User talk:S.K.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 20:57, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about the edits I missed, I'll go and replace them. Regardless, even if <code> is more "logical", it makes no difference in any other regard and is more to type. Wikipedia conventions usually maintain that a style that is started by the original author should be maintained and not be changed to an alternate scheme or style, except for consistency with that original style. Dysprosia 10:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Return of the Untagged Image project

You were kind enough to contribute to the Wikipedia:Untagged images project; I beg to draw your attention to part 2 of the project - there are about 12,000 more images in need of tagging. Any assistance you could provide would be most welcome. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] Coordinate system category more appropriate

Hi Nutation was first discovered by the apparent positional changes of celestial bodies in earth-centred coordinates. Although the term can also apply to free and forced precession of other bodies such as various planets, pulsars, and so on, it seldom if ever is. The main and classical use is to differentiate coordinate systems based on the equator and equinox of date, the mean equator and equinox, and coordinate sets like B1950 and J2000. Therefore it belonged a little better under coordinate systems than under celestial mechanics, which has to do more with the orbits of planets, satellites and star systems than with observing the sky. Suggest you put it back. Pdn 12:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I've changed the category on Nutation back. Since I'm by no stretch of the imagination an expert in this and I see from your page that you're an astrophysicist, I'll leave it to you to make the call here. Maybe you can add the information you gave here to the article, to clarify this for other users? My decission for the category change was based on my reading of the article and the category descriptions, so others might misunderstand this as well. Thanks --S.K. 13:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sure - thanks for fixing it back. I am not good at categories (not even Plato's), and I am lazy/busy to learn a lot of Wiki-lore. I will review things as you suggest.

Pdn 00:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I fixed up the items you mentioned, but I did not explain "true of epoch" and "mean of epoch" as it was getting long and technical. They are the same as "true of date" and "mean of date" coordinate systems, except that one slaves them to some epoch of interest. In other words, if you were doing spacecraft orbit control for the month of March, 2006, you might not want to deal with the fact that the "true of date" coordinate system is changing minute to minute, hour to hour. Since the changes are small, you might pick March 15 or 16 as an epoch and relate all positions and (I did not mention, for brevity!) velocities to that epoch. If you think I should mention velocities or "true of epoch," I'll add some more.

Pdn 00:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed a few things in precession, nutation and Equatorial coordinate system. The latter is a bit messy now. Really, in a sense the celestial coordinate system is fixed to the stars; proper motions (actual physical movements of the stars relative to each other) make this inexact, but it is essentially near perfect. It is only the statements that the apparent ideal rotation about the Earth's axis is corrupted by precession that was incomplete, and now it is even messier because nutation is in there, too. I almost took out all that section (eliminating precession, too) so as to make the entry more palatable, but who knows what amateur will be interested in learning more.

Pdn 20:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello Peter, sorry for the delayed answer. Thanks for the clarifications. I assume going without the descriptions for "true of epoch" and "mean of epoch" is fine for now. If someone considers it necessary, this should be easy enough to add later. --S.K. 20:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NetSuite

Hi, I saw you have contributed a lot to the NetSuite article. Can you please comment in the NetSuite talk page?

[edit] Sleepyhead

Sleepyhead, please do not enlist the help of sockpuppets on this issue. Even if others add this topic back for you, the fact is that your application is not notable. - Sleepnomore 16:20, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ERP

Since you have edited Enterprise resource planning, here is a courtesy notification that I have updated the article, and its talk page, since your last activity there. I have tried to repair what I view as an unfortunate WP:POV, or historical bias, but I still need to address a better way to present information about commercial software, open source, and homebrew. Many facts about ERP are true in one of these three main areas, but totally wrong for the others.

