User talk:Kevin Murray

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Kevin Murray, and Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are some good places to get you started:

float
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes (~~~) to produce your name only. If you have any questions, or are worried/confused about anything at all, please either visit the help desk, or leave a new message on my talk page at any time. Happy editing, good luck, and remember: Be Bold!

— FireFox • T • 10:33, 5 March 2006

[edit] British military rifles

Welcome to Wikipedia! You are making excellent additions to this article. But it would be nicer if you made more edits with each contribution, rather than dozens of tiny little edits each day. Look at the history of your contributions, and you will see that it is hard to follow the overall changes due to the number of tiny, albeit necessary, edits. Thanks! Yaf 12:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Monitor example.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Monitor example.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Monitor model.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Monitor model.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe E. Lewis

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Joe E. Lewis article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! --Calton | Talk 02:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hunter Marine

It looks like a good start, I don't see much POV. Im going to tag with {{Wikify}} & {{cleanup}} if you dont mind. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sailing Articles

Thanks for your many contributions to Catalina Yachts and noting my interest in sailing in general. I've been doing research into boats for my own reasons and noticed the wide disparity of articles about boat manafacturers. As an example, I started the article for Island Packet Yachts to wikipedia (which is what startled me that Island Packet had no entries). I might take a look around and see if there is some wider "sailing" projects with which we (and anyone else here) might be able to collaborate. Bradfordschultze 23:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Kevin --

As I continue delving deeper into the sailing articles, I realized that there are several that have very little information at all; the term monohull for example is barely defined at all. I'm thinking, then, that the best use of our time is less of a classic collaboration and more of a division of labor so we wouldn't spend time on the same articles but rather divide and conquer. Personally, I feel that my strengths lie toward structuring new articles and encyclopedically correct writing; I'm less confident of my abilities with getting into articles that already have a healthy debate and a lot of already-designed content.

I'm down in L.A. by the way. My wife and I are taking a sailing course but I wouldn't call us anything other than casual sailors! Bradfordschultze 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empty content articles

Could I suggest you not create articles with very little content, they are all getting tagged for deletion. I tagged several, then realized they were all being created by you. At least one other person is also taging your article. I assume you will be expanding them, but as they stand they do not look good. That means you need to put a hangon tag onm each one. --ArmadilloFromHell 05:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving of: Sailboat Design & Manufacturing

It seems that you might have discussed this move with the people who are working on this before unilateraly making such a major change.

Please return this article to where it was and let's discuss the alterantives for change.

I don't completeley disagree with the new title, but it may not fit where the article is evolving.

Thanks

Kevin Murray 18:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving a page is not a major change, especially at such an early stage in a page's life. It only involves hitting the "move" tab at the top of the screen - hardly major. You might want to take a quick read through WP:OWN. I am not moving it back to the old name since it violated more than one guideline at WP:NC. If you don't like the current name, feel free to start discussion at the current talk page - or be bold and try a different name that does satisfy WP:NC. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Santa Cruz Yachts

It appears that you deleted the article Santa Cruz Yachts. Please reinstate. This is part of a series of articles that several authors are working on. This was a work in progress which I began yesterday.

There is a fine line between advertising and objective information. I am not attempting to promote the brand, but it is an extemely fine though very expensive product.

I woudl appreciate some discussion before you make any more radical changes to my hard efforts.

Sincerly.

