Agilon website because this is all valid information on the agile enterprise that we have learned and researched that we want to share with those out there who are interested. It was our hope through the wikipedia page that people who typed in "agile enterprise" could find out the history and some of the concepts involved with it, at no point was the intent to promote Agilon (as we will be done with the class in about a month) so I am sorry for the confusion.
I am working on revising the document and re-posting and I hope that you will contact me with any concerns before deleting it again. Please let me know if you have any advice. [[User:Agilon|Agilon]] 19:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
== The hell? ==
== The hell? ==
Revision as of 19:54, 11 April 2007
KillerChihuahua is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect her ability to work on Wikipedia. Consequently, she may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua.
Wikimedia Foundation
Talk to the Puppy To leave a message on this page, click here.
If you email me, be aware that even if I am actively editing, I cannot always access my email and it may be a day or two before you receive a reply. If you message me on this page, I will probably reply on this page. If I messaged you on your page, please reply there.
*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Sign your post using four tildes ( ~~~~ )
Thanks for the note at R&I. Certainly nothing is more important than your health. I just went through some major issues in November, and can empathize with your situation. Please be well soon. WP will survive as we all keep muddling toward a great product.
Thanks much, I really feel bad about this - I would never have accpeted such a complex case had I any prior indication I would be going through a spell of bad health. :-( Hopefully everyone will be as understanding as you are being. KillerChihuahua?!?17:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above-entitled arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published at the above link. Ilena (talk·contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year and is banned from editing articles and talk pages related to alternative medicine, except talk pages related to breat implants. Fyslee (talk·contribs) is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a neutral point of view. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher13112:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Morfik
Killer, I hope all is well with you and that your health issues clear. A couple of months ago you were involved in restoring and moving the Morfik page I had created so that I could work on it and refine it for re-inclusion in Wikipedia. I have worked on it, and resubmitted it, but now I have people asking that it be deleted again, for various reasons. I'm unsure what to do at this point, so I'm looking for all the suggestions I can get. MikeyTheK13:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add sources which meet WP:RS, specifically not Morfik's site, blogs, or forums. If Morfik was mentioned in Ajaxian, Redmonk, ZDNet, and Readwriteweb, then why don't you have the articles as sources??? KillerChihuahua?!?13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sick as a...puppy?
I see you've been feeling under the weather for some time now. I hope that things are holding up on your end, and that you feel better soon. :-) -Severa (!!!) 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much, dear!!!! Dr.s don't know what it is... bah. I have good days and bad days, hopefully there will be some kind of diganosis/prognosis soon. KillerChihuahua?!?18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aww...I have a chronic condition myself, so I understand what you mean about "good days" and "bad days." I hope that your vets (sorry, had to slip a puppy-pun in there ;) doctors are forthcoming in a diagnosis. There's nothing worse than undergoing a battery of tests, or seeing a host of doctors, and still not knowing what's going on — I know that from experience. :( -Severa (!!!) 18:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have a nice cup of tea!
Sorry to hear you're still poorly on and off, dearie, just you sit down and have a nice cuppa. Of whatever you fancy. No need to bother with reading the tealeaves – can I just say how much it made me laugh when you recently admonished an over-publicised mind reader. Well said. Take care, and get well soon, .. dave souza, talk20:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A while back you stepped in when I was being stalked by a user named "Arniep". To refresh your memory, I was one of several users who contributed to articles on the Travolta family including Rikki Lee Travolta. Arniep didn't like Rikki Lee Travolta or something to that affect so I was labeled a "sock puppet" and Arniep would follow me around where ever I would contribute on whatever subject until I got so sick I basically quick Wikipedia. You were kind enough to step in and stop the stalking with a warning to Arniep. Eventually I guess Arniep stalked too many people and was banned.
I think Arniep may be back under the name "Corvus cornix". I made an edit to the "Tony n' Tina's Wedding" page in February and when I checked in on the page today the history shows someone named Corvus cornix had been in a battle of some kind trying to remove Rikki Lee Travolta from the page. That seemed curious so when I looked at Corvus cornix's history it appears they are following the same pattern that Arniep did of targeting the exact same subjects, stating disregard for the Wikipedia rules (I will continue deleting...bla bla bla), stalking different members.
I've been through this once and have no interest in being attacked yet again by someone with an axe to grind over and over. Maybe it is weak of me, but I don't have the conviction to stand up to being attacked and labeled with insults. So, I'm not going to get involved in any of the things Corvus cornix is doing. I'm just letting you know so somebody does. If that info dies here so be it, but even if I don't have the strength to battle this kind of behavoir I still do believe in the principles of Wikipedia and wanted to let someone know this kind of thing is going on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icemountain2 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hrm... I'll take a look and ask for a checkuser if it seems it would be useful. Is RLT a verified notable addition to the article, btw? I thought there was some question about that. KillerChihuahua?!?16:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What jumped out at me as a caution flag about Corvus cornix is that RLT wasn't an addition to the Tony n' Tina's Wedding article. He was there and there since the beginning. According to the history he dates back as the verified first celebrity guest star since the start of the page. It even had plenty of articles proving this. Even now with Corvus cornix removing RLT, the references being used to qualify the other actors all list RLT (so the references apparently only apply when Corvus cornix wants them too?)
