User talk:HelgeStenstrom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Helge, let your creativity shine also on the swedish Wikipedia. //User:Dan Koehl

Contents

[edit] Date links

Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 20:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Propellerhead Software

A tag has been placed on Propellerhead Software, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or 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 Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Betaeleven 14:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has been deleted and protected to prevent re-creation. Please do not create articles about companies without asserting their notability. Kafziel Talk 18:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I feel vandalized.

One of the things I liked best about Wikipedia when I started to write back in 2001, was that it was possible to write a simple stub, and that the stub pretty soon had been much improved by others. Like my first original article on color code.

I thought there was a need for an article on Propellerhead Software, partly because a lot of articles already linked there. (Software synthesizer, Reason (program), SubTractor Analog Synthesizer, Malström Graintable Synthesizer, NN-19 Digital Sampler, ReCycle (program), Dr.REX Loop Player, Template:Reason, Redrum Drum Computer, NN-XT Advanced Sampler, Scream 4 Distortion, List of MIDI editors and sequencers, RV-7 Digital Reverb, PEQ-2 Two Band Parametric EQ). I started out simple, and didn't tell very much why I thought that the subject was notable.

But immediately after my submission, the article was marked for speedy deletion. I got the instruction to place { { hangon } } in the text to keep it, and to clarify myself in the talk page, but when I had finished the talk submission, the article was gone.

It doesn't feel fair. It seem that someone has a list of forbidden subjects, controlled by a bot. The decision to remove the page cannot have been based on the contents; there was no time for that. And why the haste? This doesn't improve Wikipedia. It certainly makes me less eager to contribute. --HelgeStenstrom 07:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just exaggerating. Yes, I marked it for speedily deletion, and you put the {{hangon}} tag soon after. You made a comment about it on the talk page on how fast it was marked for deletion, and that it was probably done by a bot. You then admitted that it was a poor article. A few hours later (I was amazed on how long it stayed up), I commented about the quality of the article, too, and why it was marked for speedy deletion. In order for it to stay on Wikipedia, the article must ascertain it's notability. It did not. Mere wiki-links to it (mainly by from the company's own products, which are also questionable on their notability) does not make it notable. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. Here's the log for your article. You can see when and why it was deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Propellerhead_Software
Betaeleven 12:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a copy of the deleted talk page history:

  • 18:14, February 22, 2007 . . Kafziel (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Talk:Propellerhead Software" (talk page of deleted article)
  • 17:01, February 22, 2007 . . Betaeleven (Talk | contribs | block)
  • 14:23, February 22, 2007 . . HelgeStenstrom (Talk | contribs | block)
  • 14:22, February 22, 2007 . . HelgeStenstrom (Talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with 'I created the page Propellerhead_Software today because there were some twenty pages that already linked to it. One second later, it was marked for speedy delet...')

As you can see, nearly four hours passed from the time you made your statement to the time it was deleted. That's a pretty fair amount of time for you have to come up with a reason to keep it, or at least to have improved it enough to prevent speedy deletion. Kafziel Talk 13:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I might have forgot a few details. I seem to remember that the article was already deleted, but not blocked, when I added the { { hangon } }, but I still had the article in the cache, so I could add it with the suggested marking. Then I travelled from work to home, so I was away for a few hours. I don't think 4 hours is a long time. As for notability, I fail to understand why Propellerhead Software, as a company, is less notable than, e.g., Microsoft or Exxon. I don't understand if the deletion and blocking of the article was based on the title or on the contents. Now, the subject is in practice a forbidden topic, so noone can make an article that would resolve the more than ten links that point to the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Propellerhead_Software

The way I have been policed makes me sad. It wasn't like this five years ago. --HelgeStenstrom 14:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you really comparing Propeller Software with Microsoft and Exxon? Really?
Well, all I can do is point you to our guidelines, which you probably already know about anyway. I'm not sure what you mean about this being a "forbidden topic"; if it made even the slightest claim of notability, I wouldn't have deleted it. So if you'd like to assert notability under the terms of the guidelines, you're more than welcome to start a deletion review. If it's verifiable and notable, I won't oppose it. Kafziel Talk 15:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do really compare Propellerhead Software with Microsoft and Exxon. I think their are all notable within their fields. The revenues of the latter two are far larger. Does it matter? I could make an assertion of why Propellerhead Software was notable, if I had been given the time. I wasn't. Because the topic is deleted and blocked, noone else can either, and the topic is in effect forbidden. --HelgeStenstrom 09:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You have my sympathy and full support. I have just been through a similar situation. (Indeed, I found you by following the trail of one of the apparently self-appointed policemen who attacked your entry. He was among those who decided to kill an entry on Laurence Scott that I had discovered and was trying to improve.)
Like you, I have the impression that their "speedy delete" actions will make extremely difficult any future attempt to assert the importance of the subjects they attack (in my case, Scott). Talk about vandalism!
Who are these people who insist on immediate perfection and act within nanoseconds if they don't get it? Might "tagged for speedy delete" at least include a TIME DEADLINE so that an entry doesn't disappear when we are in the middle of an edit that we have spent hours on?!
This is not the Wikipedia I thought it was. Whatever the merits of your article, scrubbing it in a few hours has to have been very discouraging.
These people apparently stay up all day and all night policing; they have no idea that the rest of us are lucky to find an hour or two every few weeks to improve Wikipedia pages. It is discouraging to find oneself in a race with tireless and officious "editors" some of whom casually state that they know nothing about the subjects of the articles they are deleting or criticizing. All VERY sad. I am about to give up.
They destroy well-intentioned work by hiding it away where we can't even see it unless we beg someone's indulgence. These are the sorts of people who so over-react to problems (in this case, I gather, spam) that they embrace extreme measures. Think of speedy-delete, they way they are currently using it, as Wikipedia's extraordinary rendition. The consequence, whether they intend it or not, is, for the contributor like you or me who was NOT engaged in spam, a form of torture.
Very, very sad to see Wikipedia developing an out-of-control FBI and CIA. --SocJan 23:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are absolutely right.

In my case, the policemen were partly right too; after I had read their suggestions, I found that I had not understood the term 'notable' (I'm Swedish). My subject was less notable than I thought. However, their products are certainly notable. There has been much more written about the products of Propellerhead Software, than about the company, and it was hard to tell if the few articles that I found about the company had their origin in press releases, which would kind of disqualify them, I think.

That being said, I think we agree that the speedyness is the real problem here. And the lack of means for us once-a-month people to correct the articles; to document the notability of the subject, or whatever the problem.

Your idea about a published deadline for the speedy deletion is a very good suggestion, I think. I hope you have some idea about where to present that idea. --HelgeStenstrom 06:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You are invited to collaborate in an ambitious new MediaWiki project.
The LabVIEW Wiki. -- Michael Aivaliotis 06:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)