User talk:Betaeleven

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Aflax got deleted

The [Aflax] page has now been deleted twice. I am not sure why and have posted a question on the discussion of that page. [Aflax Talk]. It is a non-commercial, open-source project, just like Apache or JBoss, and those have not been deleted.

[edit] otheruses template

I notice you placed the otheruses template at a lot of pages concerning "rock." This is mostly unnecessary. The reason for that is that nobody is going to end up at the Rock (geology) page by accident, when they're looking for another type of rock. It's not really wrong to have the notice there, but it's kind of useless. -Freekee 01:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disco Demo

I apologize for losing your other changes. Wahkeenah 15:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  No problem.

[edit] Over Wiki-linking

In regards to your comments, as follows:

“I'm not quite sure why you reverted the Truman State University page other than I "don't need to wiki-link every single word", which was clearly not the case. I believe the wiki-links that I added fall into the category of links that make sense and is not a case of overlinking. However, I do believe you were too quick to revert, and could possibly refresh yourself on when and when not to revert a page. If you still feel that I'm wrong, please enlighten me as to why. --Betaeleven 18:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)”

and subsequent revert, I must stand by my initial action. Linking to situated, cardinal directions, policy, alcohol, exceptions, food service, memorial, library, volumes, museum, welded, haunted, chewing gum, sidewalk, potato, rituals, superstitions, knife, midnight, grades, pregnant, garden, weddings, cellar, myth, plaque, peach tree, euphonium and trombone is certainly overlinking and does not contribute to the context of the Truman State University article. In particular, these guidelines back my case:

“low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century.”

“In general, do not create links to: Plain English words.”

Certainly the average reader should be able to understand how a superstition works, north from south, and what food service is. This is an article about a university, not a dictionary.

I would invite you to refresh yourself on those guidelines as well. If we're still having problems over this, I am open to asking an arbiter to sort this out. --KHill-LTown 06:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what?

"Wes Craven was born with two nostrils, and they are still functioning well, as of last report." I just deleted that line, which seems quite "unhelpful and non-constructive" as you said. I didn't add "unhelpful" information to wikipedia. I think you misread something and thought I added the line, but in fact, I deleted it. 71.214.190.34 is the user who added such a line. 201.252.18.162 20:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I re-edited your talk page. Betaeleven 20:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr rios

Just wanted to let you know that I changed the SD tag on Mr rios to {{db-attack}}, as it seems to be a personal attack on an individual, likely upon a teacher by a disgruntled student, instead of simply nonsense. MacGuy^{(contact me)} 19:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  That's fine with me. Betaeleven 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MathStatWoman

Well, my dear, I do not agree -- it is not nonsense. Wikipedia has made reality into a commodity. It is real. It is true. MathStatWoman 13:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, again, my dear, I am not a sockpuppet. I was assumed guilty until proven innocent. I share a computer and a network. Take away my designation as sockpuppet. That is nonsense! Then I shall contribute seriously again. Deal? MathStatWoman 13:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, by the way, are you a bot? MathStatWoman 13:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You did not call me a sockpuppet? Well, those who did, were misguided and totally wrong... change it. MathStatWoman 14:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As I put on your talk page, I did not designate you as a sockpuppet, nor do I have the power to change it... nor would I want to. Betaeleven 14:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John B. Trevor Sr.

Please do not db articles with published citations and assertions of notability. You need to send these through AfD. Jokestress 18:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anytime

Not a problem. Thanks for being so aggressive with vandals that they feel a need to attack your personal pages. Also...even though it was painfully clear that it was inappropriate, I know some editors don't like to remove warnings from their own pages. --Onorem 14:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mast General Store

I've added a decent chunk of content to the Mast General Store article, with numerous references. Although a buisness, I believe any site which is part of the National Register of Historic Places deserves an article. Would you please consider removing the speedy deletion tag, although I understand why you placed it when I first started. There will also be more to come. Thanks. Inseeisyou 16:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what is your opinion on the fair use rights of the images? They are just pictures of the building, and can be found on multiple sites throughout the web, I felt it was OK, but am somewhat new to Wiki. Thanks. Inseeisyou 19:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How much time do I have to react?

The article Porpellerhead Software that you marked for speedy deletion was then deleted within seconds or minutes. I wrote it, because I wanted it to exist, and there were already links to it. It was not perfect, but you have to start somewhere. The company itself is notable within it's field.

How do you suggest that the article should be written to be acceptable to you?

See also: my talk page. --HelgeStenstrom 07:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. Betaeleven 16:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My problem is similar to HelgeStenstrom's. You wrote, regarding the Laurence Scott page, "follow proper procedures".

But what ARE "the proper procedures" at this point? Once you policemen win a speedy delete argument, IS there ANY procedure that ANYONE can follow to create a Laurence H. Scott page, assuming evidence has been found that would satisfy you of his Wikipedia worthiness? If so, please let me know what it is.

