User talk:Poweroid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 18:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


See my reply Here. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 21:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Poweroid, thanks for helping build wikipedia. I agree we need an article on exit plans, but luckily we already have one at exit strategy. Take a lot at WP:NOT to see why people wanted to get rid of it. Kappa 21:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

India related topics[edit]

Some India-related links =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey Participation?[edit]

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, Corey 14:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Local Area Network[edit]

I question whether your recent additions help the article - it seems to me that they complicate it rather than adding to it. For the moment I'll leave it to you to decide. Snori 16:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I'm open to any specific suggestions you may have. I wanted to explain the increased importance of LANs in modern life (both at work and home) and to regularise the references section. The external links that I added are, I believe, to useful sites, but please feel free to delete/replace them if you do not agree and I will not contest that. Poweroid 16:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not upload images in the GIF format[edit]

Hello and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you've uploaded a couple of images in the GIF format. In the future, please save GIF images in the PNG format before uploading (see Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload). PNG images almost always have a smaller file size, which decreases the amount of time they take to load. There are a bunch of other advantages to the PNG format such as lossless compression that you can read about on its Wikipedia article. —Remember the dot (t) 20:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Voice-over-IP.gif[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Voice-over-IP.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 20:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks for the note. It's unusual to provide such information in the alt attribute rather than on the web page or on the title attribute. Thanks also for converting the image to the PNG format. I've added the appropriate templates, {{PNG version available}} and {{subst:orfur}} to Image:Voice-over-IP.gif for you. I've also changed {{PD-self}} to {{PD-release}} on both the GIF and the PNG version of the image. —Remember the dot (t) 20:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your request on the article is honored. Feel free to rewrite sentences for clarity. mlpkr 13:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Business performance management[edit]

Good call, thanks. Vees 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice your username is related to and, both sites you've used as a sources and external links. Do you have any conflicts of interest in adding these sites to articles? My apologies if you've already declared any such conflicts. Thanks. --Ronz 03:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Ronz. I am associated with about 30 sites that I regularly do work for. But bestpricecomputers is probably the one I do the most work on. I'm obviously more familiar with these sites and recognise when there's an opportunity for them to contibute to Wikipedia articles, and I sometimes add content from those sites to articles here. My user name here was chosen because it's the trademark of the company and therefore clearly marks me out as related to the PC manufacturer, Best Price Computers Ltd Poweroid 13:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. As you're already found, I'm passing this on to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I'm in over my head here. My apologies if it turns out to be nothing. --Ronz 16:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as the links go, obviously I don't think they meet WP:EL or WP:SOURCE. They are all self-published, with no identification of the author, with no references of their own. The sites are advertisement-heavy, commercial sites. --Ronz 16:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the client list[edit]

Athaenara had a good suggestion that eliminates the need for you to post or share a client list: Why don't you go through your past edits and remove any links to their sites that still exist from article space, perhaps moving any that you feel might still be valuable to that talk page for consideration of inclusion by an editor that doesnt have the conflict of interest? The search engine that Tearlach shows in the COI is helpful to find them: --Ronz 03:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have followed the conversation on the CoI noticeboard and read Athaenara's question re whether there is a CoI case here at all.

I do not mind sharing my client list as long as it's not posted publicly. Athaenara's suggestion is a good one but, IMHO, not practical. Bear in mind that there are numerous sites involved, hundreds of URLs, and thousands of articles spanning several years some of which would actually merit the link anyway ...IF there is one. Thousands of my edits involved improving articles WITHOUT posting any links.

If there is no CoI case for me to answer then I hardly think there's a case for a penal sentence requiring me to revert past edits. But if you want to pursue the CoI angle I'll compile the site list for you and you can plug away at past articles looking for links. Poweroid 16:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correction: I did not question whether there is a COI case—there is one—my question was specifically about your continued addition of linkspam following the COI Noticeboard report and its discussion prior to my question. — Athænara 21:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addenda: (1) Undoing damage is not "a penal sentence" but simply good faith editing. (2) The accumulation of edits which did not spam links is not a license to spam links. (3) For a good faith editor, the burden of undoing one's own violations is not on other editors but on oneself. — Æ. 22:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for replying for Ronz. I'll have to admit, I don't see the case for a CoI and I saw no post in the CoI Noticeboard supporting Ronz's allegations. I consider myself a good faith editor and don't believe I've done edits in anything but good faith. Incidentally, what happened to the discussion on the CoI Noticeboard?. Poweroid 17:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion is here. --Ronz 20:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Ronz. I've had a quick look at that link, the RFCN, your talk page, Athaenara's talk page etc., etc.
Wow, I'm stunned that I seem to have generated so much of discussion. And a bit sad that I've directly or indirectly caused so many of you so much of wasted time.
Athaenara, it is uncharitable of you to summarise my defence as being one of me being beyond question because I've made many contributions (on the RFCN page). There's no way anyone could interpret that from anything I've said. Just as it is a spurious claim that I cited confidentiality to avoid disclosing other links I've made. As you are well aware I have offered to compile a list of every client I've ever had and to provide that list privately to you or an admin. I'm stunned that you've taken my reluctance to publicly post a complete list of all my clients over the last several years and twisted it into an argument to help ensure the outcome you desire.
Just for the record: No client has ever paid me in cash or kind to post links here. Links I've posted to clients' sites tend to go to articles/content I liked/found useful on those sites. That I have ever edited part of a site or cleaned up a different page on a site is, you argue, grounds for me to never link to that site at all? Further, you argue that it's actually in violation of good faith? I sometimes get clients by "proactively" tidying up a page for free, forwarding it to the site owner as an example of what I do, and asking if he'd like me to do other work on his site. Does that site join my banned list because I contacted the owner for work? What if he implements the free edits I sent him?
Ronz admits I've been "completely upfront" about my actions. He's discovered that I've often edited without logging in (do you track this via a cookie?) but that even when I did so I did not violate WP:SOCK. I don't spam and I don't ask others to clean up my spam. And if we disagree whether a particular edit of mine is spam I'm happy to see what the article's talk page thinks and edit the article MYSELF if the consensus is against me. I don't have your experience/knowledge of Wikipedia policy so perhaps that puts me at a disadvantage when it comes to defending against some of your claims. :-( Poweroid 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tiny fact: I've been a Wikipedian for only six months. — Athænara 05:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That you are more familiar with the small print in six months than I in three years reflects well on you. My compliments. Poweroid 13:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see my comments at Athaenara's talk page, and at the submission at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. (I can't make a link to the submission - do a find for 'poweroid') I started to check out what I could, and I haven't been convinced that appearances are 'bad'.

