User talk:Chuck Marean

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Discussion section 1.1 follow-up 2 Edit summary 3 Image:WkBoxPics1.jpg listed for deletion 4 Extra Edit Buttons 5 Talk:Welfare (financial aid) 6 signed in 7 Image:White Crested Cockatoo .jpg listed for deletion 8 Image:White Crested Cockatoo .jpg 9 Wikiepedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information 10 Laziness 11 First article?

My userboxes ← User talk - My archives → About archives BS This user has a Bachelor of Science degree. en This user is a native speaker of English. This user comes from the United States of America.

[edit] Discussion section

I started this section --Chuck Marean 20:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Chuck, everything OK with you today? More here User:Pedant

I notice there's more editing buttons. --Chuck Marean 23:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again... glad to see you are exploring the wikipedia more and getting settled in. More here User:Pedant 02:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Chuck Marean 07:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] follow-up

Hi Chuck, I'm glad you have settled this, and I appreciate your wisdom ('they should be nice') which is very good advice. I will be closing your case soon, before I do, would you please take a moment to edit this page , it is a follow-up to the advocacy process to help us improve our service. Thank you. User:Pedant 17:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

I just figured out how to put a link in a talk-page edit summary. In double square brackets you put page name, number section name, pipe section name. For example: [[User talk:Chuck Marean# Edit summary| Edit summary]].I also figured out how to start a talk page section (to be able to have a summary) by using dot as the "comment." --Chuck Marean 19:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're not supposed to have a space between # and the section name or a space between the pipe and the section name. The example is really supposed to be like this: [[User talk:Chuck Marean#Edit summary|Edit summary]] --Chuck Marean 19:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

When starting a talk page section, I think I'll use the temporary comment "Started this section" to start the section, then go to the section separately to make the real comment. -- Chuck Marean 19:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed: the arrow in front of "Edit summary" brings you directly to this section without my having to put a link in myself. So I only have to do the "Started this section" part.--Chuck Marean 19:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I figured out that the "last" link on the history page goes to the newest version, so I don't need to do that either. --Chuck Marean 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:WkBoxPics1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:WkBoxPics1.jpg, 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. YellowDot 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Same for Image:WkBoxPics2.jpg, Image:WkBoxPics4.jpg, Image:WkBoxPics6.jpg. YellowDot 21:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extra Edit Buttons

I have had a look at extra edit buttons for you and I have also checked your monobook.js but I repdroduce the problem. All the testing was on Windows XP and I used Firefox, IE and Opera to test with. I don't immediately have access to Windows 95 (it might be possible for me to test WIndows 95 but I would need to install). Can you give it another go possibly trying alternative browser, then let me know how you get on and exact what browser/OS you are using and I'll have another look. --MarkS (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The Windows 95 computer has IE 5.5 and the Windows XP has IE6.0. I cleared the cashe of IE 5.5 by pressing delete files and also doing so with the delete all offline content box checked. IE 5.5 still doesn't get any edit buttons above the editing space. IE 6.0 (in the Windows XP) gets about 44, so I wrote them down for the IE 5.5, as follows:

{| class="wikitable"
|+ TABLE CAPTION <!-- if required -->
! FIELD 1
! FIELD 2
! FIELD 3
|-
| element
| element
| element
|-
| element
| element
| element
|-
| element
| element
| element
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ TABLE CAPTION <!-- if required -->
!
! FIELD 1
! FIELD 2
! FIELD 3
|-
! ITEM 1
| element
| element
| element
|-
! ITEM 2
| element
| element
| element
|-
! ITEM 3
| element
| element
| element
|}


'''Bold text'''

''Italic text''

[[Link title]]

[http://www.example.com link title]

== Headline text ==

[[Image:Example.jpg]]

[[Media:Example.ogg]]

<math>Insert formula here</math>

<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki>

--~~~~ Your signature with timestamp

----Horizontal line (use sparingly)

#REDIRECT [[Insert text]]

<s>Strike-through text</s>

<div style='text-align: left; direction: ltr; margin-left: 1em;'>
Left-aligned text
</div>

<div style='text-align: center;'>
Centered text
</div>

<br />

<sup>Superscript text</sup>

<sub>Subscript text</sub>

<small>Small Text</small>

<!-- Comment -->

<gallery>
Image:Example.jpg|Caption1
Image:Example.jpg|Caption2
</gallery>

<blockquote>
Block quote
</blockquote>

<s>Strike-through text</s>

<div style='text-align: left; direction: ltr; margin-left: 1em;'>
Left-aligned text
</div>

