Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:00, 14 November 2007

Samir Arora

Very nice --Brat32 06:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Very Sorry VP Acted up Æon 06:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Re your message: There was an extra return character between "Rae" and "Technology", which were enclosed between a wikilink. However, wikilinks don't work across line breaks. If you look at the diff , you can see what I changed. When you look at the old version , you will see that "Rae Technology" had the wikilink brackets around it. There are actually several other lines that have line breaks after them that are not necessary. You don't need to break paragraphs after a certain line length. -- Gogo Dodo 19:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Re your message: You can't easily. The best "solution" is to expand your browser window as wide as possible. The edit window will expand the width of the browser and you should see where the paragraphs include line breaks and those that don't. The paragraphs that don't have extra returns will flow to the width of the edit box. In reality, the extra line breaks don't cause harm unless the break occurs within some other formatting notation (like the wikilink), so you could leave them in there. -- Gogo Dodo 20:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Re your message: That's fine, but like I said, I wouldn't worry about it unless it mangles the formatting. However, I went ahead and took out the excess line breaks since we've spent a lot of time talking about it. =) -- Gogo Dodo 06:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Re your message: Were you planning to write an article about the other Samir Arora? At first glance, he seems kind of borderline notable. I'm not sure he's notable enough for an article. When there are naming conflicts, you create a disambiguation page. See also WP:NAMEPEOPLE. So if you wrote about the other guy, I would name the article "Samir Arora (finance)" and then create a disambiguation page "Samir Arora (disambiguation)". -- Gogo Dodo 08:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Re your message: I wouldn't worry about the other Samir Arora then. If somebody else decides to write an article about that one, then either you or they should create the disambiguation page. In the mean time, I'd leave everything alone. =) -- Gogo Dodo 21:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Greg Brown (software engineer)

Sorry - there does not seem to be an explanation on your talk page as suggested. Also this article appears to have been removed already by an administrator. I am only tryng to help highlight vandalism and inappropriate new pages - which anyone, no matter of experience, is allowed to do. This article was (in my opinion) a csd as nearly all the links of this bio, to relevant oranisations were red. Lethaniol 12:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

See my annotations on your talk page. --Peter Eisenburger 13:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In response - I do not remember exactly the number of red links - just that there were more than blue. Personally I think that, generally, a company is more notable than a employee/director, and so the company should get an article first and then important people associated with that company therafter.

With respect to the baseball commentator argument - I somewhat sympathise. But the fact remains that thousands if not more will know this commentator, but unless very successful a programmer or businessman is likely to remain obscure (even if their products are not).

In terms of not being an expert in the field - i doubt there is not enough people policing new pages to allow for this - and all they are trying to do is keep wikipedia as relevant as possible, so go easy.

Ultimately should be complaining to the admin who deleted it not me. I only highlighted it. If the admin thought otherwise (like has happened to me before) they could have labelled it AfD. Lethaniol 13:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

NetObjects, Inc.

Hello again. I see that you finished your article (I saw in pop up in the New articles list and I remembered you from a couple of months ago). Nice work. -- Gogo Dodo 08:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Re your message: So, I see. I don't think it reads as an advertisement (especially since the company is defunct). I think that your changes helped quite a bit (the descriptions on Samir Arora and Clement Mok were a bit over the top). You might ask the editor who tagged it which sections they had issues with. I do have a few suggestions:

• You might want to change the "Challenges and crisis" section to a paragraph style instead of bullets as you have a stylistic change in writing that kind of sticks out.
• I'm not sure you need to have the entire "Where are they now?" section. While I personally find that kind of information interesting, it might not be best suited for an article about a company. I think it would be better served in the respective person's article.
• You might want to cut back on the financial information. For example the revenue numbers and how much everything was sold for. I think it's okay to say it got sold and leave it to references for monetary details.

-- Gogo Dodo 02:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Re your messages : Anybody can place the advert tag. The editor who tagged it removed it, so it looks like your last revisions addressed their concerns. I think the last revision helped. One side item is that your abbreviation of million to "mio" is not very common, so I changed it to spell out million. -- Gogo Dodo 06:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Re your message: You're welcome. Perhaps your next article can be on NetObjects Fusion? I've heard the name, but I really don't know much about it. You've got the company and founder covered. =) -- Gogo Dodo 06:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re your message: Nice article! I made a few copyediting changes. What do you plan to write next? -- Gogo Dodo 07:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is lacking categories. Sincerly, Sarazyn • TALK • DE 16:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's right. I will add them. Thank you for your help.--Peter Eisenburger 18:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, I hit 10,000 edits the other day and to commemorate this momentous (?) occasion, I wanted to leave a note to the various people I've run into on Misplaced Pages that have made an impact on my time here. Just wanted to say that I've been very impressed with the articles you created. I hope that you keep writing as Misplaced Pages could use lots of writers like you. =) -- Gogo Dodo 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Rae Technology

That's great! Nice work. =) -- Gogo Dodo 05:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: New article

Re your message: Long time, no see! =) The new article looks good. Very impressive. I do have one concern that it has a certain bit of marketing tone that is a bit too promotional feeling. I can't point to specifics, except the "Future prospects" is a bit much. You might consider removing that, since it's speculative. -- Gogo Dodo 19:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.--Peter Eisenburger 20:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Re your message: I think it looks better. I did a bit more copyediting and cut some of the parts that I felt were a bit too much marketing. I merged the acquisitions into one section since they only covered companies purchased and not much else. One thing you might consider is removing the picture of David L. Brown. It's not too often that you see a picture of the CEO on articles, especially since he is not one of the founders. It kind of sticks out in the article. -- Gogo Dodo 05:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.--Peter Eisenburger 17:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Glam Media

Re your message: Another well-referenced article by you. You do a great job researching all of the details. Very impressive!

I made a few copyedits and removed the external three links since they were already in the references. My only other suggestion is that perhaps the "Ad network or distributed media company?" section needs a bit of rework. It reads a little too much like the blog reference or a counter argument to the blog reference. And as the last sentence states, the issue might not be worth debating in the first place.

Agreed. I'm not satisfied with this chapter also. But of course it's only the first version and I wanted the article to appear. Do you think the debate is worth a chapter on it's own at all? I thought it is good practice to bring some discussion and criticism into the article so that no ad tag will appear.--Peter Eisenburger 08:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got mixed opinions on that particular section. It is interesting enough that it did receive some independent coverage as noted in the references, but on the other hand, it doesn't really matter. Maybe a rework would make it better? Hard to say. That last category I added is a rather ironic addition with respect to this discussion. =)

There is not only "some coverage" but raging discussions amongst observers and - the competition like iVillage which has been dumped. I think it's important enough to inform our readers. I also think we see the rise of a new kind of media company here. If you agree I will give the structure of the article a second thought after monitoring the debate a little longer.--Peter Eisenburger 09:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with leaving the section in there. -- Gogo Dodo 22:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, I made a few more minor fixes to the article. -- Gogo Dodo 09:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Re your other message: Caught me in the middle of editing the article. =) Thanks for the flower! =) -- Gogo Dodo 07:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI, but another editor added the announcement with Lifetime Television. I tried my best at expanding the description, but as with most press releases, it was hard to say exactly what was going on (lots of buzzword bingo though and I did at least fix the reference). If you expand the description, you might want to drop over to Lifetime Television where the same editor added the same content. -- Gogo Dodo 08:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)