I asked about disadvantages style in December 23 section of Help Desk whose first response cautioned risk of WP:NPOV. There is a potential need to show several commonplace WP:POV that can otherwise risk article contamination, if not acknowledged. User:AlMac|(talk) 22:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MRP II

I know it is not neccessary to inform other editors when articles they have worked on have been further modified by someone else, but I just contacting a few recent editors to let them know that I have made significant additions to the MRP II article, and intend to do some more, unless someone objects. In my opinion, most all the ERP articles are stubs in need of attention, while the MRP II article in particular is a bunch of lists. Much more prose is needed. User:AlMac|(talk) 05:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SAP Business Information Warehouse

Why do you keep removing my link on SAP Business Warehouse? Bigdaddymaj 20:10, 13 January 2006

See my response at Talk:SAP Business Information Warehouse. --S.K. 08:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diambiguation - Asp

You removed the image I placed on this diambig page, stating it is a DAB page as explanation. I've read through Wikipedia:Disambiguation and there are no guidelines or discussions on this matter, are there any guidelines elsewhere on this? I added the image to add interest to the page, while remaining in keeping with the topic. I was hoping you could clarify why pictures should not be placed on such pages. Thanks. |→ Spaully°τ 14:38, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

Hi Spaully, I'd say the picture distracts from the main task of a DAB page: bringing the user ASAP to the page they want to get to. Looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), I think this is consenus:
Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace. Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term. This style guideline is intended to make this process more efficient by giving disambiguation pages a consistent look and avoiding distracting information, such as extraneous links (internal or external).
Hope you agree. And really, no offence intended. Thanks, --S.K. 14:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
No offence taken. Thanks for that quote, makes it pretty clear; although maybe it could be made clearer on WP:DAB. I'll have to lay off making DAB pages look nice it seems. Thanks again, |→ Spaully°τ 15:00, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

[edit] "Vendor Neutral Articles"--invitation to discuss

Please come to Talk:Content management system for a discussion of your current dispute over the "Vendor Neutral Articles". Thanks. · rodii · 14:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon de Rothschild

I've tarted up this article which seemed largely based on fantasy. You have edited it in the past, so can I ask you to keep it on your watchlist in case 142.161.164.84 (talk · contribs) has a go at removing stuff he doesn't like. Cheers. Noisy | Talk 12:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. I didn't have the time or knowledge to do this myself, so I'm glad you did it. I will try to keep an eye on the article. Cheers, --S.K. 09:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Business Process Execution Language

I've re-removed the {{cleanup-spam}} tag again from the Business Process Execution Language. If you don't feel there's spam present on the page, there's really not a need to have a huge maintenance tag at the top of the article. If you feel differently, please join the discussion on the article's talk page. Other options would be adding an inline comment to restrict additional links to only those discussed first, or adding the maintenance tag to the external links section. Let me know you thoughts on if there's still spam there. Kuru talk 14:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kuru, see my response at Talk:Business Process Execution Language. --S.K. 06:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits in Bug tracking system article

Why did you remove the additions to the list of bug tracking software? I saw in the article on issue tracking software there were many external links. So why are they ok there but not in the bug tracking software list? (I added one link there - my very first Wikipedia contribution - and it was one of the ones you deleted. I guess I'd better get used to that...) Ctrager 00:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't have time for Wikipedia lately, so I'm sorry for a late reply. There are general guidelines regarding external links in Wikipedia as well as guidelines for notability of software, take a look at WP:EL and WP:SOFTWARE respectively for more information. I considered those references to not fulfil either, so I removed them. I'll do so again and ask you to please justify their inclusion if you really think they should be in there. Thanks, --S.K. 16:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the references to the guidelines. They make sense.Ctrager 17:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of Links on MBS Dynamics Nav

I was wondering why you removed the links to the Navision Forums that were placed on the page on 15th Jan. I've looked at WP:EL and they do not breach it. In fact one of them has been awarded MVP by Microsoft. I think that it is quite relevant. So before I revert I wanted to let you explain your reason. You cite Spam/Low content. Which I don't quite understand? Tonyhemy 09:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi Tony, I just took a closer read of WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and article 10 does clearly state that Forum links are not allowed. I also note that the link to mibuso which had been there for 6 months or so has also been removed. So "my bad" sorry David Singleton 10:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Just took a look at article 10. Agreed :-( and those forums have been so useful over the years. Agreed, its a breach, which is a shame. 203.211.106.35 12:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of CRM Blog link

