User talk:Jantangring

Hi Jantangring! Great to see you contributing! A tip about "see [[target]]" pages. It is usually better to make a redirect by writing "#Redirect[[target]]". In that way people will be automatically brought ("redirected") to the correct article. Sjakkalle 10:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• OK, it's just that when I'm patrolling Special:Newpages and spot "See ..." I almost automatically convert them to "#Redirect..." (making a quick Google check first to make sure that the redirect is not spurious). Until we get an article on Intersectionality I think it can stand as a useful redirect. Sjakkalle 07:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You made the below page, it is now being looked out with regards to its deletion.

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Gbops, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Green Hills Software, by Witchinghour, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Green Hills Software is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Green Hills Software, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Green Hills Software itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am glad for the things you are writing, even if you have put me on the hot seat. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mbops, 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Mbops. greenrd (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Jantangring. You have new messages at Talk:iPad.
Message added 16:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JetBlast (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:IPad were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved by another user. In the future you can use the "New section" link in top right. For more details see talk page guidelines. Thank you. JetBlast (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on the discussion listed on the iPad talk page. However, the discussion you added to is archived, so I will reply to your comment here. Firstly, I'd like to point out that information on the iPad mini was added within minutes of it being released; literally the moment the final detail was released during the keynote, I uploaded the new section. There was not any time between the official launch and the addition of this data where Wikipedia didn't list iPad mini details.

Secondly, it's important to note that Wikipedia doesn't 'censor rumors', it lists facts. A quick search of Google with the phrase 'iPhone 6 rumors' returns 'about 49,500,000' results, yet nowhere on the iPhone page does it say that there are rumors about iPhone 6. I don't speak in hyperbole, there is always someone talking about something. Not listing rumors isn't an attempt to make Wikiepdia more 'serious', it's an attempt to make it fair, readable, ubloated, and true. If people want to read rumors, they can search the wealth of information listed on the Internet themselves. If Wikipedia listed a certain rumor, then we would no doubt fail to cover another rumor on the same subject, and therefore be found to be biased.

Finally, I'd like to direct you to an interesting representation of a notion known as Citogenesis. It describes fact that, by listing a fact on Wikipedia, it gives journalists reason to write about it, creating citations for the original statement on Wikipedia. In effect, listing rumors could easily begin a cycle of false information.

drewmunn (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. The fact was that the rumor existed. These are two statements with potentially different truth values: ”P”, ”P was stated”. Ask if you don't understand what I mean. The fact that the Ipad Mini rumor turned out to be true, demonstrates the information value of rumors. Allowing one particular rumor does not oblige you to allow all rumors, any more than allowing an article about a person obliges you to allow articles on all persons. I do not have an opinion on the credibility of Iphone 6 rumors. Citogenesis – please leave journalists worries to journalists. These statements are Hyperbole: "The issue with your thinking is that there would be an infinite number of pages created for things that don't exist", ” there's always someone out there who's written a blog post about a new version of everything”, ” this would relegate Wikipedia to an index of the internet, listing every topic ever discussed”. 81.230.6.118 (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an argument here, so I don't plan to continue beyond this reply. I understand fully what you are saying. However, "P was stated" stretches the definition of what an encyclopaedia should include. Wikipedia should not list the content of people's opinions based on the fact that people have opinions. My 'index of the Internet comment', as you exampled above, demonstrates this. For instance, if I were to write a blog post on the possible release of iPad Maxi, a 11 inch version of the tablet, would that be worthy of a mention within the iPad article? What if I showed a photoshopped image that corroborated my story? What if someone reads my blog, and writes an article on my claims? What then, if a reliable gadget blog writes a report on the imminent release of the iPad Maxi? When would the claim become enough to warrant the sentence 'rumors suggest that a larger version of the iPad will be released'? According to the philosophy of 'it's a fact that people are talking about it', then the moment I write the original post is the moment it becomes worthy of Wikipedia. However, that's obviously not the conditions used, because there's no argument about the rumors of iPhone 6. You write above of the 'credibility of... rumors', yet that contravenes Wikipedia's original research guidelines; if you have to use any knowledge that isn't citable, even if you think it's common sense, then it can't go into an article. Finally, regarding Citogenesis, I'm not worried about Journalists, I'm worried about making sure that Wikipedia is constantly reliable. Reliability doesn't go hand in hand with exhaustively listing remarks of questionable reliability backed up by original research. drewmunn (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The rumors on Ipad Mini turned out to be correct. This contradicts your attempt to formulate sweeping rules on what to put into or not oput into en encyclopedia. ”I were to write a blog post on the possible release of iPad Maxi, a 11 inch version of the tablet, would that be worthy of a mention within the iPad article” – No, it wouldn't. You reason like a child. The world does not work like that. There are no simple rules that you can follow like a slave, without thinking, that will get everything right for you. Accepting some rumors for inclusion does not imply accepting all rumors, you would need a ”notability guideline” for rumors, just like you have for people. Btw – are there actually any WP guidelines on rumors?gnirre (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC

Couple of points: firstly, how were we to know that the iPad mini rumors would turn out to be true? The fact that it was released means that it is now listed under Accurate Rumors on the Apple Community page. Secondly, there are no overall guidelines regarding rumors, as it falls under a mix of No Original Research ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."), and Verifiability (“Sources that are not usually reliable... [include those that] rely heavily on rumor."). Lastly, the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball guidelines state that "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." Note that, even the above linked Accurate Rumors section is listed as needing cleanup for containing Original Research, and these are proven rumors. There is very little way for anyone to formulate a way of deciding whether a rumor could possibly be true, and if so, to allow it on a page. The field of rumor is one that is very qualitative, so falls into presumption and original research when choosing what rumors are likely to be true. Finally, I note that I said in my last reply that I was not going to continue this discussion, but wrote the above reply in attempt to wind up this discussion. I feel that, in your last reply, you stepped over a line, and exhibited behaviour that is not welcome on Wikipedia. I do not believe that a personal attack on me is acceptable; such content contravenes the 4th Pillar of Wikipedia, as described in No Personal Attacks. As such, and along with the fact that I feel I have put my point across sufficiently, I will be disengaging from this discussion. If you feel you have further points to make, please do so in a civil and respectful manner with an administrator, or someone else who has influence within the community, who can implement guidelines on this matter. Throughout this discussion, I have made no personal attack on you or your opinions, and ask that you respect the community of editors, and follow the guidelines on interacting with others on Wikipedia. drewmunn (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The article Green Hills Software has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article cites trade publications, but not any mainstream sources. ISTM that consensus is probably that mainstream sources are needed. Please see the words of AJHingston, Nwlaw63, Cunard, Whpq and Sandstein at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hidden Croatia. See also the unofficial essay WP:42 and what it says about mainstream publications. See also WP:B2B#Trade publications and awards aren't good enough.

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. Unforgettableid (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to Ophrys apifera. While it may be a "story", the comic clearly presents it as fact and gives zero evidence that it is set in the future, implying that the setting is now. Thus, xkcd clearly is incorrect in this case. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Green Hills Software is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Hills Software (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Unforgettableid (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)