If I recall, the whole RLT being in question was basically a one-man (or woman) battle headed by Arniep going and recruiting friends to back him/her up. Once Arniep was banned it stopped. Now there's a new user named Corvus Cornix going to all the same pages, recruiting all the same friends? It just seems fishy to me.
Understand my concern is not about RLT. If he is listed on a page or not, I'm not getting into any battle about that. I like him as an actor but I'm not a big enough fan to really care that much. If it was one user being annoying about one page, so be it.
What I thought I should point out was that Corvux Cornix's history shows he is going through to multiple pages and chopping the same way or getting into revert wars. I don't have the energy for it (nor do I want to get labeled with insults) but it just seems fishy to me. Icemountain217:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this is the same editor. Also, I don't know about elitestv, but about.com is not a reliable source. He was mentioned in several sources as the first guest star on TnT's Wedding though. And he doesn't seem to be related to John, sfaict. KillerChihuahua?!?19:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into that. Just seemed fishy to me that a new editor who had a self described falling out with Wikipedia Admin and was banned under a form name would jump in and attack the same pages the prior user did. I don't know if Elite's is a "reliable resource" or not. I just though it was interesting that Elite's is being used as the reference to validate all the other guest stars and it lists RLT in it, but it is only being qualified as a "reliable resource" for the other actors and not for RLT. Doesn't make sense in my mind. As for relation to John, everything I have read and researded shows he's Michaels' son which would make him John's nephew but I am absolutely NOT going to get involved in RLT pages because I don't want to be targeted with insults and stalking again. Kind of sad, I guess, because I've probably done more research on the Travolta family than most which should be the type of person who should be ideal to contribute to a community based encyclopedia, but instead people like me who have done the research are driven out by fantatics who decide they know the facts rather than look objectively at the research. Enough enough. My point was I just wanted to thank you for looking into those actions of Corvus Cornix because they seemed fishy to me and I prefer to trust an outside person's impartial prospective. Thanks! Icemountain220:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woof, woof!
Delighted to see the puppy up and barking, I just had this page open to alert you but hesitated overnight since did not wish to disturb convalescing. Morphh's clumsy response to Orangemarlin's goading was misleading, and backfired. However, imo Morphh has a bit of a point – Talk:Intelligent design#Opinion is essentially Jones' opinion, so it's worth exploring rephrasing. Though I shouldn't try to do it having woken in the middle of the night as I did earlier - insomnia is not good for considered opinions :-( .... dave souza, talk08:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a newbie and I'll readily concede that I may not have grasped all relevant aspects of the situation. But please do not imply abf on my part. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't, and I am sorry if you misread my post that way. I offered an interpretation of events which it appeared you had not considered; your analysis of the situation accused a highly respected editor of COI; if you found her actions to be suspect on such flimsy 'evidence' you were implicitly not assuming good faith effectively and I offered you a view which might assist your ability to do so. I fail to see why my simple post has resulted in you protesting my failure to AAGF on her page, and accusing me of implying ABF here. Really, truly, it was just a comment to give you another perspective. KillerChihuahua?!?22:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "accusing" SlimVirgin. I'm not "accusing" you. I'm just asking and trying to learn: Do you see an absolute contradiction between assumption of good faith and perception of a conflict of interest? - And by the way, I'm sorry if I gave the impression of "analyzing" anything. And I'm not "protesting". As I see it, you kindly reminded me to AGF, I kindly replied that I did. I don't understand why you are introducing words like "accuse", "protesting", "flimsy 'evidence'" into this. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, apparently I have hoof-in-mouth or you have selective interpretation; whichever way it is this has degenerated into quibbling about minutiae. I suggest we drop this as whatever help I offered you has been overshadowed and lost in this very odd misunderstanding which we seem to be having. If you don't understand my point, I don't see that further explanation on my part will serve any useful purpose. KillerChihuahua?!?23:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you interested in past cases? Perhaps there is a question I could answer for you? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in seeing the development of a proto-legal system in Wikipedia. For example, what procedures have evolved? What principles of precedent and interpretation? Etc. Just a philosophical curiousity...(I am a lawyer.) Mpoulshock 14:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind offer of assistance! I will certainly need it in the future. There is a point in your mail that I do not quite understand: When in trouble and after having put the "help me" template on my userpage, where am I supposed to post or place the question? Beside the template? To your user talk page?? Again, thank you!--Tellervo16:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On your talk page - adding the template will add you to a category which is watched, and those watching will check your talk page - so you don't need for any specific editor to be available to answer questions. Someone will show up, even if everyone you know away from their computer. KillerChihuahua?!?16:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agile Enterprise Deletion
KillerChihuahua,
I am the author of the wikipedia page about the Agile Enterprise, which you recently deleted. I am new to wikipedia but believe you deleted the page because you thought it was self-promotion and/or not notable material. I was hoping that you could elaborate on this because I feel that the page on agile enterprise met the criteria of wikipedia. The term agile enterprise is not one that I made up myself or that is only studied by my professor at Cornell University. Rather, it is one that is found in numerous articles and books, which I was planning to add to the reference list. I thought that posting about it on wikipedia would be good because it is a growing concept and this is supposed to be a place to supply information to people about various concepts. Wikipedia itself is an agile enterprise, as discussed in the book "The Starfish and the Spider." I would be happy to provide further reasoning as to why I think this page should be on wikipedia and should not have been deleted if you need more. Please let me know more details as to why you deleted this page and what changes you would deem necessary for it to be re-posted.
