User talk:Testerer

Welcome!

Hello, Testerer, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not recreate material that has been through a valid AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israelisms) just because you disagree. If you want to challenge the deletion then go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you recreate the article you could end up being blocked for disruption. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first time was because, even though you do not agree, it went through a valid "Articles for deletion" (AfD), as I pointed out to you above. Also if you look at the AfD you can see that it was another editor that deleted the original article. The second deletion, by me, was because reposted material is supposed to be deleted as per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Criteria, look at General criteria #4.

The AfD is valid because they are not votes and the large number of Wikipedia:Single purpose accounts that took part in it. Although you can't see the deletions, (you can get another administrator to check for you), it was originally tagged as a "Speedy delete" as "spam". I had actually removed the tag due to my feeling that it was an invalid reason, followed by an attempt to clean the article and some discussion at User talk:Staceyferguson (who created the article).

Finally if you had not been so rude as to go to my talk page and leave this accusation I might have been willing to help you with Wikipedia:Deletion review. The message that you are referring to is neither private nor a threat. It is the message prior to this one and is quite public and just a warning. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not fast tracked as you put it. Normal time for a AfD is 5 days, this one lasted 8 days. Fast tracking is a speedy delete which as I told you I removed. As to the "threat" it is simply not there. I said that you "...could end up being blocked for disruption." not that I would block you so please do not make false remarks. I never said the article was spam, in fact, again, I removed the spam tag and helped clean up the article. Once again if you feel the orignal AfD closure was incorrect then take it up with the closing admin or go to deletion review. If you read through the AfD you will see that I never even took part in it. As I pointed out to you before I deleted it a second time because nothing was added to the article to indicate that it was any more notable than the original as thus was required by policy to be deleted. It just happened to be me rather than another admin. Finally, if you really think that I am threating you or should not have made the second deletion then I suggest you make a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Requests for comment. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm glad you joined in the discussion. This is an evolving article, like many in wikipedia, take television for example. Let me remind everyone again of the Wikipedia_etiquette in that tones of discussion must be civil and all participants need to be polite and work toward agreement. I hope to help answer as many questions as I can, but I am just 1 of many parties who's been cooperatively working on this article for a long time. We have to understand that articles will and continue to change. This does not mean facts change, I think it is a reality in an ever evolving, ever improving project like wikipedia.

"What the @#!& happened to this article? == This article used to be about 3 times as long last week, and it contained alot of good information. "

If you look at the history and discussion you can see that the great polemics of the name "podcast/podcasting" has been moved to the History_of_podcasting article. To me, this makes sense because the actual etymology of the word itself really belongs in the history of podcasting due to its clouded and controversial nature. Older versions of this article contained such erroneous disinformation as Usually a podcast features one type of 'show', with new episodes released either sporadically or at planned intervals such as daily or weekly. In addition, there are podcast networks that feature multiple shows on the same feed. Wikipedia is encyclopedic, its not a place for "usually" class information. Such information is speculative. The remark on podcast networks featuring multiple shows is also completely irrelevant to podcasting itself. Podcast network itself doesn't deserve a wikipedia article. Another example of such disinformation in older versions is Consumer enters this feed URI into a software program called a podcatcher, a type of aggregator. I personally beg to differ, the program is not actually called a "podcatcher". I'll admit that some people call it a podcatcher, but the program itself isn't called a podcatcher. It's an aggregator or podcast reciever. If you want to create an article for podcatcher, go for it, be bold in doing it. But it's basically just slang for a podcast specific aggregator perhaps even news reader. There are lots of examples in this discussion page, just scan up a few subsections. Nearly all of the information is the same, it has only been reorganized and moved to make the entire article cleaner and more generally informative. A previous version contained gossip about Robert Scoble, that was under the name section, one of many good reasons to move such controversial irrelevance to the fuzzy history of podcasting.

The editors who have adopted this article as their own keep deleting relevant content, and they won't let any alternate or related articles exist(podcast, podcatcher, list of podcatchers, etc), for some reason they keep redirecting them to this article without including any of the information contained in them.

