User talk:Edison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Edison/Archive 1

User:Edison/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] WP:Church

I completely missed the merger of the guidelines (I've been busy, then came the holiday season). I don't see that the existence of a Wikiproject is relevant to the existence or non-existence of notability guidelines. Generally, I think if there is a problem (many controversial church article deletions) there is a need for a solution. A wikiproject would help create articles that pass AfDs, but I don't see its existence as relevant to the creation of notability guidelines. Lurker oi! 14:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

Hi Edison, On the AFD for Unicerosaurus you have !voted for deletion, stating the article is "nonsense". Actually, the information in that article is verified by the references included in the article. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Edison!
There are scientific papers (and books) on this nomen nudum. Armstrong's 1987 paper and Olshevsky's 2000 (and earlier) book. These are reputable scientists. I have worked very hard to improve Wikipedia's coverage on dinosaurs by creating articles for all genera, regardless of status as valid or invalid; because paleontology is an ever-changing field, many dinosaurs thought to be valid no longer are, and it often takes years for a consensus to be reached.
I would be very upset if this article was deleted, because (1) it would set a bad precedent that articles such as Aachenosaurus and Brontosaurus be deleted (neither genera are considered valid today) and (2) it lessens Wikipedia's coverage on dinosaurs. In an ironic twist, WikiProject Dinosaurs was forced to keep a misspelled article here. Only on Wikipedia would a correctly-spelled article get deleted while an incorrectly spelled article was kept as a redirect. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Articles related to quackery

I saw that you wighed in on a similar AfD today, and thought that you may want to share your wisdom here:[1]. Thanks. Levine2112 22:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tactics of the Roman century in combat AfD

Please take a look; you appear to have created two copies of the AFD. This notice courtesy of the Department of Redundancy Department. Edison 19:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, I found the whole process of nominating an article for deletion so arcane (this was my first) that I just submitted a request for approval for a bot to semi-automate it with a wizard interface! Thanks for the heads up, think I have fixed the double-up now, let me know if not. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 19:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SETI

Howdy,

User:InShaneee has already commented at our project page, and I basically agree with him. We've pretty much established that Ufology falls under our scope, and I think SETI receives enough attention from the Ufology community that we should keep tabs on the page. Zagalejo 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD relist (courtesy note)

Hi,

I've relisted Dudley (dog) (on which you recently voted) for AFD. I'm sorry for the almost immediate relist, the reason being, I was going to list it, and checking, found it had been recently listed. The relist is for two reasons:

  1. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy "The most common reason for a repeat nomination is that there was marked lack of discussion or lack of consensus in the original decision and the second vote is required to clarify opinion." 4 editors in a 3-1 split isn't really sufficient to show a consensus by the community. It's worth a relist for more opinions.
  2. The real issue with this article, and the basis upon which it should have been listed for AFD, is lack of notability, rather than lack of verifiability. (Verifiability of existence of the term is easily confirmed via Google)

Again, apologies for the almost immediate relist; it's in fact completely independent of the first listing and for a completely different reason. Anyhow, a courtesy note so you are aware. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interview for public radio show

Hi there,

My name is Neille Ilel and I'm a producer with a national public radio show called Weekend America. We want to do a story on the fine line between an individual who deserves an entry on Wikepedia and one who doesn't. As someone who's weighed in on the issue, I was hoping you might be able to chat over the phone for a few minutes.

We're a conversational show and want to have a relatively laid-back discussion about what goes on in Wikipedia, just to let you know that this isn't a debate-type show where we encourage fighting.

If you're up for it, or if you have any questions, you can e-mail me at nilel (at) marketplace (dot) org to set something up.

[http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/ ] Thanks! Neille

Neille i 22:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Web Producer Weekend America 213 621 3450 http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/

[edit] response

Hi Edison,

I disagree with your assessment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. I would have been surprised if somebody hadn't written a blurb about the book. However, consensus at Wikipedia:Notability (books) is pretty clear that blurbs in publications that review thousands of books a year don't make a book notable. Every non-self-published book is going to have at least one trivial review, just like it will have an amazon page. The point is that not every published book is notable, so reviews only count towards notability if a selective publication decided that the book was notable enough to review.

I can't remember if you've participated in the discussion at WP:BK, but if you haven't I think the place to make your argument is there. GabrielF 18:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

Thanks for alerting me to the poll. I've been busy with holidays and an ArbCom case, so hadn't been keeping up with the mall discussions. I'll take a look as soon as I'm done with my ArbCom evidence. --Elonka 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I replied on my talk page. Yuser31415 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Call for consensus

I posted a call for a final consensus discussion below the now-closed poll on the talk page for WP:MALL. The next step, I think can be some formal mediation process among the admins, which I have had to educate myself a little bit on tonight.--Msr69er 02:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battery experiments

Hello and thank you for your kind and thorough response. First let me detail the specifics of my question.

In one of my mechanical engineering classes, we need to design a prototype that will follow a certain course and drop balls in specific containers. The only allowed sources of energy are 2 AA's, 6 elastic bands and potential energy. Since I already have a good background in electronics, I wanted to know if it were possible to do the whole course using motors and encoders for navigation, all controlled by a simple PIC micro controller.