<div style='text-align: center;'>
Centered text
</div>

{| border='1' 
|- 
| 1 || 2
|- 
| 3 || 4
|}

<br />

<sup>Superscript text</sup>

<sub>Subscript text</sub>

<small>Small Text</small>

<!-- Comment -->

<gallery>
Image:FileName.jpg|Caption1\Image:FileName2.jpg|Caption2
</gallery>

===Secondary headline===

::

<blockquote style='border: 1px solid blue; padding: 2em;'>
Block quote
</blockquote>

<span style='color: ColorName'>Span of text</span>

<code>Code</code>

[[Page#Sub_page]]

; Insert text : 

{{Template name}}

[[Category:Category title]]

<ref>Insert reference material</ref>

<references/>Reference footer

-- Chuck Marean 19:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Windows XP / IE6 is doing what I would expect. I get 44 buttons as well. I think part of the confusion is because the extra edit buttons page includes some extra buttons which are only available on a development version of the code. I had started the process of releasing this development version when Olliminatore suggested some changes which make the code much simpler. Unfortunately the code he showed me was for the German wikipedia and needed amending for English Wikipedia, which is the reason I haven't yet released a new version with all the buttons. Once the new version is released then the extra buttons and the ability to change the order will become available.

Not sure on the Windows 95 / IE5.5 as I haven't been able to reproduce the problem. I have created a virtual machine using VMWare Player with Windows 95 on it, but I haven't yet been able to roll the version of IE up from v3 to v5.5. You say that all the buttons are missing this time. It might be worth testing this configuration without extra edit buttons. This will show if the problem is with buttons in general (the Wikipedia software supplies the first 20 or so buttons) or if extra edits buttons is casuing the problem. I suggest you try this and let me know how you get on. --MarkS (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

5.5 is an upgrade from before I got this computer. The text buttons are under the edit box, labeled Wiki markup. They work. The extra buttons however—it's not just the images not downloading. They're not there at all. Copy and paste from the above notes works. For example:

-- Chuck Marean 20:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just updated XEB. It now has completely new code (I'd like to take the credit but User:Olliminatore provided the code). Can I suggest you give the new code a go (you will need to refresh your cache in IE) and see how you get on. --MarkS (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

IE 5.5 doesn't get them. The other computer probably does. I check tomorrow. -- Chuck Marean 08:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Welfare (financial aid)

Chuck, I reverted your comment apropos of the topic underlying the article; as WP:TPG explains, a mainspace talk page serves to house a discussion relative to the improvement of the concomitant article. If you think there to be deficiencies in the extant Welfare (financial aid) article, you should feel free to be bold and edit the article accordingly or to return your comments to the talk page to the extent that they focus on the article itself.

I gather from your most recent comments that you have some macroeconomic questions, most of which seem quite common (your contention that it is inconceivable that one might work forty hours in one week strikes me as, well, plainly wrong—of course, I don't work at all, so I'm not one to talk—but your concerns as to the nature of money are wholly reasonable—after all, as a quasi-monetaristic Austrian School anarco-libertarian, I myself am a gold standard advocate), and I wonder if you might entertain a few suggestions. The several reference desks, for one, are an excellent resource at which one might pose questions apropos of topics themselves and where such questions are answered not only with adductions to Wikipedia articles but also to external sources; the mathematics and humanities desks are those at which economics questions are most apt. Should you have further questions, you might try to ask one of the participants in the business and economics WikiProject if he might be willing to address a few questions off-Wiki.  :) Joe 04:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant that some powerful people, unfortunately, oppose welfare and favor slavery, as proven by the President's speech. He said that he wants people to earn their welfare checks whether they want to earn their checks or not. That's similar to Roosevelt's Atrocities such as the Civilian Conservation Corps (or whatever it was called).The Wikipedia article on welfare seems to be taking welfare for granted. My comment was as a reader of the article. I wasn't trying to edit it. -- Chuck Marean 07:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] signed in