It appears to me (and, from their talk pages, to others whose work you have deleted) that by killing an entry via Speedy Delete you make it very difficult for anyone ever to attempt to create a one in the future.

Are we missing something? Please point me to "proper procedures" for creating an entry when a previous entry of the same name has been Speedy Deleted.--SocJan 01:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Gordon/Randy Shughart ribbons

Hi there. I saw that you put the ribbon images in the list of awards and medals. I thought they might look better in a table than in a bulleted list -- and may make sense for other articles as well. Take a look and let me know what you think.

• Shughart's awards table
• Gordon's awards table

Alcarillo 21:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medal of Honor - awarded or received?

Hi Betaeleven, my dictionary defines "award" as "to grant as merited or due". I think "received" makes it sound like it showed up on a UPS truck. Crandall's story on the main page at http://www.cmohs.org/ uses "award", so I would think that's the better way to go. FWIW (not much in this case, but sometimes it can be interesting), in Google "awarded the congressional" beats "received the congressional" 54,900 to 19,200. --CliffC 21:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You make a valid point. If you change it back to "awarded", I won't change it back. I guess, the more I think about it, I don't mind "awarded" so much. I just hate it when people say someone "won the Medal of Honor". The two MOH recipients that I've met made it very clear that it wasn't a contest. Betaeleven 02:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do that. I know exactly what you mean, "won the Medal of Honor" sets my teeth on edge as well. --CliffC 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laurence Scott

There's no reason to delete this information. Scott was an interesting man who did interesting things & had friendships w/ many interesting people. The article on Guy Davenport already links to him, since they, together, published the first edition of Ezra Pound's last separately published Canto. James Nicol 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Before deleting, shouldn't you examine the situation? Why did you delete this small article? Is Wikispace really that tight that a man who published Pound & Davenport, who influenced many students through a teaching career at University of Michigan, who translated Propp can't be given two paragraphs? James Nicol 17:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw no discussion. I saw one remark from you in which I had no part although I had written the article. Please show me the discussion. Thanks.

Also, how does one become a deleter & discusser of article's worthiness?James Nicol 17:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the "log", Beta, thanks. It held a comment from you and one from Deor, who is angry w/ me for explaining the use of a comma but not agreeing w/ his insistence that the comma had been misused. There was no justification for non-notability excepting insufficient secondary sources. Considering that Propp's Morphology is seminal in the study of folktales & fairytales in the English-speaking world, Scott is a notable figure. W/out his translation--cited all over the place--, this field would look quite different. Tell you what: Give me two weeks to slap some more citations on the article. If it has no more then than it does now, then you can delete it, and those looking into the articles about Guy Davenport or Ezra Pound (to name two) will just have to look into Laurence Scott at other sites. Whaddaya say? James Nicol 00:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, Betaeleven, did you mean to put the message you just posted on my Talk page on James Nicol's Talk page? It seems to be addressed to him, and I doubt that he'll see it on my page. Deor 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Betaeleven, it is ridiculous that you set yourself up as the arbiter of what passes muster at Wikipedia. Again: Scott translated into English a very influential text. Scott published the work of several important poets & writers. Scott was friends w/ some of them, and he had a long career teaching. Where is the problem w/ three paragraphs of wiki-space? James Nicol 18:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Three words:

HE'S. NOT. NOTABLE.

It's ridiculous that you can't grasp this simple concept, yet you still re-create the same article after it has been reviewed by others, and deleted each time. Betaeleven 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you want to reduce the discussion to three words, Beta, allow me to suggest:

NOT NOTABLE, HE?

Besides this, please stop entering my talk-page w/ nothing of substance. Indeed, please stop entering my talk-page altogether. I'm sure that you can find others to bother. James Nicol 17:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Beta, I did the "hangon" thing the very first time you proposed to delete it. Naturally, I continued to post it, as it bothered almost nobody, and as no one answered my question about the harm caused by giving Laurence Scott three or four paragraphs while others, who know more about him than I, supply more info. James Nicol 21:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately , I am finding some good items even just using Google Scholar. I will add them as I find them. I cant see why JN didnt think of doing this himself much earlier. DGG 23:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on "hangon" the first time that you threatened the article on Scott. I followed where "hangon" led me. I appreciate DGG's work on this, but the kind of puffery required to make something "notable" is rather embarrassing. No print encyclopedia would require that. James Nicol 04:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Suicide Club references

I added some more references to the Chicago Suicide Club Wiki page. Kind Regards. This first reference covers the initial concept of the what Chicago Suicide Club is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.115.248.60 (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Buzz Kilman

"Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Buzz Kilman. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Betaeleven 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)"

In the context of the radio show, it was constructive and useful. I don't appreciate the word vandalism being used. It seems like being a "deletionist" is quite unconstructive. What does having more information in more articles on more topics hurt?67.167.248.128 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. "He is not, at the time of this writing, dead." is a constructive comment? Betaeleven 23:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)