After selecting a few motors that would be able to generate the necessary torque and speed, I needed to know if the current draw would be too much for theses motors. In the design, I provided a step-up DC/DC switching converter to obtain a stable 5V voltage regardless of the drain of the batteries (down to 0.7 V). The total consumption is estimated at 4 A at 5V (20 W). Note that this is all in theory right now and no prototypes have been built.

Seeing that the D cells lasted for 4 minutes, the AA alkaline cells will probably last under a minute at that discharge rate. Perhaps the prototype won't last long enough. Anyways, I'll do some tests on AA alkaline cells in the near future and post you with the results (if you are interested). Although it would be nice if you could do the test since I don't have much free time right now -- nor a 10-20W 1 ohm potentiometer ;-).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcmaco (talk • contribs).


[edit] Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II

Hi! I saw your interests page, and I wish to explain a bit situation with mentioned history-related article.

In fact, we don't want to erase content of this, it will be merged into more global article like "Occupation of Ukraine".

Also, as you can notice, current version of article contains >50% about Holocaust, it's not the primary goal of it. If it will be merged into Occupation of Ukraine it will be more title-specific. Because at that times, there were Soviet people, not Ukrainians. And article particularly speaks about Jews.

Thanks for understanding, please provide your arguments. --Galkovsky 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Seeing you in the AFD discussion reminded me of this question (not related to the AFD) I was going to ask you after our conversation last month but forgot. I was wondering if you know whether there has been a proposal to make new users wait 4 days before creating an article, just like the required 4-day wait for page moves and editing protected articles. Seems this extra barrier would cut down on a lot of the uncontroversially inappropriate articles that make newpage patrol such a chore or slip past newpage patrol. New users who actually have a good contribution to make must be far fewer in number than the bad ones, and anybody can always submit articles through AFC. Also, good new users who have a serious contribution to make are more likely to stick around for a 4-day waiting period than not-so-good new users. I'm sure this idea must have been proposed and discussed somewhere, but I looked on Category:Wikipedia proposals and Wikipedia:Perennial proposals and don't see it there. Any thoughts, and/or directions to where this has been discussed? Thanks, Pan Dan 12:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As you can imagine, I would definitely be a fan of WP:SPEW. As for the waiting period for new article creation, I guess I'll take it to the pump. Pan Dan 15:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essay

How exactly does one create an essay such as yous User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable? I wish to create one that says "Don't spew" meaning please do not create articles on every minor character in a book, show or game when there are no sources independent of the book, show or game. I know how to create an article, but not an essay page such as yours. Thanks. Edison 15:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to create it in your own user space, just create a link to it (like User:Edison/Don't spew), then click the link and edit it like a normal page. You can alternatively create it in Wikipedia space in the same way. If you do that, then make sure to put {{essay}} on it. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is an "independent editorial board"?

Hi, Edison!

Thanks for your comments and thorough analysis on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Avila. I would like to ask you, though: what exactly is the concept of an "independent editorial board" that you refer to, or the concept of "editorial oversight" that Wikipedia:Reliable sources refers to? Independent editorial board and Editorial oversight are redlinks, and Editing and Editorial board don't yield much insight on these concepts. More specifically: if I wanted to determine whether or not a website like Game Show NewsNet has editorial oversight or an independent editorial board, how would I go about it? —Neuromath 21:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Edison replied at User talk:Neuromath#Editorial boards; further discussion there. —Neuromath 00:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFDs

Yes, I know they're not vote, and I suppose it was poor wording. I was just trying to show some good faith to a contributor I've been in conflict with. Thanks for the note, though. AniMate 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

You may want to consider archiving your talk page, as it is very long. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Cheers, Tyson Moore 01:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Sorry, that was indeed inadvertent. Шизомби 12:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Porch collapse

You've persuaded me to retract my "delete" vote in the AfD. A minor (tongue-in-cheek) gripe: by characterizing my argument as a strawman on the basis that "not too many people have been killed by coffee spills," are you proposing replacing the Wikipedia:Notability guideline with a Wikipedia:Lethality guideline? ;-) PubliusFL 00:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on dogs

I corrected that to be a little clearer. :) My dog's name is actually generally "What are you barking at this time?" Seraphimblade 19:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blowing Up Satellites

Did the US, Russia and China destroy their own satellites, deployed for the purpose? --Seans Potato Business 20:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment solicited

