User talk:Bonadea/Archive 16

UK Car Insurance

Du har rullat tilbaks en updatering jag gjort - varfor? Kostnad av bilforsakring har stigat enormt pa sistone har i UK. Kanke tanker hitta nagan referens sjalv til detta text. There we go, gamla trasig svenska oxa! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.106.215 (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I posted to the talk page of the IP you used when you made the edit, but if you were allocated a different IP the next time you accessed the Internet you wouldn't have seen that message. The external link you used as a reference did not seem to be appropriate per Wikipedia's external links policy - at least that's how I judged it. If you disagree you should post to the article's talk page to get other opinions, because I may obviously be wrong about this. Or you could find another, more authoritative source.

Thank you, btw, for your effort to communicate in Swedish ;-) As a general rule, all communication should be in English, here, because it's an open communication and everybody who uses English Wikipedia should be able to read and understand and so on and so forth, but I still appreciate the gesture! --bonadea contributions talk 11:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about my IP, never looked at it. But, Ah you are welcome - yes, i updated it because everyone is getting really hammered about the cost of insuring a car, so it is not just northern ireland. I just took the first link i found about the cost, because it was also a new article - as an old Kalmarite, it seemed only fair to drop some Swenglish :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.106.215 (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Just seen the news today on BBC that I was right about the increase, and that the European Court has now voted to the same. Confirming that Insurance companies are now increasing rates. Have added this to the talk page, but you might do well to revert the change you made... restore the article and my ego :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.82.161 (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for deafening silence - I was probably distracted by something shiny :-) The source you originally used is still inappropriate (essentially it's a brief informational page intended to make people use a particular commercial service), but the BBC is obviously a good source. This article talks about rising costs for insurance, without the estimated increase for 2011 (which, to be honest, the original reference didn't mention). Restoring that info with the BBC ref. Feel free to improve on my edit, or add more sourced information. The problem with the insurance article (like many other Wikipedia articles) is that it attracts spam links so I'm probably being overly cautious. Thanks for your gracious reply! --bonadea contributions talk 15:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Bonadea - I was actually more impressed by the statement that insurance was rising 33p per day (than the 31 or 31 % states.....percentages being fairly meaningless, and a hard 33p being indicitive), and the original source stated a fact, rather than relative value (percentage), so it was an okay source...i think. However, all told I agree that the BBC is always a failsafe option. Thanks for helpong me bed in around here. I might register as Leif-Lokket! Ma Bra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.94.224 (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure! --bonadea contributions talk 16:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Outsourcing:

That link was a directory of every company in the United States that Outsources. How is that not relevant on a page about outsourcing? In addition please highlight for me exactly what violation of Wikipedia's link policy posting this link violates.

In my opinion it follows under:"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

Out of respect, I won;t restore the link until you clarify your opinion on the matter. But please cite specific violations if you feel this is still a violation of Wikipedia's policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.199.238 (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at the "About us" page of the website you linked to. That is not simply a site indicated to be a directory of companies (and there is no information about who is behind the list, so no way of knowing that it's "every company") - it is a site intended to promote a particular point of view concerning outsourcing from one specific country. In fact, it is evident from every page of the site that it is not a website that contains neutral material (I make no judgment concerning whether the information is accurate), so that inclusion criterion is not met. Rather, inclusion of the link would promote the website rather than provide information (per point 2 in this policy). If you disagree with me about the site's suitability, you should feel free to start a discussion about it on the article's talk page, where other interested editors can weigh in about it. --bonadea contributions talk 18:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I didn't link to the general site. I linked to the directory. Which cannot be considered any more biased then a phone book. I don't know how else to point out the mis statements you made above so with respect I will list them.

1. You said: "and there is no information about who is behind the list, so no way of knowing that it's "every company"" Obviously the "who" behind the list is the website / organization of Outsaurus.com" 2. "so no way of knowing that it's "every company"" Obviously the list doesn't include every company as that would be imposable. The periodic table of elements does not contain every element in existence, only the ones we know about. 3. You said: "In fact, it is evident from every page of the site that it is not a website that contains neutral material" Maybe you have a different definition of neutral but I see this site as making statements of indisputable facts. (naming companies that outsourced jobs from the United States.) And every article is properly referenced with links to legitimate news articles. However, this is still a moot point because I did not link to entire site, I liked to a directory.