We are all editors and contributors. Very little content has been deleted and nothing was deleted without a open and fair discussion. It is all on record in this discussion page. Relevant content is not solely grounds for inclusion of an article, a list of "podcatchers" would not be appropriate for this article, wikipedia is not a "how to" for anything. There are plenty of resources to find lists of podcasts and aggregators. Others have pointed this out also. As for the redirects, I can't tell you, I'd try to make a new article, I'd have no problem with a seperate article for "podcatcher" etc..

This is a very important subject right now, if a few people want to micromanage this article, there's not much that others can do without getting into stupid editing wars, but allow alternate articles that can expand the topic in different directions.

Your right, it is a very important and financially sensitive subject right now. Wikipedia is not a place for politics, or financial interests to be served. People are split on this issue, there is neither a conensus nor a democratic opinion on current legal issues surrounding this term. This is all the more reason to be exceedingly accurate and neutral in this article. The current version does not serve anyone's financial interest and I think that is a very positive thing. I believe that Podcasting itself can and should be defined by its mechanics and its concept, that arguing about the name or which company to give credit to does not serve the users of wikipedia. The history article will be written as time goes on, no doubt, one of us will write about the outcome of Apple's current legal battle, but this particular article, about podcasting, should be only about podcasting. What it means, how it works etc.. Finally you mentioned expanded alternate articles, I think is exactly what we've all tried to do by moving the confusing and polemicized "content" and moving it to the History article. To assume the outcome of a wikipedia article debate a "stupid editing war" doesn't really treat the entire process fairly. I don't really appreciate your overall tone, I think it gets in the way of progress, but hope I've at least given you one perspective on the recent evolution of this article.

:I agree. This article is a mess in its current form. Wikipedia is not the place for anti-commercial crusaders to play around with re-writing history. For starters, what the hell is that stupid Firefox thing doing at the head of the article? Where did the Apple ipod logo go? It's 1000 times more relevant. --Gene_poole 02:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that nobody is rewriting history. The word "pod" was not created by apple. Its meaning and history has been discussed at great lengths in this discussion page. Check it out before you might jump to conclusions. Secondly, I'm not sure why you would bash the most universal logo associated with podcasting. That you would call it stupid, is questionable also. The notes on that specific logo are This icon was introduced in Mozilla Firefox in order to indicate a web feed was present on a particular webpage that could be used in conjunction with the Live bookmarks function. Microsoft and Opera have adopted the icon in order to promote a defacto standard. This is very true, what started out as the little orange xml icon evolved into the icon in question. It's been adopted by Microsoft, Opera, and by Firefox to promote standards. I believe promoting such standards is very positive especially as someone who cares about the future of podcasting and its proliferation. Its funny that you would say the "Apple ipod logo", it wasn't an ipod logo at all, it was the icon for the podcasting section of Apple's itunes music store. It seems obvious to me that such an icon would not be in an encyclopedia if I looked up podcasting, but here's a better reason. That icon was created long after podcasting's creation and rapid jump in popularity. In other words, it came after podcasting, its just some logo Apple created, it doesn't really have anything to do with the greater meaning and concept of podcasting itself. Unlike the orange icon now used which is both visually universal and description of the term podcasting. In my opinion, the current icon is more associated with podcasting based on its meaning than the Apple itunes music store podcasting area icon.

Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Encyclopedias are inherently non commercial. Individual people, not a huge company developed podcasting. It would be better to have pictures of the inventors than have a commercial icon found in ad based software. Considering that the majority of podcast users browse the internet with either Firefox, IE, or Opera, I'd say the defacto standard icon currently present is more relevant than any other logo at this time. If, in the future, a more universal icon is adapted by the world, then I hope its included at that time.

It is very important that this discussion page be kept civil and free of any hostily or name calling. That will never result in a positive, cooperative solution. I myself am doing my personal best to be most helpful, open and honest about my perspective on this issue in a peaceful and "assume the best" manner. I really appreciate everyone doing the same.

This discussion must continue, we must work together positively to forge a superior article, I believe a great bit of the work has been done, however, further structure changes and organization are crucial, and staying out of arguments based on feelings outside of the definition of podcasting aren't going to accomplish a superior article. Thanks for everyone's help, I know its hard to do all the reading and discussions that took place in the past, but it must be done to understand why things evolve.