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BenBurch

Thanks! --BenBurch 23:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

Would you like to have a look at the response to my contribution on Cultural Warriors (Baskets and Bombs)-item 14 of 8 January-then I think you will be in a better position to judge what a personal attack constitutes. My postings on the France and Germany question were in response to yet another attempt to question on my personal integrity, and are really rather mild. You seem to be taking a somewhat one-sided view of this matter, which is, of course, your prerogative: there is absolutely no reason why you should take a detached view. But please do not lecture me on personal attacks. I will happily avoid you just as I try to avoid that other person; but I will not tolerate attempts to undermine my honesty and intellectual credibility in a public forum. Clio the Muse 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I misjudged you. However, you have seen how low this individual can sink, and these particular comments are only part of a more general history of obsessive and unhealthy behaviour on his part: he even removed material from a Wikipedia article to support a contention that I was making things up. Read again what he has written on the France and Germany question: he attempts to raise all sorts of doubts about my motives. My comments are a vigorous response, which are both relevant and to the point, and well within the limits of frank intellectual exchange. Thank you for your positive comments, and I do value your good opinion. However, I would ask you to think about this matter again. Loomis is a bully, and I will not be bullied. I would not normally removed a posting from my talk page; but I simply cannot abide to see him quoted at length. Clio the Muse 23:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Edison my remarks in this particular context should really be seen against a wider background; but I did in fact raise the Cultural Warrior response on the Ref. Desk talk page (I can't remember the exact date, but it was not long after these remarks were posted). You will see, if you read it, that the response is quite variable, and some people seem to miss the essential principle altogether. On the particular issue you have raised it is not disagreement that alarms me; I'm a big girl and can cope with that: it's the attempt to personalize the issues. My comments were not intended as 'pay back', as you put it. Acidy they may be, but I am simply questioning the sincerity-and authority-of the response. However, as I say, this whole sorry business has to be understood in context. You are more than welcome to keep an eye on this, as I have asked other users in the not so distant past. To be frank with you I feel as if I am being stalked. I hope this does not sound too paranoid. Clio the Muse 00:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are probably right; but this person has gone from an extreme of adulation (please read his past comments on my talk page) to an extreme of hostility. Quite often where I am there he is: it's a bit like having Mephistopheles in the shadows! I try to avoid him where possible. But, as I say, I will not be bullied. Clio the Muse 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I will be in Mexico for most of February, perhaps an appropriate and timely Wiki break. Clio the Muse 00:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I hope you have noticed, Edison, that once again I have been signaled out for 'special treatment', this time by User Froth. If not, you may be interested in his remarks about me on the RD discussion page under Not a Soapbox. Clio the Muse 08:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random Smily

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Jerry lavoie 23:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability for news

Hi. Yeah, I saw your proposal and will be interested to see if it gets anywhere, but I don't really want to be involved thanks. I'm slightly disillusioned with deletion in general at the moment. All the best. Trebor 01:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Notability Guideline for News

First, let me thank you for your effort to create a guideline that addresses this issue and to improve Wikipedia. I am, however, quite reluctant to see something like this becoming a guideline. Frankly (and I hope you do not take offense), I do not think this guideline is necessary given the existence of WP:Notability. Also, the range of topics it covers is very large (as compared to, say, WP:BIO, which applies only to biographical articles). Everything in Category:History was, at one time or another, a "news item", and many of the best articles may not have satisfied the 3 criteria for years. Which brings me to my last point: I feel the guideline is too restrictive and exclusionary. The guideline notes that WP:Notability can be insufficient because "news stories are generally covered by multiple independent sources".

However, WP:Notability considers and excludes such superficial multiplicity:

The "multiple" qualification is not specific as to number, and can vary depending on the reliability of the sources and the other factors of notability. For example, several newspapers all publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works, while several researchers or journalists all doing their own research on a single subject and writing their own separate articles do constitute "multiple" sources.

At the least, assuming that this guideline (or a similar version) is supported via WP:Consensus, please consider adding a fourth criterion for inclusion that reads something like:

  • An event is notable if it receives non-identical coverage in more than one reliable news source on multiple occasions.

Let me define my terms:

  1. "non-identical" means that the text of the news reports cannot be the same (e.g., 10 newspapers publishing reports that replicate the text of the same AP wire does not constitute "multiple").
  3. "coverage" refers to news reports that treat the event as the primary subject or that report on events that are the direct result of the original event (e.g., a reports on the "occupation of Baghdad by US forces" in 2003 that references the "invasion of Iraq by US forces").
  4. "on multiple occasions" requires that the event be newsworthy on at least two separate occasions (not necessarily by the same source) separated either by time or form.
    1. "by time" - an event is reported on the day it occurs and then further reported on 2 days later as new developments arise, even though the significance of the event has not changed during that period of time
    2. "by form" - the significance of an event increases over a given period of time (e.g., an event is reported on the day it occurs and 2 days later another news article reports on Angela Merkel giving a speech in response to the event or that references the event in a non-trivial manner)

To summarize: Given that

  1. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy,
  3. Wikipedia should avoid instruction creep, and
  4. it is official Wikipedia policy to do what is best for the encyclopedia even if it means violating some rules,

I believe WP:Notability suffices for determining which articles should or should not be in Wikipedia (see quote) and that Wikipedia editors should be trusted to handle such matters through consensus.

Notable here means "worthy of being noted"[1][2] or "attracting notice"[3]. It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. It is not "newsworthiness".

Thank you for reading through all of this -- unless you haven't ... ;-) -- and I apologize for writing such a lengthy comment. Cheers, Black Falcon 02:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does "newsworthy" always mean "encyclopedic?"