Hi, I'm wondering why this link was taken down again. I spoke with Michig in a previous post about this and he allowed the external site link. Per the WP:EL, item #11 states "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Since this CRM blog is written by a recognized authority (David Cowgill is a well known 10+ year veteran in the CRM industry) it should be allowed to stay. The blog does not sell anything and provides very useful information for people looking to learn more about CRM. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicoman98 (talk • contribs) S.K. 08:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi David, I'm in the computing industry for more than 10 years, but still I wouldn't call me a "recognized authority" (even though I think I should be. ;-)). That's to say that jugding ones own importance is hard (see WP:COI and WP:AUTO). So you should leave it to others to do so, as Michig already said. If you have external evidence, where the importance of you or your blog is proven, I'd consider readding it. In the meantime, I'm removing it again from CRM as well as Sales force management system. --S.K. 08:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monitor Media

Thanks for tagging this article for deletion, unfortunately the tag you applied to it was the wrong tag. You put {{db-bio}} when it should have been tagged as {{db-spam}} as the article is not about a person, but rather that of a company. Thanks for hearing me out ;) —— Eagle101Need help? 22:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eagle 101, I think {{db-bio}} was appropriate in this case, even though it was a company page. The template is probably not well named, but the text says This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: It is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7) (highlighting by me). And since my main concern was about notability, not spam (I've seen much worse in that regard... :-(), I thought it was the right one. --S.K. 08:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] steeplechase

The primary meaning of steeplechase is horse racing. The OED says:

1. A horse-race across country or on a made course with artificial fences, water-jumps, and other obstacles. Formerly, a race having a church steeple in view as goal, in which all intervening obstacles had to be cleared.
2. transf. A foot-race across country or over a course furnished with hurdles, ditches, and other obstacles.

--Philip Baird Shearer 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that I did not change the ordering when I created the Hurdling (disambiguation) even though the OED say that the original meaning for hurdle-race is the horse racing type, because I suspect that the most common meaning would be athletics. (Google supports that by about the same as it does steeplechasing the other way) --Philip Baird Shearer 17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JFire

On the 6th of July, you added the tag {{Notability|software|date=July 2007}} to the entry JFire. Since that date, there have been several amendments to the article also with respect to that tag. Translations of the article have also been published in the Dutch, Thai, Czech, and German Wikipedia. Considering this and the fact, that a discussion about deleting the article in the German Wikipedia has lead to a decision in favour of JFire, I'd like to ask you to think about removing this tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobiaslangner (talk • contribs) 09:26, 20 July 2007 --S.K. 17:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tobias, I still consider the article weak in establishing notability. To cite WP:ORG: is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. So I see some work towards that, but after looking at the sources, I'm not yet convinced it is established, so I personally will not remove it yet. Someone else might feel different. Other wikipedias are not considered reliable sources, so I'm not using this as basis for the decision. --S.K. 17:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lawson Software

Checking in

OK, the Lawson company representative sent an e-mail to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org on Tuesday, Aug. 21. To date, he has not received a response back. What else can I do to help get the Lawson Software page restored? --KMPLS 14:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I would assume, that they will respond soon, but since I've wasn't involved in such proceedings before, I don't know for sure. The only other idea I have would be to contact one of the OTRS volunteers that you see is currently active in en.wikipedia and ask for clarification. --S.K. 17:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC) PS: Please write on my discussion page, not my user page. Thanks.
Sorry for posting in the wrong place. Wiki is confusing at times.--KMPLS 18:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