How come this sometimes logs out on it's own, and what can be done to stop it? -- Chuck Marean 15:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You want to check your web browser to ensure you are accepting web cookies, and also be sure to check "remember me" when logging in. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to find out if the computer is accepting cookies. --Chuck Marean 16:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a browser setting, and would depend on your browser. If I remember, you might be using an (old) version of Internet Explorer on Windows 95. If you want help finding your cookie settings in that browser, perhaps you could find help at the Computing Reference Desk. Sorry I can't offer more specific assistance. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:White Crested Cockatoo .jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:White Crested Cockatoo .jpg, 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. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like the image kept because I took the time to upload the image. Also, it's being used in an article and two categories and my galery. -- Chuck Marean 20:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chuck. I'm not involved in the issue with this image, but it seem you only added it to your gallery today, and, just so you know, Wikipedia is not meant to be free web space or hosting service for your own gallery of images. Also, images are "used" in categories. Categories are merely helpful portals to related articles. Perhaps if your image is used in that article, it will remain. Again, I'm not really involved... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The image was uploaded months ago to be informative. It was put on the bird page, and two bird categories. It illustrates the sharp beak of the cockatoo and an example strong cage and also illustrates the at least 92% tameness of the pet, but it is a little dangerous. The picture shows that for the safty of people interested in parrots as pets. It's the only image in my gallery. I put it there today to keep track of it, because somebody nominated it for deletion thinking it was orphaned, which it is not. It for the bird section for safty of potential pet owners. People new to Parrots seem to think they can put them on their shoulders, which is not a good idea because Parrots are sometimes in a bad mood. --Chuck Marean 04:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:White Crested Cockatoo .jpg

You wrote on my talk page:

Image:White Crested Cockatoo .jpg is both a bird image and Cacatuidae. The image has been in those categories for months and months. The image was never an orphan. -- Chuck Marean 23:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The category Cacatuidae is for articles about members of the Cacatuidae family. This is an image of a particular bird, not an article about a member of that family. I don't know anything about the status of the image as an orphan or otherwise. Gwernol 23:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not for articles only, as proven by the software putting it on that page. It's been there for months. --Chuck Marean 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The software did not put it there, you did. The contents of categories are maintained by people, not software. Look at all the other items in the category, they are all articles on members of the Cacatuidae family. Its much preferable to keep categories about one topic, so that people can easily navigate through them. The category/article structure is intended to be hierarchical, in this case the category contains articles about members of the Cacatuidae family. The articles themselves contain information (including pictures) about individual members of the family, like the Umbrella Cocatoo. Gwernol 10:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Once it was in the category, the software put it on the category page. The category instructions said put things in more than one category so they're easier to find, which is what I was trying to do. The picture is of something in Cacatuidae family. Once the picture was in the category, it appeared by itself on that page. To find images that might be used in an article, they need to be in some categories to be able to be found. Also, some examples of what Cacatuidae family looks like made sense to me. There is even a notice on a list of images somewhere that it would be better for a category page to be used. I think there were other Cacatuidae family bird images there at the time. If there aren't so many of them that the page takes too long to download, I see nothing wrong with it. --Chuck Marean 15:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiepedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