Thanks again Testerer 04:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you like podcasting just a little bit. So I thought you'd be interested in the new wikiproject I've proposed for podcasting. There's a nice description there, and if you're interested in seeing it happen and/or participating in the project I'd love to see your name under the 'interested user' list. Also, if you really like the idea, and know of other users who are into podcasting...it'd be great if you could let them know too. Thanks, and have a good one! Ganfon 03:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've noticed the project hasn't exactly been going anywhere. If you know of interested users, maybe shoot them an invite. Or tell me and I will. Ganfon 19:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the project will be a really great thing. Also, for your comment of the direcories I responded on the talk page. Over 100 podcasts huh? Wow that beats me and my three which are Ask a Ninja, Jay and Jack (both Lost Podcast and Ramblecast,) and Off Topic with MAtt and Dave. AS mentioned in the project proposal I tried to make article for Lost Podcast and Off Topic but failed. Perhaps you can help with that. Off Topic is new, so I didn't fight too hard for it's notablity...however Jay and JAck are, if you listen to them. Anyway, I look forward to talking with you again!

PS: If you don't already, I'd check out Off Topic, they're pretty funny. Ganfon 14:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I only recently came into contact with Testerer when I proposed a Wikiproject for podcasting. When I was look for users who I thought would be interested in the project, I turned to the Podcast page to see who had been contributing the most. What I found was that Testerer had worked very hard to make a page that had started as a lonely stub into a former good article, and for that I award him with this barnstar. Ganfon 17:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Podcasting WikiProject has been started. Check out the site, and help to get this thing set-up. Thanks! Ganfon 20:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, saw you recently removed un referenced material regarding the death of Brent in the Grateful Dead article. You surely know that Brent's wiki states: " Mydland died of a drug overdose after taking a speedball at his home on "My Road" in Lafayette, California, on July 26, 1990, shortly after completing the band's summer tour." I think that there is a reference needed, however I think it is pretty common knowledge, I don't know of how widely the reporting of a suicide is/was and I think it was definitely correct to remove that part, the details of Brent's sad, untimely, but possibly forseeable passing is perhaps important to include in the main GD wiki. Just wanted to engage a bit of conversation, as a head myself, I think we all know brent did pass away like so many other greats from a Speedball. Curious as to how we can come up with a better way to include this in the GD wiki about brent, and also curious if you plan to change the Brent Mydland article that states the above claim. Peace out- Testerer 06:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Testerer, Its not what we know or believe or "common" knowledge. It isn't even about the "truth" here at wikipedia. Its about gather already established material that is based on verifiable and reliable sources. If you can provide citations for ANY material, please feel free to add it. If not, its just best to leave it out. Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source believe it or not. Just because material is in a wiki article doesn't mean it should be propagated to other articles unless of course it has references. Anyways, peace to you as well. Man do I miss "the men from Marin" as Mr. Graham once put it :) Cheers!--Tom 17:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly explained it to Random and definatly stated my sources much better than those who wrote the article did. "Random, I have a problem because in this article you talk about Dave saying he made RSS popular ,even thought it was made and promoted by a major company, yet on the Ramanathan V. Guha page inventing RSS is basicly a footnote. I don't understand how one man telling people to use it deserves more text in an article than is given to the inventor of the technology. I have given you the name of the technology's inventor and therefor proven that Dave did not invent and does not control RSS. He has nothing more to do with it than you or I do yet you still insist on trying to word the article as if he has some controlling connection to RSS. If the man didn't make RSS he didn't make it. The only reason to associate him with it is to make him sound important enough to have an article.