'December check-in' Greetings once again. I seem to be having some difficulty with another user, Trident 13, with information on the Lawson site. He/she claims it is "advertext"; I claim it is not. To me, advertext or advertorials are an attempt to sell something by making specific claims about a product or service. I don't believe that has been done with the Lawson information, which is merely an attempt to more appropriately represent the company in a straightforward, factual manner. The information about leadership, applications, industries served and customers has all been completely removed. Do you have some good advice regarding how to restore at least some of the more vital information, such as industries and applications? Sorry to pester you, but Trident 13 has stopped responding to my messages on his/her discussion page. You seem to be a seasoned pro at Wikipedia, so do you have any suggestions for me? Thanks in advance for your response. --KMPLS (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello KMPLS, sorry for not responding for so long, I didn't have time for wikipedia lately. Overall I agree with Trident13s removals, some of the sections had in my eyes as well gone "over the top". The changes you or your colleague did today seem to go in the right direction. Mentioning facts giving citations. Overall I'd suggest looking at other company articles like e.g. IBM or Microsoft for ideas on structuring the Lawson article. --S.K. (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thedavedave

You appear to have angered User:Thedavedave, as he's spent a bunch of time reverting a bunch of your edits: contributions -- Bdoserror 07:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've warned the user. Let's see if he sees sense. Chris Cunningham 12:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been away for a few days, so only now have seen your comments. Yes, I can imagine that I've angered him, since I've removed an external link he added to a List of news clients/List of feed aggregators for a few times. Thanks for correcting his actions and talking to him. I'm ready to discuss with him if he wants to. --S.K. 09:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tfd defense needed

you need to defend this (Template:Largest_cities_of_the_European_Union) ASAP. I've done all I could as a disinterested observer, and will attempt to get the date reset per the tagging anomaly. But you and your helpers need to get into the Tfd to defend it. Cheers // FrankB 15:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] NetSuite 2

Hi. Well, I can promise you I'm not trigger happy - I don't go round deleting articles that aren't tagged, but I admit I didn't realise how long this one had been around. Nevertheless, it was tagged for both advertising and notability. Here's the summary as it stood:

[edit] Summary

NetSuite’s hosted online business software programs include accounting, customer relationship management (CRM), enterprise resource planning (ERP) software, e-commerce, and web site development. All software they offer is on-demand, allowing clients to integrate new departments into or remove departments from their existing system as needed. Their target market is growing and mid-sized businesses who need universal systems without the cost of multiple software licenses. With competition like Salesforce.com and Workday, NetSuite presently boasts to lead the on-demand software market in the hard-to-enter small- to mid-sized business market; Bruce Richardson, chief research officer of AMR Research, was quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle[1] to say, "Everyone is trying to figure out how to get into the small and midsize market and NetSuite has done it."

To me that's pretty blatant. What do you think? If you don't agree, I'll restore it and just nominate it for deletion. Deb (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's "pretty blatant", I agree, worse than I remember the last version I saw. :-( Maybe you can check the history and see, if setting it back to a less spam happy version would be possible. If you want to just restore it and let me have a shot at cleaning it up, I can do as well. Overall I think the company is notable enough to have an article and the overall "quality" in this area isn't that great anyway. I've certainly tagged a lot as {{advert}}, etc. but stricter guidelines would remove a lot of those articles. Up to you to decide. --S.K. (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've restored it to the last version you worked on. Hope you can do something with that. Deb (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I will look at it. (Sorry for the overlapping post.) --S.K. (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but I fear in the current state with me as the only author we might get a problem with the GFDL. How hard would it be to restore all versions up to the one that's there right now? --S.K. (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Something went wrong with my restore, I think. I don't do it very often, and the transaction isn't as straightforward as it looks. Then I lost my connection and I've been away for a few hours. I'll see if I can sort it out now. Deb (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think it's okay now - you can go ahead and do your thing. Deb (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Deb, thanks for the restoration. No worries regarding the timing, I'd to leave that evening anyway. Looking at the current text, it seems not as bad as the one you gave. Also it seems, that NetSuite is having an IPO right now. I'll see if I can add some relevant info regarding this and take a second look regarding marketing language as well. Thanks again for your help, --S.K. (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SugarCRM

