User talk:NeoFreak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Warning This user is a member of the United States Armed Forces and may be away from Wikipedia for long periods of time, but will most probably return. Emails sent to this user and messages left on this user's talk page may not be replied to for a while. Flag of the United States of America



Contents

[edit] Religion in A Song of Ice and Fire

So, would citing the appropriate book in the series be the right way to 'reference' this article? Or just remove referencing entirely? At this point I'm hesitant to do anything, lest I be damned either way.JCSeer 04:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] My RfA

Thank you for support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the support, and am disappointed on being judged by what in most opinions seem to be the wrong things. Until next time, edit on! :) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 03:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD Comment on Mario Party mgs

This article has FIVE sources (please look at the very bottom of the contents. You will see a section called "References") so WP:ATT is no reason to vote Delete for this article. Bowsy (review me!) 18:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] sot page

Actually the SOT page is well within my right to edit. As it was stated, I will refrain from the TG bio page. I clarified this with the arbcom team as well. As the SOT page was not in the area of contention, as well as WLU openly stating she/he had no problem with my editing that page.

As for the Transwiki thing, I'm all for it. I've only had limited access as of late due to my heavy travel schedule. I just finished up my last speaking engagement for a bit, so I'll have more time to devote to working on it. Mystar 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stead's Law

Did you even read the discussion page before adding the prod tag? How about profering a merge or something, as suggested on the talk page? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I just reviewed your "contributions" and your hit list. You seem to have a serious anti-pagan bias in your targets. I recommend you recuse yourself from further deletionista activity in that sphere, as you seem to be incapable of being reasonable. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 18:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 353d Special Operations Group

Probably could use a bunch of the information from Operation Igloo White. Current listing of Special Ops Squadrons the way it is (as redlink) is slightly disturbing, I doubt there will be articles about them, plus, I'm pretty sure some of them were NOT special ops sqdns, such as the 554th (as I know a former officer from that sqdn).--Vidkun 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you don't mind my responding here. You picked one of the articles I've really been dreading having to delve into. I'm going to see if I can't get some physical sources on Operation Igloo White and request some physical material from the Air Force on the actual Group. I'm not wanting to rely on internet sources for this article. If you have any ideas or your friend can point you in the right direction that would be awesome. I'm going to have to do alot of ripping and tearing and then start a general rebuild because, as you've said, alot of the info seems iffy, the format is a mess and the sourcing is shot to hell. Any additional ideas or help you can provide would be of immense help. NeoFreak 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the sourcing listed in the Igloo White article is pretty good, especially seeing the changes from when I first hit it to the current version [1]. I don't understand the aversion to attributable internet sources, in an online encyclopedia. Some might make the argument, I understand, that web content might change unexpectedly, or simply go away. But, then again, so might books, especially ones whose subject matter isn't particularly notable outside a small specialty group, such as individual military units.--Vidkun 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I'll use internet sources if they're there, I just don't like them to be the primary resource if it can be helped. I'm planning on using IW sources where I can. NeoFreak 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, I'd ask, is the 353rd notable as an organization. I know about, but my interest is personal. Is it notable to the whole world? Not likely.--Vidkun 20:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Group (or Regiment) sized units are generally considered "inherently notable". This is more so held true if they have participated in combat operations. I'm not a believer in inheret anything in wikipedia though, I believe that the Group can establish notability through reliable sources and participation in Notable events. NeoFreak 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Group (or Regiment) sized units are generally considered "inherently notable" is this a policy or guideline somewhere?--Vidkun 22:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the concept of "inherent notability" is not a guidline or policy but is often used anyway, much to my disagreement. NeoFreak 11:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
So, even though you disagree with it, and it's not a guideline or policy, you're using it as justification for notability? What's the point?--Vidkun 13:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
As I've stated above: I believe that the Group can establish notability through reliable sources and participation in Notable events. NeoFreak 16:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:Mukadderat#Crazy_Commies

Answered again. Mukadderat 23:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock on, sir

Any team work that you can think of would be awesome!Lotusduck 02:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deletion