Blogging: It is clearly known that he didn't invent blogging, yet you still want to tie him to it by using words like pioneered or was one of the first to blog. The blog wiki clearly begins the history section in 1994 while this article says Dave started blogging in 1997. How can you pioneer something or be one of the first if you were not interested in yet for at least 3 YEARS that other people used to actually pioneer blogging and blog? Podcasting: I along with other users have shown you that he did make podcasting, or make anything that was needed to do it. You can say I vandalized the article ,but even after I and other people have told you that these things are not true you merely change the wording a little bit. Bill Clinton can define he word is ,but the definition is still the same! Quit trying to associate him with things he likes.--(Nirelan)"

What the hell are you talking about? Please do not vandalize my talk page by pasting paragraphs if crap onto it. Your insistence on vandalizing the Dave Winer article has been reported. You erase whole swathes of content without proving why you feel you are correct or without participating in a fair discussion. You clearly are letting your personal opinions get in the way of reality. Please knock if off. Don't you get it? You have to prove what you think is true with Refs. Testerer 19:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What haven't I proven? That quote from the talk page clearly proves everthing I have said. Please prove what you say in the podcasting section. My proof is the comment below and the webpage I posted in the talk section. Nirelan

• "I didn't remove the line, but it is inaccurate and misleading and should be removed, or at least substantially modified. The RSS 2.0 enclosure element is neither necessary or sufficient for podcasting (the same role is covered in Atom and for that matter RSS 1.0). Winer did add this element to RSS 2.0, but the facility it provides was already available in web standards (any URI/link can potentially have a media object representation, and hence act as an enclosure, this can be determined using HTTP content negotiation). The promotion of the podcasting mode of media delivery (in which Winer played a major role) was considerably more significant than any implementation detail. Danja 11:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)"
• You asked me to help and I have. I thought from your description that a brief scan of the article and Nirelan's edits would do the trick. So that's what I did, reported him and gave him a warning. However he has since responded and made me realize I should have taken a closer look at the situation the first time. I really was only trying to help, but I fear I made things worse, so here's my say. I'm gonna have to go the neutral route here. It appears to me that Nirelan isn't vandalizing the page, he's trying to help it. This is as far as I'm going to allow my 'help' to go in this argument. Sorry I wasn't as efficient the first time. Ganfon 21:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there all, I've noticed that action on the podcasting project has slowed down. I'd just like to take this time to promote more action from all of you on the project. there are still open tasks to be worked on, and if anyone has anything else to contribute feel free to add a task to the list. Also, I've put the members names into a box, and would like to invite you all to add your favorite podcast to the column. Hope to work with you all soon, Ganfon 20:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on a entheogenic new religious movement called Matrixism being created at User:Xoloz/Matrixism. There are numerous sources for this article yet it has because contentious because it deals with the subject of entheogens. Thought you might like to look at it and perhaps contribute. 206.124.144.3 05:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Testerer. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:DEAS012.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Testerer. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 00:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Podcasting wikiproject had a brief initial surge, but has since died away. I admit my part in this, I've been very busy as of late and have had little time to do any sort of editing. However the project has had almost no progress over the last few months. Our first task is to outline notability requirements. I have placed what was 'discussed' on the talk page on the main page, but there is certainly room for more input. Once the requirements are outlined we will need to start removing non-notable podcasts from Wikipedia. You all joined this project for a reason, now let's get the ball rolling.Ganfon 15:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Orangersslogo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. OsamaK 19:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Testerer, I noticed you were on the list as a member of WikiProject Podcasting! 2008 brings new updates to the project, such as Wikipedia 1.0 article assessment ratings, and new podcast infoboxes editors are working on.

In order to help us know who is working on writing, sourcing, rating articles, and in general helping out the project, I encourage you to check out the WP:PODCAST main page and move your name into the 2008 members list. If you'd like to still be part, but have a more indirect involvement on the project, feel free to leave your name on the former members list. Of course, if you're too busy with other commitments and wish to leave the project, simply remove your name. We'll sure miss you though! :)

The year ahead we would like to focus our energy on not only improving articles, but also provide WP:RS reliable sources to ensure each article meets WP:V verifiability.

All the best and happy podcasting. --Breno ^talk 10:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was just looking over the list of members on the Podcasting group and wanted to see if you were still active in the project. If so, it looks like the project could use a little jump-start. In particular, I think notability requirements and assessment guidelines could be added/updated. Please check out the page if you're still interested and move your name to the 2011 active list. Thanks! Udeezy (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
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) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]