Thanks for your thoughtful post about the proposed guideline. My concern is that we will have too many articles which are definitely news at the time they happen, as evidenced by the decision of newspaper editors and TV news show producers to present them. But they may be so commonplace that we would have articles about things which are a frequent part of daily life. The example was give of a fatal multipassenger car wreck in a small European country. It will definitely be presented in the 3 major newspapers and the 3 TV stations. Some would say, well, it still doesn't get in, because we require coverage on more than 1 day's events. So we have the accident reported on Feb 1, then the funeral on Feb. 4, with more coverage because one was a high school honor student (nonnotable but sympathetic). Then we have another when the hit and run driver is found and arrested. We hasve another round of stories when he is put ontrial and another when he is convicted. To go to a recent tragic missing white girls story, please tell me if there should be Wikipedia articles for Rachel Smith and Rachel Crites. The two girls, 16 and 18 went missing along with a car belonging to one around Jan 22, 2007 from Gaithersburg Maryland. On Jan 22, TV station NBC4 (Maryland?) ran a story "Police get leads from public. The Washington Post ran an independent story "Police reach out to 2 missing teenagers " on page PB2. On Jan 23, CBS TV channel 5 in Montgomery County Maryland ran a story derived in part from an Associated Press story, "Diary may hold clue." WJZ, CBS-TV Baltimore Maryland ran "Diary may hold clues." CBS TV station KCAL in Los Angeles, California ran a story originating from the Maryland TV station, giving the story coverage on at least both coasts. The Frederick News, Frederick Maryland ran an original story "Police search for missing teens." ABC-TV WJLA ran a story based on the Washington Post story. The Gazette-Net Maryland (print or net, not sure) ran an original story "Search for missing teens."

On Jan 24, the Examiner.com Montgomery County Maryland ran an original story "Scope of search increases." The Maryland Gazette ran "Nationwide search launched for missing teens.

On Jan 25, NBC4.com ran an original story "Center for Missing and Exploited Children searches for teens.”

On January 26, Cox.net a cable TV news channel, ran "Two missing Montgomery County girls gone a week."

On Jan. 27, The Washington Post ran "Family member plead for a phone call. America's Most Wanted, a network TV program which had earlier run a brief story on the two, ran a feature story.

There was a gap, then on Feb. 2, Fox TV News ran "On the Record, a network program with Greta van Susteren, in which the story was covered extensively and the father of one was interviewed. The Herald Mail online of Hagerstown Maryland ran an original story "Missing girls might be in area." NBC-TV channel 25 of Hagerstown ran an original story "Police find car with two bodies," with no signs of foul play. Snopes.com, a respected website which is carried in numerous newspapers, ran "Rachel Smith and Rachel Crites" telling the sad story.

On Feb 3, the Washington Post ran "Missing MD teen car found with two bodies" on page A1, indicating it is a major news story. The Associated Press sent out "Teens most likely dead from fumes." no suicide note, no pills, ignition on. But one girl had expressed a desire that they be buried together in her diary.

So this story had numerous original stories, not just reprints, written over numerous days, carried in papers in Maryland and adjoining states, and carried on 2 network TV programs, and carried in TV stations around the country This Shakespeare-quality tragedy seems to fully satisfy [[[WP:N], WP:RS, and WP:V. Are there other guidelines which could be used correctly against in in AFD, or would it be deleted on grounds “It just isn’t important enough a story?Does it satisfy WP:BIO? Compare to Jennifer Wilbanks who chose to run away and turned up safe. But Examiner.com, Washington D.C ran a story Jan 24 which said Montgomery County police (one county out of thousands in the U.S. had 1650 cases of runaways in 2006, and 811 remain open. Should we have 811 Wikipedia articles per county? Or only ones where two pretty teenage girls run way together in a Missing white woman syndrome. ( I can think of several similar cases in my medium size town) or only when they are found dead? Or is it a sad case for Wikinews? After doing the research and finding sources, I feel that I (or we) could write up a well sourced article on each girl or on the disappearance of both, and see if it survives AFD. It is a heart rending story for parents or friends of teenagers. But I'm not sure that this story or literally tens of thousands a year belong in an encyclopedia. I do not see new laws or any other change in society coming out of it. Can you find a reason for there not to be an article about this, or do you think I (or you) should write such an article? How many such cases of disappearances, crime victims, or even cute animal human interest stories get enough press coverage in enough independent sources over a long enough period to satisfy the filters you have listed and not get stories? Or is all news encyclopedic (not just Wikinewsworthy?) I really see the need for an additional filter to say, yes, it was widely covered for a couple of days or weeks, but it is not encyclopedic. A fat cat stuck in a doggy door may make national news on the day he is rescued, and then again when the owner installs a giant doggy door, because editors love to keep going back to an appealing story. Please give me your thoughts on my long (but labor intensive) reply to your long and thoughtful posting. Edison 21:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your thought-out and detailed response. To answer your question: No, "newsworthiness" does not automatically translate into "encyclopedic"? Wikipedia should not have an article for every incident or person that makes the news. You are quite correct to note that my suggested criterion of "non-identical coverage in more than one reliable news source on multiple occasions" for the notability of news items would permit a great many articles which even I agree would be unencyclopedic (such as 811 separate articles about missing persons for each regional political subdivision in the world--county, province, etc.). However, I still believe that it is a necessary addition to this guideline assuming it is adopted (a part of me is still quite reluctant to embrace this new criterion despite my frustration at seeing unencyclopedic articles about captains of non-notable naval vessels, newly-established bands, etc.).
I believe the current criteria of the proposed guideline are much too strict and would justify the exclusion of articles like the Battle of Hurtgen Forest--a WWII battle that involved 200,000 soldiers and caused 45,000 casualties and yet had no great strategic importance--for years after its occurrence. Although WP's deletion process is imperfect, I think it works rather well. Unencyclopedic topics, no matter how well-sourced or NPOV will eventually be tagged for deletion and a final decision can be reached based on consensus. An article about a boy that is rescued from a well and then gets a dog is obviously not encyclopedic, and though it passes my criterion, that does not mean it is safe from deletion. WP:Notability specifies the kind of articles that categorically do not belong, but it does not extend guaranteed protection over all others. In any case, simple "news reports" (even if they have multiple sources) fall under WP#NOT.
Another concern: the criterion of secondary (non-news) documentation, publication, and/or analysis (which is essentially what the entire policy is) is likely biased toward certain countries that have a larger publication capacity. For example, you will find many detailed analyses of WWII battles (and even minor engagements) involving the US and UK, but far fewer on battles between the Third Reich and the USSR.
I will note again that the deletion process, though imperfect, is quite good. Articles that are newsworthy but unencyclopedic will be identified, targeted, and eventually deleted (the 7th sentence on WP:Notability specifically excludes merely "newsworthy" articles). Given that "Notability is generally permanent", some news pieces may pop up as articles from time to time, but if long-term notability is not shown, they will be deleted. I believe we should trust consensus to do what is best for the encyclopedia. I would value your thoughts on the issues I have raised. Cheers, Black Falcon 01:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of Notability pages: Organizations with Companies and Corporations