RE:"I wanted to give you a heads up that I've nominated the Therian Temple article for speedy deletion. I was also wondering what your affiliation with that site is as you seem to have an intimate relationship with it and I have concerns about a conflict of interest. NeoFreak 19:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)"----------- Well if you thought there was a conflict of interest, why did you not edit it to your standards,removing anything you thought to be non-nuetral, instead of deleting it? Also, when it comes to religious groups-the very pracitioners thereof are generally the best source of information on what a group is about-so if I was affiliated-this would mean that I had better information on the subject. Christian scholars (the best experts on Christianity) edit articles on Christianity all the time. Is this a conflict of interest? Or are you just discriminating against a minority group of adherents?~~Nnoctis

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. --Anthony.bradbury 14:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of MfD

This is to let you know that I have nominated your user subpage User:NeoFreak/sandbox/sandbox5 for deletion here[2].--Risker 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, NeoFreak. Given the wiki-climate at the time you saved your copy, I can certainly understand your reasoning. Perhaps our paths will cross again one day. Risker 17:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting your assistance

I'd like you to take a look at Discordian Works. I have spent two months attempting to remove the unsourced claims in this article, only to have myself reverted by a numerical majority who don't understand what WP:RS means. This is really an open-shut case, it just needs more people looking at it. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 15:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You know you are an asshole. Get your ass up here and let's fuck like rabbits!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dragonlady83 (talk • contribs).

[edit] fetishes

Saw your comment on another page. I agree about the weirdness of much of this material, though I am unwilling to force my own preferences on others. Regardless of whether they are medical, psychological or sociological phenomenons", they exist , in some cases as reality with organized groups and publications, in some cases perhaps as pure fantasy. In either case they are worthy of objective articles. A good deal of porn is fantasy, and a good deal of mainstream video or film is as well. I dont judge other peoples', or I might categorize about half the material on popular culture here as trash. I dont particularly like porn as it happens, and therefore am a little out of my depth in discussing actors whom I have never seen. But what I do not is that notable popular fads are made notable on the internet, among other places, and if a group of people talk about a particular sexual practice, it shows N, and their talk is a RS for the existence of the people talking. And I thus expect to see you and a number of future debates on this. I felt it might clarify things to give my view in general, so you'll understand the basis of my opposition to deletion of almost any human sexuality related article. Im not going to judge what counts as N in politics , religion or sex. These are ideological minefields. If it exists, it has to be treated as N to avoid our own prejudices. DGG 07:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you state your openmindedness, because it is hard to tell--our interests have apparently not overlapped in other areas. I do not accept your ideas about sourcing or notability, and, just like you I don't limit it to sex
  1. If people do believe in something it is notable. Truth or existence is irrelevant. Basis for their belief is irrelevant. If a notable number of people think something happens, that belief is N; if a notable number of people engage or pretend to engage in an activity it is N. Obviously it cant be one person; how many is a matter of judgment. In religions, if it has a congregation it's notable. In politics, if they put out a newsletter with more than 2 or 3 contributors, & have in the flesh meetings, it is certainly N. (For new age, its hard to tell either of these, and, like you, I find it problematic. ) For a sexual practice, real or fancied, if they put out a newsletter or have a newsgroup or have a blog, its probably N; if they have in the flesh meetings, it is certainly N. (Of these areas, I am most concerned about political splinter groups, in the US and elsewhere).
  2. RS is separate. All we need for RS is proof the group exists. I consider that this meets the requirements of ATT. This is what makes the difference between WP and what I call the wild internet: In the net, there can be a single person behind something--and if nobody notices him, then it is not N in WP terms. I too do not like adding material based on one's personal experience or memory. I think condensing what one sees in a lot of postings and saying it's what a group does or says is not OR.

We are very obviously not going to agree on quite a number of things. I will go by the consensus. But I will also try to move the consensus a little to where I think it ought to be, both at AfD, and at ATT discussions. We'll be seeing each other, and I am sure we will stay friendly about it. DGG 08:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/o/User_talk%7ENeoFreak_83e4.html"