Do I think you have a problem with the user name? *Sigh*, yes. But I'm trying to mention in my comments that you've had the name for quite awhile, and the progression of events is... unfortunate. You still might have to change the name... drat, there's a "", though it is just one of those search engine magnets.  ;-)

If you take away anything from this, it is that mistakes can be made on any side, and that people will spend time (2+ hours) trying to understand and argue for both sides, so that we can do the right thing.

Please add your comments as you see fit on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names page. I'm kinda disappointed that you weren't notified here. I made notes on both Athaenara's and Ronz's talk pages. Shenme 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh yeah, I threw a warning on User:Ajacobs7778's talk page. Though with only one edit, who knows if they'll even be back to see it. Shenme 07:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Username OK![edit]

Hello, Poweroid. While there had been some discussion here about whether your username met Wikipedia policy on what usernames editors can use, the result was to allow it, and that discussion has now been closed. If you would like to see what concerns were raised, you can still find that discussion in the archive (here). You do not need to change your username. However, if you ever wish to do so, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name: simply request a new name here following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. -- -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC) -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This link seems to work. Shenme 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for checking all that and getting back on the user name to say it's OK. I'm not here to cause controversy; I don't mind changing the user name and will be guided by your suggestion on this. Would you prefer I changed? Poweroid 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, the discussion is over at RFCN, with the final being 'allow', as noted above, and the discussion archived at that link. Things move fast over there sometimes, not even 10 hours in this case. I think it was someone pointing out that the policy at the time you chose your user name was not the same as today, and that the user name was allowable at that point, that drew the most attention.
I'm not sure that anyone wants to continue the matter. If I understand correctly the matter at the CoI board also ceased? Please consider that, unknown to you or I, so much bad history has happened before at Wikipedia that people are suspicious more than a little. The other two editors wanted to get a resolution, including whether there were grounds for concern, yes or no. And indeed that is why I went diving into the assertions, because it is always good to have outside opinions. What the other two editors found worrisome I found less worrisome. And that is why the discussion is a good process to have. I hadn't even thought about the policy-at-naming-time issue!
I think one thing mentioned somewhere was that it would be a good thing if you mentioned in the edit summary if you are adding any links. A burden, but one which will show you understand people's concerns. (by now people are freaky on the links issue)
Regarding the offer to change user names, I (emphasis on I) would not think it is needed. The policy at the time never mentioned company names as a problem. However, if you have another user name that you would prefer (mine has now been misread twice now for instance - short is not good either :-), then I think it would be very gracious of you to have it changed. You might want to ask Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider), the closing admin, for his opinion also?
I worry though that that won't alter the original concern. Being scrupulous in your actions, so that your good contributions can be appreciated for what they are, is necessary for all of us, but unfortunately a bit more so when someone has raised questions. I'm sorry for that, but please don't stop contributing! Shenme 20:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'll change my username, it's no big deal, never was. I don't have any particular name in mind. I'll read the current rules on names before I choose one... and discuss with Chrislk02. I hope to do that before the end of the week. Thanks for your kind words.

Changing username[edit]

I think that Wikipedia:Changing_username is where you want to go! Hope that helps. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Chris. I tried that page and followed the link to Listusers to find an unused name... but I think the search function at listusers is broken. Anyway, I'll plug on and list the name change request using the template. Thanks for your help. Poweroid 15:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply],[edit]

I'm guessing these are other sites you have a coi with. Care to confirm? --Ronz 19:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about and --Ronz 18:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Voice-over-IP.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Voice-over-IP.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Athaenara 04:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Edius, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 04:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD: Crisis Management[edit]

AfD nomination of Crisis management[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Crisis management, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis management. Thank you. Horrorshowj 22:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spam in ProCoder[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on ProCoder, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ProCoder 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 ProCoder, 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. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A cup of hot tea to welcome you!

Hello, 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:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, although if you wish to acquire additional privileges, simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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 a question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Proposed deletion of MPEG encoding[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability (WP:GNG), stub/unsourced (WP:VERIFY)

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. (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]