Kevin Murray 19:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Another editor marked that article as blatant spam and I agreed so it was deleted per WP:CSD#G11. I have restored it and moved it to your user space at User:Kevin Murray/Santa Cruz Yachts. Please flesh out the article there and make it sound less spammy before moving back into the regular article space. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that rather than jumping to the "spam" conclusion in the future, that you post your concerns at the discussion page, and or contact one or more of the major contributors.
No. Develop first, post later, skimpy microstubs written in adspeak should be deleted on sight: Wikipedia is drowning in spam and personal vanity, and puttering around in the hope that maybe one of the dozens I tag daily ISN'T spam this time would be utterly unproductive. We have no shortage of articles nor of spam; we do have a shortage of good-quality or even adequate articles: what's the hurry? Is there a prize for being first? --Calton | Talk 23:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The WP:CSD#G11 speedy deletion criteria was added recently because of what Calton is alluding to - and I've heard that the directive came straight from the top including User:BradPatrick and User:Danny. Just do some Special:Newpages patrol sometime and you'll see the mindboggling amount of spam that comes in. Everyone is free to create pages in their user space - as I did - where you can let new articles gestate into something that doesn't fall into the WP:VSCA category. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, other articles you created are being marked as {{db-spam}} by other editors. You may want to look through WP:N because I'm not sure they would survive WP:AFD if someone brought them there. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About your addition from William Shockley to Race and Intelligence

Hello Kevin. Let me try to explain what the problem is, and isn't. It isn't about copying from one article to another; you are of course right that this is indeed permitted. It certainly isn't about trying to sabotage your edit (and if you think so, I would like to remind you to WP:AGF assume good faith. What this IS about is about what that passage of text is on its own, separated from the article it was taken. Please, first note that it contains no references. This may be due to two things: one, it could be that the material you transcribed is already reerenced in one of the references at the bottom of the William Shockley article. Two, it could be that the article itself is badly referenced (that happens). Please bear in mind that I am not an editor of that article; I am an editor of the Race and Intelligence article. As you may have noticed, this article is rife with references: nearly every statement is referenced in some way. That is not the case for the section you added. It has been either separated from the main references of its article, or not properly referenced to begin with. The fact it was basically copied from another part of Wikipedia doesn't guarantee it's a good quality excerpt. Actually, it's not bad at all, just lacking references. That is why I put the (citation needed) tag and why a reference to the William Shockley article will not do in this specific case. I hope now my objection (which is really rather simple) is clearer to you.--Ramdrake 12:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Note: Ramdrake's concerns have been acknowledged and addressed. A citation needed marker was placed at the Shockley article, which is well referenced in terms of sources but not footnotes at the paragraph level. Additionally I have provided some direct references at Race and Intelligence to the sorces cited at William Shockley and otherwise. Shockley's information is included for a historical perspective only as his "work" was not compelling science, but brought media attention to this sensitive issue a generation ago.

[edit] Nelson - Merek has been nominated for deletion

I have nominated the article you created, Nelson - Merek, for deletion. You can comment in the deletion debate here. Picaroon9288 21:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove afd tags while the deletion discussion is ongoing. You are, however, invited to join the discussion. Picaroon9288 22:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nelson - Merek

I'm sorry, but my decision still stands as delete. Cbrown1023 01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I have struck WP:CORP in my !vote. My decision still hinges on Google hits, regardless of which guideline we use. Sorry, I will stick with DELETE for now. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your note. I'm afraid 1000 google hits would not suffice to establish notability. WHen I enclose in brackets, I come up with 10,000 hits, of which 452 are unique. Those beyond 452 are repeats.
452 UNIQUE google hits for "Nelson Marek" Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Even though my vote is delete, the fact that you are working this hard to bring the article up shows that you are a good editor. Cbrown1023 03:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol :)... sorry, but no I am not a sailor. :( Cbrown1023 03:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks fofr your note. Googlehits are really an indirect means of guaging notability. Searching the internet may also not turn up a lot on people who died before the onternet was created. Read notability for a better understanding, but basicly, if you can show that the subject is remarkable in some way-- natioanlly known, commonly known, historically demonstrable laike Wright, the best, the first, among the top contenders in their field and acknowledged as such by heir peers-- then that's probably notable. Regardless of how many hits they get on the nternet. What you need is to people to cite somw document that establishes the claim. Hope that helps
Also, you have a clear mind and reason well without being incivil. You should post your comments to the AfD subpage of the article. Your comments would be of interest to any editor taking part in the discussion and to the closing admin.' AfD is not a vote. It is a consensus building process. An admin will look at the discussion, decide if their is a consensus and then act on it. The admin could decide that the delete position lacks merit and conclude there is no consensus or conclude consensus should be to keep. If keep or no consesnsus, the article stays.
If the consensus is delete, you can appeal that decission at WPDRV.
It's been a pleasure discussing this with you. You keep a cool head under preassure. Regardless of the outcome for this one article, I hope you stay and continue building Wikipedia. There are many, many articles that don't look as good as yours. You would be a real asset at Wikipedia:cleanup. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of yacht manufacturers

I notice that every article on a yacht manufacturer that you've written so far has a long list of competitors and "past manufacturers & designers". I have two questions about that.