The topic was discussed at both pages, and in December the discussion was redirected from Organizations to Comp/Corp, to eliminate redundancy. The merge tag has been posted for even longer. Parties to the discussion at both pages were notified directly that the merger was close to happening, and the consensus was reached after several days past.

The pages were merged, but the discussion pages were not. If you feel that the discussion pages should be merged, you have my support.

Talk to you soon.

Kevin --Kevin Murray 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Per your request, I have pasted the text from the page and talk page at your user page. Please let me know how else I can help. --Kevin Murray 22:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You were not contacted since you had not specifically commented on the merger. The only parties contacted were those who had previously been involved in the discussion of the merger.--Kevin Murray 22:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the format of a "vote" was rejected, and consensus was reached by discussion. The support was overwhelming so it is not likely that another opinioin would have swayed away from the consensus. The least support was from an editor whose opinio was "six of one half dozen the other." --Kevin Murray 22:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please look at how I added the Student news prohibition. In the adjacent section it discusses that sources can be added to support the text, but not be considerd for establishing notability

Edison, I read through some of your comments about the student newspapers. Without reading the whole discussion, I think I get your point that arbitrarily excluding them as viable sources is wrong. I agree. When I was combining the articles, that prohibition bothered me for the reasons you state. I feel the same way about many online sources which bring good information, but are not respected. However, like I have struggled with the online dilemma, how can you establish objective criteria for judging the independence and oversight at a school paper? Solving this conundrum might open the door to resolving other issues of source credibility. --Kevin Murray 01:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I see both sides of the issue. My preference would be to remove the metion of student newspapers as a specific prohibition, and replace that sentence with a sentence recommending that the accuarcy objectivity and editorial oversight of certain media be considered and then include examples such as tabloids, blogs, student papers, political papers, etc. I started to change that sentence in that direction during the merger, but felt I was overstepping my purview. Perhaps we could brainstorm between us on a general criteria, and then try to get consensus. I spend a good deal of time at AfD where I think that participants are already using good judgement to evaluate the sources. I would prefer to empower the wise minds, rather than hog tie them with too much wiki-law. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 01:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent AFD

In this active AFD, you say that you prefer the November 30th version of the article. Well, umm, maybe it is better in some ways, but if the article is left in that form, it will be speedily deleted again. After all, it has been twice already, and the ArbComm remedy encourages speedy deletion. So something has to move. The goal of redacting was to 1) refocus the article as being about the controversy, not the people and 2) eliminate whatever biographical content is possible. Might I have gone too far - yes. I think a complete rewrite, by someone that has the sources in hand, would be a good idea, but I didn't have the sources or the time for that during the DRV close. In this particular AFD, keep and cleanup is strongly discouraged as an opinion, cleaning up right away is encouraged. Also see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification on undeleted Marsden-Donnelly harassment case, where the version in the history is even more disliked. GRBerry 20:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roadcruft

Well, I guess I finally nailed my colors to the mast -> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 999‎. Did I go too far? Or not far enough? Edeans 02:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Money is the True God of the Jews

Edison, after being so zealous in (attempting to) reprimand me on my user page for my, at the very worst, "questionable" behaviour, I find it rather odd that you seem to have completely ignored a certain dispicable user by the name of Barringa.