Thanks very much,
Agilon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agilon (talk • contribs) 00:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
To understand what happened, lets look at the series of events: Agile enterprise was created by you 18:24, 3 April 2007, and subsequently had 12 more edits, all by you. There were no inline citations, and there were links to Agilon and the Agilon blog (blogs generally fall afoul of our external links and/or spam guidelines. Agilon, the first of the external links, is a website with the slogan "The world's premier provider of knowledge on the agile enterprise" - a commercial site. The blog is of course as mentioned before problematical if not outright disallowable. A third external link, placed between the two Agilon links, and completely unlabled, leads to a site which is either "Agile Enterprise Architecture" as the title states, or "Agile Data" as the logo states, owned by Ambysoft Inc. and authored by Scott W. Ambler. A bit of examination of that site shows that it is a site for selling training in agile development, and seems to be a one-man enterprise - in the sense of effort or attempt, not Enterprise level company. The main page for www.ambysoft.com/ states it is Scott Ambler’s Web Site, and that all material is copyrighted. The about page informs us that the purpose of the site is "it's purpose to market my services as an independent consultant in object technology and to continue to market my writings" - another commercial site.
The References provided were not correctly formatted, understandable but also must be taken into consideration as this made it far more difficult to verify they even exist, let alone support the assertions made in the article. There were three: the first I find is a book complete with ISBN, but was listed as coming from a portfolio circa 2006 in the references. I have no idea what "portfolio" was intended to convey in that context, but it certainly gave the appearance of being an unpublished work. The second reference was to a "Working Paper" - again, is this a published work? The third is to an individual - Dyer, Lee; of Cornell. This is most certainly not a published work and indeed is original research, specifically prohibited by Wikipedia policy. To be clear, policy is a much more important "rule" than a guideline. MastCell tagged the article for speedy deletion under criteria CSD G11 at 23:19, 5 April 2007, which placed the article in the category for speedy deletion. No "hangon" tag was placed on the talk page; this is understandable - you may not have been online during the interval - but must be taken into consideration. I was going through the candidates for speedy deletion on 6 April 2007 and at 00:25, I deleted the article. There are two commercial sites and one blog as links, and the sources are for a book promoting the concept which the external links are selling, what appears to be an unpublished paper, and an individual. This is not an encyclopedic article. Should you wish to write an enyclopedic article on this topic, there seem to be sources which are not commerical and are more notable than the ones you chose. Agile data has an [ Alexa] rank of 356,625 which is not that bad. The three month ranking has fallen by 15% however. The top rated book appears to be The Agile Virtual Enterprise: Cases, Metrics, Tools (Hardcover) by H T. Goranson, ISBN-10: 1567202640 - a book for which Wikipedia does not yet have an article. The illustrations for the article as well as what appears to be a good deal, if not all, of the content (I do not have time to compare in-depth) come from a .doc hosted on the Agilon site, which is on the Cornell.edu server - which is the employer of Professor of Human Resource Studies Lee Dyer, a primary "source" for the article. No copyright was provided for the illustrations, and they will be deleted in a week or two if none is provided. Much of the content appears to be copyright violation (copy of the content of the Agilon site) and/or original research. And a very big issue: The splash page for the Agilon site has in large bright bold text:
Want to learn more about
the Agile Enterprise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_enterprise
In short, you are Agilon: you appear to be trying to sell training in agile enterprise, and you appear to be using Wikipedia to promote your (or your friends) service and site. You are probably either Lee Dyer, Scott Ambler, or a friend or associate of one or both of them - although this last is speculation and frankly doesn't really have much bearing at this point, except that if you are, you may wish to read WP:COI before proceeding. As both illustrations Agility.jpg and Agility2.jpg had noted as the Source: Lee Dyer, and the site which seems to be the one being promoted is on Cornell's server, my money is on Lee Dyer.