User:Tysonwienker

Hi, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia editing and am just wondering whether it was the content or the form of my addition to SugarCRM Removed mentioning of SugarCRM in Wikinomics: In the current form, I don't see this adding value to the SugarCRM article that was not useful. I'm happy to rephrase, just thought these links would add value and give context?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tysonwienker (talk • contribs) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tysonwienker,
first, welcome to Wikipedia, and sorry for probably being the first person to revert one of your edits.
It was more the content as such, less the form, that I found wasn't adding much to the article. My understanding of the bottom-line of the sentence was that today open source is used by enterprises where there previously was only proprietary software. Then a list of what looked to me like fairly arbitrary examples of open source applications was given, one of them being SugarCRM. Therefore I failed to see why this sentence contributed much to the SugarCRM article. SugarCRM is certainly not "spearheading" the use of OSS in enterprises (that title might in my opinion be more rightfully given to e.g. Linux or the Apache web server).
While I'm at it, some comments on the form: (Sorry for lecturing, but I hope these comments are useful.)
  • You used the wording highly regarded in reference to the book. This to me is a judgment which conflicts with Wikipedias fundamental aim to be neutral. (See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for details.)
  • Another minor point: In the reference, you used HTML markup: <i>, better to use the equivalent wiki markup ''.
    (If you want to venture into more advanced territory, there are special "templates" for citations. See Wikipedia:Citation templates).
  • On discussion pages, it is common to add new topics to the end. You can easily do this by clicking on the "+" tab at the top of those pages. Also you can sign your comments by adding --~~~~ at the end of your comment. See Wikipedia:Signatures for details.
All the best, --S.K. (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciated

Hi S.K.

Appreciate the guidance and no problems about having edits undone, that's all part of the game the way I see it! Ok, understand and will use the info to improve my additions. Thanks also for the coding tips - it's been a while since computer science classes at uni!

Best Tysonwienker (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Response To Your Threats

Once again, you are engaging in a vandalism of history by attempting to distort Gebers ethnicity. Your true hypocrisy is shown when you allow the biases of others into the article whilst threatening/blocking any rebuttals. You are not running an ecyclopedia, but a sideshow. I just want to let you know how unprofessional, amateur, and pathetic this site (including it's admins) appears to be. I hope you enjoy your sideshow of inaccuracies, walled in from the real world and exporting fallacies. Azhura (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer at User talk:Azhura. --S.K. (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Answered at User talk:Azhura. Azhura (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Answered again Azhura (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of feed aggregators‎

I put in the Yahoo reference because Yahoo.com gets removed from the list of feed aggregators on a daily basis. People don't know that you can integrate RSS feeds into your Yahoo.com homepage. I'll wait and see what happens. If it starts getting taken down again, I'll put back the reference. Winwhiz (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Winwhiz, I understand your point and in general I'm a very firm believer in verifiability and adding of references. But this list is very popular for spamming by adding external links. Therefore the way I treat it is as an aggregation/overview of Wikipedia articles. Therefore the articles themselves contain the relevant information with the necessary references, the list itself then no longer needs independent references. I hope this is acceptable for you. --S.K. (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Geber Under Attack Again

This time, it's not me. I went back to the Geber article and it looks like the old "Most accurate sources describe him as Arab while some describe him as Persian" is back up again. I thought we had agreed to do away with that altogether and go with your revised version further below? I agreed on your revised version but it looks like the older contested version has been put back up. Can you fix this please? Thanks. UPDATE: I took it upon myself to revert the article back to its agreed upon state. Others have been trying to insert the contested version that we did away with. Azhura (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please ignore the above message, it was just a misunderstanding between Azhura and me, we have now reached an understanding and the issue is solved.--07fan (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of ERP vendors

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of ERP vendors, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ERP vendors. Thank you.