This user actually went so far as to ask the question: "Is Money the True God of the Jews?" before going into a somewhat detailed question elaborating on this most ugly of questions.

Perhaps you missed it, and if so I understand. But now that you're aware of it, and myself being experienced in the fact that you take an active role in the integrity of the RefDesk, I fully expect you to post a message on this users talk page voicing your absolute disgust.

You were apparently disturbed by my conduct and voiced your objection to it. Fair enough. I took your objection seriously. But if you're not all the moreso disturbed by the conduct of this other user in asking such a disturbing, hideous question, and don't even bother to voice your disgust, yet at some time in the future once again voice your opposition to my conduct, then, well, I'll know exactly from what kind of person the criticism is coming from, and toss that criticism where it belongs: in the garbage. Loomis 06:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the discussion you requested:
== True God of the Jews...? == == True God of the Jews...? ==
Beginning with the gold looted from Egypt and eventually formed the Golden Calf all the way up to Howard K Stern's persuit of money via a relationship with Anna Nicole Smith is money the true God of the Jews? -- Barringa 17:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC) + Question removed to : Wikipedia:Reference_desk/talk#question about jews see there.87.102.9.117 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
No. God is the god of the Jews. The fact that the Levis were rewarded for their rejection of the Golden Calf simply demonstrates that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but did they do this only for the reward? -- Barringa 17:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
No, bceause they didn't know they would receive one. And their reward was to become an entire tribe of priests dedicated to God, so it was hardly monetary. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to present more evidence for this. I wasn't even aware that Howard K Stern or Anna Nicole Smith were jews.87.102.9.117 18:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way the article levi appears to be getting some sort of spam or something - maybe it should be 'spam protected'87.102.9.117 18:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
A word of advice, Barringa. The way you phrased your question, some may mistakenly construe you as an anti-semite, and anti-semitism isn't very PC these days. To avoid undue critisism, I'd suggest you rephrase it in political terms such as: "Is the insatiable pursuit of money the sole and guiding factor influencing Israeli foreign policy?" This way you'd be asking essentially the same question, however without being unfairly misconstrued as an anti-semite. After all, it's perfectly fair to question and criticize a country's foreign policy, right? Loomis 18:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
How does rephrasing the question make it any less anti-semitic? Same old garbage, different bag. Clarityfiend 19:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Loomis 14:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough? Will Barringa now be given any sort of dire warning as to his behaviour as I had? Or is the supposed baiting of (what I believe to be) a fraud so much worse of an offense than the spouting of outright, direct, unequivocal anti-semitic remarks? Loomis 06:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't get why you don't understand my position. Is it really that confusing? It's just yet another case of Truth vs. Decorum, just like last time. It's my view, that as an Ecyclopedia, Wikipedia's most important role is to provide truth. Decorum, while being an important value, must never stand in the way of truth.
It's an unfortunate truth that despite our wishful thinking, anti-semitism is alive and well. Barringa is a living and breathing example. Nonetheless, many would like to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that anti-semitism is largely a thing of the past, that humanity has finally overcome this particular ugliness. Consequently, those like myself who do our best to remind the world that people like Barringa still exist today, are often branded as paranoid opportunistic Jews, disingenuosly relying on a long dead phenomenon to justify the need for a Jewish State. That, in a nutshell, is why I opposed the deletion of Barringa's post. While his statements may be utter nonsense, the fact that he exists is a vitally important truth, a truth that should be exposed as best as possible, rather than swept under the rug and censored. If we continue to censor these freaks, the world will inevitable assume that they don't exist. What could be a more harmful to the dissemination of truth?
For your convenience, here are a couple of quotes from Barringa:
  • "[T]he true God of the Jews is money - but delete it so as to hide this fact from everyone".
  • "Wikipedia is controlled by Jews who believe that God is money".
If his remarks are deleted, fine. But don't you think, at the very least, Baringa deserves a reprimand? Or is it your view that such open displays of anti-semitism are nowhere near as offensive to Wikipedia than an admittedly less than civil dispute between a self-styled-expert-on-everything, and another contributor who openly and perhaps even rudely disputes those facts claimed by the former (successfuly I should add). Is it your position that a possible violation of WP:NPA is so serious that it warrants the opening of a Refdesk talk page discussion concerning the alleged violator, whereas the openly anti-semitic comments of another user are of no consequence to you? In short, it would seem that you regard my behaviour as worse than that of a hideous anti-semite. Loomis 00:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrestling

Every single article up for deletion you go to about wrestling you just say "Wrestling is fake so delete", that is not a worthy reason, so please stop doing this. Kris Classic 14:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wrestling is predetermined, but that doesn't mean every article about the said topic should be deleted for that reason. That would be like saying "All movies are predetermined, so I shall delete all of their articles!" Kris Classic 20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Thank you for your time. Kris Classic 23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Hughes