I am afraid I did not explain myself entirely in my first talk to you, so this has led to some confusion. I am a student at Cornell taking a class taught by Lee Dyer that teaches students about what an agile enterprise is. In the second half of the course we conduct a simulation where we strive to share the knowledge we acquired in the first half of the semester with others, the simulation includes us being an organization called "Agilon" and our mission is to be the premier providers on knowledge of the agile enterprise because we want to teach others what we learned and hopefully help them to understand the concept of organizational agility better. So I understand completely your concern that we were trying to sell training because of the Agilon website, but that site is much more about how we function as our class organization. If you look, it has our work process and some projects we have worked on. But I have no problem not putting a link to that, or any other consultig website on the page about the agile enterprise.
I am currently revising the information I had put up before to include many more references on the information and also have updated information for the article that was just a working paper before. I hope that once I put up this page again, it will meet the guidelines of wikipedia.
There will probably be many edits done by me again, as I am just learning how to format and post on wikipedia. And much of the information will be similar to what is on the Agilon website because this is all valid information on the agile enterprise that we have learned and researched that we want to share with those out there who are interested. It was our hope through the wikipedia page that people who typed in "agile enterprise" could find out the history and some of the concepts involved with it, at no point was the intent to promote Agilon (as we will be done with the class in about a month) so I am sorry for the confusion.
I am working on revising the document and re-posting and I hope that you will contact me with any concerns before deleting it again. Please let me know if you have any advice. Agilon19:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to state that there was consensus for a move/merge; for which you have still not posted a link. You blanked an article and requested speedy, and when speedy was denied you redirected with the edit summary of "The other ones said to delete and not redirect. Oh well." which is completely failing to clarify a thing. What others? Where? All I see is your request for speedy was denied, and so you redirected. I have seen no discussion, no link to any kind of consensus, no process whatsoever. I await your response. And yes, page blanking is vandalism. KillerChihuahua?!?21:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it was on the very Leah/Satsu/Rowenna articles. Hence, no linkage. In fact, looking at the history for the main Season Eight, I think "Renee (Buffyverse)" has been deleted before with the others. And the initial blanking was unintentional, I clicked and pasted in a pre-written {{db}} message. You're an admin, can you look over deleted pages? ~ZytheTalk to me!22:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renee (Buffyverse) exists, has never been deleted, and has no posts on the talk page, which has never been deleted. You are correct. I can view deleted pages, so all I need is the link - it doesn't matter if it is no longer viewable by you. KillerChihuahua?!?22:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just noticed. I was confused. There were red links for those three, but not for Renee, which WAS up for deletion. The original deletion request for Renne was here and the deletion notice was removed here.~ZytheTalk to me!22:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was a Prod, and the difference between when the Prod was added was considerable. The article was not deleted nor was it ever on Afd. So you're saying the article had a Prod which failed, which has no bearing on a speedy which was denied - and in fact, if a Prod fails the correct move is to tag for Afd or Merge, not speedy. KillerChihuahua?!?22:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are copyright Alexander Bolonkin, copyright has not been released to GFDL, so what you are "certain" of is immaterial. I find it odd that respecting copyright is something you consider "cheating". If the other articles are also copyright violations, they will in due time be deleted. KillerChihuahua?!?09:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As we have no confirmation whatsoever that Bolonkin has ever edited Wikipedia, and he has not stated on his site or elsewhere that I can find that he released rights under GFDL, that does not apply here. KillerChihuahua?!?15:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I agree that it is difficult to confirm that the person who submitted the text is actually the copyright holder, which is why the articles should stay deleted until we have confirmation. --Ryan Delaneytalk17:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Bolonkin got his act together, he would undoubtedly provide a copyright release for his material. Using copyvio to get rid of this stuff therefore shows a lack of integrity on our part, "cop-out" is the phrase: we are dodging the real issue of whether these articles are suitable subjects for WP. I find it slightly weird - I seem to be lone voice - does no-one else realise that these ideas all verge on science fiction? -- RHaworth11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not using copyright as an "excuse" to "get rid of" these articles. Copyrighted material is not allowable in Wikipedia. Frankly it doesn't matter if Bolodkin is a hack and his papers and concepts sci-fi, or if he is the next Nobel prize winning genius. It does not matter - we must delete copyright violations. Copyright violations are not permissible for use on Wikipedia, regardless of their merit or lack thereof. How clear can I make this? KillerChihuahua?!?11:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