I'm sorry that you feel that how-to guides belong in Wikipedia, but , decisions like this have to be made by consensus. I encourage you to make a reasonable statement of your case at the What Wikipedia is Not talk page, but this matter has been settled long before you or I began editing Wikipedia. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 16:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The no how-to may or may not have been their a long time, but clearly it is too strong of a statement, making it difficult to cover various valid subjects people want to look up. I understand the concern about bad advice.--Chuck Marean 16:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• The spirit of what you're saying may be well-meant, but you won't get anywhere by unilaterally striking out parts of long established policies. Your edit summary "... is totally wrong and will not be tollerated (sic) by me" will attract the disapproving eye of many an editor. As Squid says, stimulate discussion on talk pages first, especially when dealing with policy. Even if you can prove that WP contains how-to info about many things in our wide world, and I'm sure it does, that doesn't invalidate policy. Deizio talk 16:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I followed proper editing. It says if you see something that needs to be corrected be bold and go ahead (unilaterally) and do so. Every article on editing says so from the introduction on. --Chuck Marean 16:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Chuck, when editing Wikipedia content, you should indeed be bold. However, the top of the What Wikipedia is Not project page clearly states that you should only revise the policy if you have gained consensus among Wikipedia editors. Please review the consensus policy for more information. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 17:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Seconded. Absolutely, be bold when editing articles, but policy requires a different approach. Deizio talk 17:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• It says "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." That does not agree with your opinion--Chuck Marean 17:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• That agrees completely with my position. Unless you are sure that a consensus of editors concurs with your change to Wikipedia policy, you should discuss the change before executing it. I don't think I understand your position; do you believe that each and every editor has the right to change the structure of Wikipedia without discussing it? --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 17:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. My opinion, and I would guess the opinion of the vast majority of editors who take an interest in policy, is that revisions made to policies should reflect consensus, and that clear consensus should be reached through discussion on policy talk pages prior to making revisions. Deizio talk 17:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• As a matter of common sense, I did reflect consensus. It says "when in doubt, discuss it on the talk page first." I was not in doubt. Obviously, my edit reflects consensus--Chuck Marean 17:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• That is always my thinking if I don't discuss on the talk page first. Well, I better hang up.--Chuck Marean 17:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm. I wonder if you need to check the meaning of "consensus", particularly as it applies to revising Wikipedia policy. The point is not that you have any doubts as to the validity of your actions, the point is if you have any doubts as to whether a good many other editors agree with you. You don't seem to have checked if any other editors agree with you. However, I think you're also beginning to realize why this has puzzled myself and Squid, and I'm sure your understanding of how WP policies are drafted and revised is benefitting as a result. Deizio talk 17:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Of course if it were an article I wrote. . .I see you point, so maybe you should take this topic to the discussion page of Wikipedia:Tutorial where my edit-first learning came from.--Chuck Marean 18:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand what you meant to suggest with your edit, and I think that which you intended to say did properly reflect extant practice and a guideline for which a consensus exists, viz., that there is a relatively fine line betwixt that which is a how-to and that which tends to describe how something is done in an encyclopedic (cf., self-referentially, in a pedagogic fashion). Consider, for instance, nuclear weapon design (which likely equips one to make a bomb more potent than is that of North Korea, but that's saying relatively little). There are several sections that describe principally how certain features of a nuclear weapon work and how such a device is constructed, but I don't imagine that I'd tag the article {{howto}}, and I don't expect that, in any event, a consensus would emerge for the excision of those sections. Is that simply because the article means to describe generally how a nuclear weapon works (and thus how such a weapon is constructed) rather than to delineate specifically how one might go about making a bomb? I'm honestly not sure. How-tos, on some level, are, à la obscenity in Potter Stewart's formulation, that which one knows when he or she sees them. Survival skills, similarly, generally concerns itself with that which is taught under the guise of survival skills but comes perilously close to instructing one as to how to practice such skills; indeed, I once tagged such article for {{howto}} but, upon being asked by another editor to expand such criticism, I wasn't particularly able to reduce my concerns to writing. You might be interested to review the arguments advanced at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reading spark plugs for racing/3, an AfD that followed a VfD; under the latter, the article was kept in view of the absence of a proscription against how-to articles, whilst under the former the article was deleted in view of the promulgation as policy of the how-to provisions of WP:NOT, although Samw and I, inter al., undertook a colloquy as to the distinction between that which is descriptive and that which is prescriptive and whether any article that is principally descriptive is de facto not a how-to. The article appears now [en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Reading_spark_plugs_for_racing here] at en:Wikibooks, and it's not entirely obvious to what extent it is a how-to.

Of course, everyone else is quite right to suggest that you ought not to edit guidelines or policies substantively before you are confident that your edits will reflect the underlying views of the community, and surely ought not to edit in such a fashion as to render part of a guideline incomprehensible. A discussion should certainly be undertaken at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, and I'm certain that no one would object to your raising the article at the village pump for policy, at least in order that you might direct other editors to the project talk page. It's a valuable discussion and an issue about which editors ought to think (from which thinking a consensus might evolve), but the policy ought not to be edited in the absence of such discussion. Joe 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the writer meant an encyclopedia shouln't address the reader. At the time I tried to correct the statement, I was almost sure I would have a consensus --Chuck Marean 23:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This could be personal bias, but I don't think you'll get a consensus to open the door to how-to articles in Wikipedia. You may have a certain scope of articles in mind that describe procedures in general terms, but then we'd start having video game strategy guides, home repair tips, possible even medical advice, all of which are done better elsewhere on the internet. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a parallel or substitute for the internet as a whole. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 02:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying encyclopedias do in fact explain some things in general terms such as algebra and card games and so on, without using the word you. So, I think the 'no how-to' rule isn't realistic if taken literally. -- Chuck Marean 07:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chuck. As your editing history should remind you ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]), your presumption that your bold actions automatically reflect consensus is misplaced. Acknowledging that the tutorial page you read states that all pages can be edited, I, once again, strongly urge you to build consensus on talk pages if you want to make changes to long-standing Wikipedia policy. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess so, if people are going to automatically revert pages, but that anyone would do that is not at all implied by the Wikipedia:Tutorial or other directions I've read. Only on talk pages, does anyone say to see if anyone disagrees first. I'm not saying it's not a good idea. I'm saying I keep forgetting because that is not what I first learned. Mentioning an edit first would give the editor more time to think. -- Chuck Marean 07:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laziness