First, since duplication of information is considered a Bad Thing at Wikipedia, I think the lists should be split off into separate articles that can be linked from each article in a "See also" section. What do you think about this?

Second, what are the "past manufacturers & designers" lists? They're the same for each article so far as I can see, and it's not clear what they're supposed to be or how they're related to the subject of each article. I thought at first that they were entities that had previously done work for the company in question, but since all the lists are the same that explanation doesn't seem likely to me. What are they? — Saxifrage ✎ 04:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and listify the competitors, since spam or not, they don't belong in each and every article. You didn't explain what the past manufacturers &etc where, though, so I'm not sure how to listify those. What are they?
As for notability guidelines for companies, those aren't subject to meaning-changing edits without long, protracted discussions and a firm consensus. You're welcome to discuss it, but major changes cannot stand unless they have clear community support. WP:CORP is a working document, so changes to it disrupt the smooth working of the project. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's appropriate to add guidelines that encourage articles on small companies to be kept, and I'll have to hear the arguments that people come up with in the course of discussion before I'm convinced that it's something that will benefit the project.

As for "listifying", it's Wikipedia jargon for turning it into a "List of..." article. Reading the sailboat design and manufacturing I clued-in that the "past..." ones are just historical ones, and the others are current ones. I'll go ahead and make one list for yacht manufacturers in general so that these lists can be removed from each article, and you'll see what I mean. It'll be at List of sailboat designers and manufacturers, so-named to match sailboat design and manufacturing. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nelson Marek

I tried to make the original comment neutral regarding why, which turned out to be a good idea now that I understand better the motive behind changing it. I added to the comment to the effect that it was just due to a misunderstanding of how guidelines worked. Does it sound fair as I wrote it? — Saxifrage ✎ 06:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments at AfD are rarely completely deleted or edited. It tends to make people wonder why they were deleted or edited and cause trouble. Instead, the custom is to strike out comments that are retracted, and this is generally respected. This is especially so since only part of the comment needs retraction and the rest is still relevant. Of course, if anyone brings up what I wrote and retracted as "evidence" of some kind, I will object strongly that my words are being twisted to show something that I don't believe or support. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of sailboat designers and manufacturers

Okay, I've created List of sailboat designers and manufacturers. It's pretty bare and basic right now, so feel free to tweak the wording. (Just keep in mind that most lists have pretty short introductions, just to give context, so don't go overboard either. That's what Sailboat design and manufacturing is linked for.)

I've changed Beneteau and Catalina Yachts to take advantage of the list, so you can see how it works. (I also did some rearranging and formatting of them while I was at it.) I'm done for the night though and it's a long list of pages that need to be modified. If you want to do some more of them I'll check in in the morning to see how progress is. Otherwise I'll get to them soon enough. Cheers! — Saxifrage ✎ 07:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTF

Yo, dude, you need to run a spell check on your user page!

[edit] Help with sailing vocabulary?

Hi Kevin Murray, as I've read that your an (English-speaking) sailor, could you help me with the following question? What is the English word for the "harness" worn on sailing ships to prevent people from falling over board (or from the ratlines etc.)? Is it "lifebelt", can it be "lifebelt" even though a different word is more common, or is "lifebelt" plain wrong, and that harness is actually called something different? Thanks in advance. --Ibn Battuta 22:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC) PS: Is there a forum on the English Wikipedia where sailing-related questions can be asked? Thanks. --Ibn Battuta 22:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:German_salad.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:German_salad.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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —790 23:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/e/v/User_talk%7EKevin_Murray_da3a.html"