Please reply. Thank you.

p.s. In addition; this directory has been referenced by legitimate news organization MSNBC (where I heard about it) and CNN.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.199.238 (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC) 

No, it is not an unbiased phone book - please look a little more closely at the page and you'll see what I mean. What they call the "directory" (actually just a list of company names) is headed by the website's logo which features their tagline, promoting their POV. The right-hand frame on that page also clarifies the POV very unambiguously. A few of the company names in the list are linked to blog posts which are anything but neutral. Yes, obviously the people behind the list are the people behind the website, but the site includes no information about who they are and there is no indication that they are authorities on the subject, so it is unclear where this list comes from and why the information is credible (even disregarding the biased slant). It was you who claimed, above, that the page was a "directory of every company in the United States that Outsources", so my use of "every company" was a direct quote.

The list of names without any of the surrounding text on the past is neutral information to some extent, but the rest of the page is not neutral. Not referring to the rest of the site here, but the linked page. It becomes eminently clear from the page that their reason for compiling the information is also in order to promote the POV, but that's rather beside the point.

Just as a FYI, I'm leaving the computer fairly soon in order to spend the Sunday evening doing non-Wikipedia things, and won't be online tomorrow morning so it will be at least some 15 hours before I'm around. Again, it would be better to have this discussion on the article's talk page. Please feel free to quote me there if you wish. --bonadea contributions talk 18:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

My argument is it does not matter if this site has a point of view the link in question goes to a page that has questionably 1 line of POV, their tagline below their logo. At that point your looking for a reason not to like them. additional proof your looking for a reason not to like this like you mentioned the right frame of the website. SAYING: "clarifies the POV very unambiguously." I only see a highlight of numbers. Please explain to me your problem with numbers. Numbers which are referenced and properly cited to legitimate sources (In this case google data and another page that links to a detailed page of the where / how and when those numbers were collected.)

The page offers ZERO POV (outside the tagline in their logo, which I still say is stretching of an excuse) If the boy scouts wrote a page about how to build a camp fire. Would it be inappropriate to post a link to that on a Wikipedia page on campfires just because on the boyscouts website has a POV about gays serving openly in the boyscouts? Or would posting any article from the New York Times be against Wikipedia policies because in every edition of the Times you will find a few editorials expressing a POV.

The fact is the link I posted listed companies who have outsourced jobs from the United States. Yes, it's hosted on a website that (from my count) has 2 POV editorials. But they do not exist on the link in question.

In addition every fact and number on that site is cited and referenced.

The site is even good enough for Major media outlets such as MSNBC and CNN to reference it.

I respectfully believe you need to question your bias on this matter. I suggest restoring the link and putting your objection next to it. Let the people decide.

Thank you.

I think it's a good idea to get more opinions on this, especially if my views are being perceived as biased (I honestly don't believe I am - but seeing one's own bias is notiriously difficult!). For this reason I've asked for input on the link, here. Please feel free to provide input in that discussion. Thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 21:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Question from GUNITm

why have you blocked my page about callum picjkering — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUNITm (talk • contribs) 12:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked for it to be deleted as an attack page. Those are not allowed on Wikipedia. There's more information about this on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 12:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

have no idea what your talking about and why you deleted my page .. :\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUNITm (talk • contribs) 13:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not delete your page - I don't have the tools to delete Wikipedia articles. I asked for it to be deleted, however, and the administrator who did delete the page obviously agreed with me that it was a personal attack against the subject of the article. After that, it looks as if you created the article again, and had it deleted again (I wasn't involved in that and didn't see the last version of the article, but it was obviously not suitable for a Wikipedia article.) Once again, there's been a lot of information posted to your talk page - you should read that, and follow the links. In particular see this note from the administrator who deleted the article (both times). If you want to ask him about it, you can reach him here. --bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Trouble tagging?

I also couldn't tag the article, The wateska wonder, as a copyvio because the URL it was copied from has been added to a spam blacklist, so the Twinkle edit failed! I eventually tagged without the http:// part to avoid the filter. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's a way around it, of course. I've just been digging through the Twinkle archives and find that it is a known issue - it's problematic that it doesn't tell the Twinkle user, but it does place a warning on the talk page of the article creator. --bonadea contributions talk 12:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So...

So HERE'S your talk page. I couldn't find it before. Where was I? Your momma ... is depressed. Sorry, I'm not feeling well. I'M depressed. How are you? --Rhain1999 <small}contributions talk22:35, 1 April 2011 (EST)