I'm not certain that we're not of the same mind as regards the article's being insufficiently clear as to historical and contemporary criticisms of laziness as a construct, but I do think your version to be altogether inferior to that theretofore extant, if only because, even as you might introduce information of (dubious) encyclopedic value, you also remove a great deal of other information for the removal of which a consensus surely does not exist.

I'll try to offer some broader substantive thoughts in the near future at Talk:Laziness, but in the meanwhile I thought it important to observe once more that, whilst you ought always to be bold, you ought also to consider prior to your editing whether your edits will serve, on the whole, to improve a given article, and, if you conclude they will, whether they will plainly fail to command a consensus of interested editors; you should now, in any case, per WP:BRD, feel free to discuss your proposed revisions on the article's talk page.

One item more: as Help:Edit summary sets forth, an edit summary serves principally to explain to other editors the intent and effect of your edit. As anyone, you may inadvertently omit an edit summary on occasion, but, when you do offer a summary, you ought not to be so unclear as to misstate the effect of your edit; edited out extra words may be a technically accurate description of your edit, but the sense surely is misleading, even if unintentionally so. Joe 05:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware you sound tired and irritable? However, I suppose my edit didn't improve the article as much as I thought at the time. -- Chuck Marean 18:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First article?

Hi Chuck - don't want to intrude, but what exactly is the purpose of User:Chuck Marean/first article and the various edits you've been making to it? It doesn't really seem to be a draft of a potential encyclopedia article. Or, perhaps you are just using your userspace to practice typing, as you once indicated? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There. Now it does. -- Chuck Marean 07:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, how? By putting a tag at the top? Help me understand: what is this potential article about? Will it comply with the manual of style? Just seems odd. (and certainly there are better places to practice typing if that's what you're really looking for.) Cheers. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I've long assumed the first article page to be one on which you've endeavored to practice non-fiction writing and/or typing, and I don't imagine that anyone here would object to your using userspace in such a fashion; surely the practicing of such skills would, should you undertake subsequently to contribute in mainspace, be of benefit to the project. If you're considering eventually migrating something substantially similar to the extant first article text into mainspace, though, you might first consider, as ZimZala suggests, whether the text is encyclopedic, that is, whether it is consistent in substance with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and in style with the MoS. I don't know that there's a great deal of text in the instant article that would be salvagable in mainspace, and so I fear that, should you create an article with your present text, it would be straightaway nominated for deletion. You certainly seem to be make many fine edits to the "first article", which I'm certain would serve many fine purposes and be received well elsewhere, and so I don't want you to be discouraged. There are surely deficiencies in cleanliness, hygeine, and spring cleaning (which is presently tagged for {{cleanup}}) and there are almost surely articles apropos of house cleaning that could exist consistent with WP:NOT, and so I think you might have better success adapting your present text in order that it might fit any of several existent or prospective articles. Spring cleaning, for one, could use a good deal of attention, and I wonder if you might be interested in focusing your work there; I imagine there is some content in "first article" that could be adapted in order that it should be encyclopedic. Feel free to drop me a line at my talk page should you have any concerns or questions... :) Joe 05:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Geniusfind, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please write {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Demiurge 12:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I wrote that article. I remember adding the site to the list. I know www.geniusfind.com is a topic directory like Google directory, and there are or have been many articles about individual topic directorys. If the others are notable then that one is too. Sorry I didn't answer sooner, I've been busy. -- Chuck Marean 23:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)