User talk:Ausgangskontrolle

Welcome!

Hello, Ausgangskontrolle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Darwinek (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everett Colby

Yes! Excellent detective work, I also have a photo him, but the snowstorm here has the Internet very slow. I am actually on my neighbors Wifi and they have dialup. The cable Internet is down. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The Crossing (2011 film)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is The Crossing (2011 film). 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crossing (2011 film). 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.

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. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Technosys

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

Non-notable company, per WP:CORP.

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chzz ► 10:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this wiki does not collect the knowledge of this world. Or at least some of the so called authors/editors. If this article will be deleted I will stop contributing here. I know that this will not impress the people who think that a computer manufacturer in New Zealand (Anyone know a bigger one? Anyone know an ealier one?) is not part of the knowledge of this world. --Ausgangskontrolle (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC) By the way : Where is the deletion request for Aamber Pegasus? When a product is relevant than the manufacturer is relevant for sure too. At least from my point of view.[reply]

Please, do not misunderstand my intentions. I am interested in the history of early computers in NZ. I want us to have an article about any and all things, but it needs to be in accordance with the community-agreed guidelines - mostly, that it needs to be verifiable.

I really do want Wikipedia to contain such knowledge. But, the only way to ensure the accuracy is if we can check the facts. That's how we can keep Wikipedia so good.

Unfortunately, at the moment, the article has just a single reference - and it is to a personal collection of info on retro computing. It's not published; as far as I am aware, it lacks the prerequisite "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

If we accept information with such sourcing, then it devalues Wikipedia as a whole. Some of the 'facts' might be wrong; by presenting them on Wikipedia, we might mislead readers.

In addition, others might edit the article and add further facts - perhaps referenced to similar 'home-made' pages - and that is how misinformation propagates.

So, please, understand me; I want us to provide verifiable information on this, and any and all topics, in accordance with guidelines on verifiability. Please, see WP:VRS.

I really hope that this clarifies things, and that you now understand me. If I can help with it in any way, please let me know. Chzz ► 11:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer an encyclopedia with only cited and verifyable informations, it looks like you are in the wrong project. Please show me the rule that all informations here must be cited and verifyable and otherwise the informations must be deleted. Please show me that this rule applies to all existing articles and all current additions. I think that only a few percent of all additions are cited and verifyable as you want me to believe it is required here. Obviously this is what the community wants and this is the way why this encyclopedia was growing every day. You did not challenge any information in the article, so there is no essential requirement to verify what is correct and what might be wrong. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability again. Are you sure all your real additions to articles (not just infobox or correct formatting and so on) are cited to 100%? --Ausgangskontrolle (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is WP:V - Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Chzz ► 00:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Talk:Technosys there is no discussion about wrong informations. Users with absolutely no knowledge about the described product are just not capable enough to challenge an article. Users who can contribute just a deletion request are no good reason to discuss with them about the content of an article. It is just wasted time. --Ausgangskontrolle (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esther's Diary (film)

The concerns at the AFD needed addressing, as we really cannot use IMDB or youtube or the company's own website or press releases as references. But even without those references, I was still able to create an decently encyclopedic article... but under the film's original name. As the film had its initial release and set of awards and reviews under the name Forgiveness, that is the name best to be used... with contextual mention of the newer release as a sort of "director's special edition". See User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Forgiveness (2008 film). What I think will best serve is for me to use my test article as the basis to edit the existing article, and then suggest at the AFD that as concerns have been addressed, the article should be "moved" from Esther's Diary (film) to Forgiveness (2008 film). This preserves the history and GFDL, sets a better version in mainspace, and leaves a redirect of Esther's Diary as a reasonable search term. And as the director's cut hits more festivals, gets more awards, and more coverage, such can be included in the revamped article. What'cha think? --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. But I do not get it. Some people are denying notability and after a rewrite and using the old name of the film it is suddenly notable now? Now, that is nonsense. What is now in the new article that is so crucial that now the deletionists see the notability? No, I do not get this and I can not accept this behaviour. These people do not change a bit on the article but they are best when denying notability. And then they suddenly changed their mind? Nonsense! As I already said in the discussion. --Ausgangskontrolle (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has its most sourcable notabiliy under its original release name. Certainly as the new release title wins more awards, and receives more reviews, the newtitle section can be expanded... and we DO have a redirect in place from new title to original title. Yes, it's confusing... but the point here is that the article has now survived. Count your blessings. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolute no problem with this. I have a problem with the users denying notability of a notable film. --Ausgangskontrolle (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Technosys for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Technosys 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/Technosys 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Chzz ► 11:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]