Thanks for the info. I had never heard about Edison and Henry experimenting with radio. Perhaps that information should be in the related articles. I didn't know what Hughes called radio so I put it in quotes. My understanding is that one of the reasons the Royal Society turned up their noses at Hughes was because his experiments supported Maxwell's theories (whether or not Hughes was familiar with them) which the society didn't accept. Rsduhamel 23:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

Edison,

On the prior merge it had been posted with tags for months before the final discussion was closed. You were inadvertently ommitted from the "mailer" discussing a final close of the merger. Your no vote would not have affected the total. Please accept my appology and let's continue to work together. --Kevin Murray 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your kind notes; I appreciate your thoughts. I hope that you don't mind me rephrasing my hasty comment; I was a bit frustrated. --Kevin Murray 01:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that we have the same overall goal of inclusion without spam and trivia. Getting there may be the challenge. What worries me more than anything else about permutations of guidelines is the confusion, but I will only be restating to you what I've said before. It seems that the Cong page is well written in general. I agree that a "sandbox" version of the merged criteria would be a good example. --Kevin Murray 01:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upgrade

As far as I can tell, WP:N is an accepted guideline, albeit with some changes being proposed discussed. I know there are some other people who believe you can upgrade or downgrade pages, but the point is that that really doesn't work. This stems from the idea that a page's quality is determined by the tag that's on it, and can therefore be changed by changing that tag - whereas in fact the page's quality is determined by actual practice, and the tag is simply a convenience to reflect that.

An essay is a piece of opinion; you cannot, by definition, make an opinion factual by saying so, which is in effect what people are attempting when they try to "upgrade" an essay. A guideline is a description of the way things work; you cannot cause things to stop working that way by calling the description an opinion - which is what people are attempting to do when they try to "downgrade" a guideline. The page WP:PPP tries to explain this in greater detail. HTH! >Radiant< 10:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability guidelines

I'm not too happy with the "royalty" guidelines. I believe them to be overly specific and would prefer to see them merged to WP:BIO. There does not appear to be consensual support for it as a separate guideline, and it appears to be stuck in "permanent proposal" status, which is inappropriate (per WP:POL). I kind of understand how the PornBio business got started but I'd say it's a bad idea to have separate (and divergent) guidelines by profession. On the whole I'm trying to keep the overall amount of guidelines down, but that's not particularly easy. >Radiant< 10:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My interest in gulls

Kurt: do you have really strong interests in particular subjects (like gulls) which bewilder your family? What strong interests have you had in the past? Regards. Edison 05:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just gulls, my friend. It started when I raised a baby GBB gull pretty much from the egg. She fledged, then started hanging around outside (ten years and counting!) from time to time, bringing a load of other gulls with her (and later, her own chicks). I thought that this was pretty cool. I've managed to build up a rapport with some of the other wild gulls - they seem to like me, or at least see me as a soft touch who'll give them free food every day (they're there every single morning, waiting for me in the garden - if I'm not awake in time, they come to the windows and start tapping). Does that sound weird? :) --Kurt Shaped Box 13:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines:

"A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction."

--Kevin Murray 01:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, what he said. Wikipedia doesn't work with "motions to reject" or "efforts to label" or anything. Rejection isn't a "motion", it is the simple acknowledgement of a lack of consensus. So people aren't "trying to reject" anything; the page is rejected because it has no consensus. >Radiant< 15:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Your or Kevin's impression of a lack of consensus is just that: your subjective impression. It is not an objective fact. I se other guidelines which were tagged as such despite some disagreement. A couple of people can always barge into a guideline which expresses the actual practices in AFDs and introduce changes and disagreement then claim there is no consensus then claim the guideline is rejected. This is disruptive. I see a pattern of trying to merge guidelines into more general guidelines, which would not be the end of the world if those were then modified to address the concerns which arose form AFD endless repetition of the same arguments, and if that fails labelling guidelines or proposed guidelines as "disputed" "rejected" or "historical" then trying to delete them altogether. Then Kevin in [2] claims because there is no consensus at WP:CONG there is "nothing to merge" so all that would be left of the deprecated guideline is a redirect to something so general it means whatever one wants it to mean. Then we are back to the repetitious unending arguments at AFD that films, malls, schools, professors, books, newsstories are always/never notable. I see the general guidelines such as WP:N being chewed away at with "multiple nontrivial" references being replaced with "sufficient" or some such meaningless inanity. The end result is twofold: articles about notable things get deleted, and articles about nonnotable things get kept, with excessive repetitious arguments in MFD and AFD, to the detriment of Wikipedia. 15:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If you have problems with the way WP:N is being edited, I would suggest you go to that page and fix it. WP:BOLD and all that. >Radiant< 16:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CONG

I believe Radiant! (talk • contribs) requested full protection of the page because of an edit war. I went ahead and processed that request, as it was evident that an edit war was brewing. Hope that answers the question. Remember that protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the page, and I have no prior involvement with this article. Hope that answers your question, Nishkid64 20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Edit warring" is the reason for fully protecting almost all pages. Also, it seems you guys are still discussing the article, so I don't think it is appropriate to unprotect the page. Contact me when you have an agreement with all other editors who were conflicting with you over the article. Nishkid64 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PORN

Funny you should mention that! I joined that dicsussion today. I think that should go for multiple reasons more so than just CREEP. It will be nice to play on the same team. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 00:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Poll re handling of apparently false, but attributable, statements

Well said! Exactly the point I'm trying to make! --Coppertwig 13:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage

Hey, when you get vandals mad enough to vandalize your userpage, you know you did something right! (I did warn them, you're just missing that particular one under the large pile of warnings on the page.) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 03:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great job

I'm really impressed with the List of fat actors article. Great work! I voted to keep the article at the AfD. Otto, the nominator, has made many of the same arguments at some of his other deletion nominations, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christmas dishes, where several editors have made what I think are some compelling arguments against his points. You may want to take a look at those.

I think lists of what I call "cultural" items (nonscientific subjects where there's no authoritative source saying "these things are in the list and those are not") may have a strike or two against them that make them more likely for someone to nominate for deletion. It might be prudent to have a paragraph on the talk page of each one of these that emphasize the need for citing sources for each item (I see you've done that) but also explaining what's included and what isn't and some ways the list might be used by some readers.

I gave some reasons why I thought this fat actors list might be important to some readers. I also think a list of actors who have worn fat suits could be useful, either tacked on to this list or separate from it, but it's not my subject. Noroton 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earl_of_Holland

It's perhaps not ideal using LRs site -it's not obviously cited by item as [3] is but it does have much the easiest lists of holders whereas the previous site you do have to go to some effort to make up a list. Sadly the online (free) version of burkes / cracrofts only shows the present holders and doesn't list all holders. Alci12 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete vote

Hello Edison.

In your vote here, you said the article is "referenced".

I beg to differ. The article does not a single source. None at all. Zero. I would appreciate it if you would take that into consideration and re-evaluate your vote.Bless sins 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Edison. Consider this:"If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:ATT) Thus the deletion of the article is justified.Bless sins 16:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Independence

I have replied to your comment at my talk page. -- Black Falcon 04:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Reference Desk

On the reference desk, someone asked an odd question about "nymphs and humans" and you posted "Secondly, please try and rewrite your question - I can't waste too much time answering a question I don't even understand." Please do not bite the questioner. If you don't understand what the person is asking, or if they seem disoriented, please just ask for clarification or simply go on to the next question. Thanks. Edison 16:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although understand that in a way I was asking for a clarification (although it should be said that clarification should contain specifics - which I did not give). The question seems very suspicious, and another user simply answered "I think you should see a doctor" - which was far less helpful than my answer - which in fact attempted to help - was. But I suppose I should have phrased my answer a bit better, wouldn't say I *bit* the newcomer per sê, just gave up on the question. Rfwoolf 16:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of Thomas Edison

I had a quick run through all the edits since the version you reverted back to just now, and I could only find one other minor spelling edit that needed to be restored. Oh, some days... ;O) Flowerpotman talk-wot I've done 00:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RD/M#Death

Your answer was quite beautiful. My compliments. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About: Ref desk and user:JaneAusten

You may want to contact user:JaneAusten about her sloppiness with regard to comparatives. It also seems she needs to get her house in order about her pronoun usage, as well. And as for user:WilliamShaksper, he can't even spell his own name let alone anything else, his grammar's all over the place, and ('vasty'? what's that supposed to mean?) he thinks it's just fine to make up words as he goes along! Young people these days, I tell you... --Shirt58 11:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edison trivia deletion

You should probably READ the hello page (First Use section). It clearly states examples of the word's use (with that spelling) as a greeting in literature dating to the early 1800's. Apologise any time you want.tactik 04:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"On this occasion she switched it on to a patient who was awake and who merely said 'Hello Sister, what's the matter with you..." - now, I'm not a English/Literature teacher, but by the way this is written there is no surprise invoked (use of the term 'merely') and it is clearly being used as a greeting. I take the Edison accreditation of "hello" as an urban myth (like many other items and events attributed to him). I would possibly accept that he may have been the first person to say it on the telephone (not really notable, considering...), but it has to be understood that he; did not invent the word; was not the first to use it as a greeting; did not affect it's use or the spelling of the word. There is zero evidence supporting the claims, and plenty actually disproving them (as seen in the Helloarticle). In fact all those suppositions are refuted beautifully by the above quote, from 1826.tactik 07:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The example I mentioned was already in the article (have you even read through it?). Noted, you changed the wording to credit him with using the word specifically as a greeting on the telephone - you don't think it is ridiculous to credit such a thing considering it was already a standard greeting. Shall we now credit other people for using hello as a greeting in other situations? The first to use it as a greeting to mountaineers? The first to use it as a greeting on an internet chat?
And as for your sarcastic remarks - seeing as 'hello' is used in Mark Twain's novel "Roughing It", printed in 1872 (written between 1870-71) this would seem to be a great blow to the OED's claims of 1880's origination. Don't you think.tactik 09:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iran War

I could use some help here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian-American War--Lee1863 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/i/User_talk%7EEdison_f176.html"