User talk:AtomikWeasel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, AtomikWeasel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 05:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Ellen Greene

Good job! It's starting to look a lot better! --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 05:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I got involved precisely because I happened to look up Ellen Greene and felt the entry could use a bit of work. As I said, I'll worry away at it over time. Thanks for the encouragement. AtomikWeasel 05:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I hope you stick around and help improve Wikipedia. You really did a lovely job with your first effort here! --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 18:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The compliment is appreciated. AtomikWeasel 19:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Hellmer

Hi. You hit the nail right on the head: notability has to be at least asserted in order for an article to survive speedy deletion. Moreover, even if it is asserted, the article can be deleted through other processes if the assertion is not backed up by citation to reliable, independent sources that significantly discuss the subject. Notability is not inherited, so an agent would not automatically be notable just because the agent had notable clients. If you believe Hellmer was sufficiently notable to warrant an article, you should include citations to reliable, independent sources (like books or newspaper articles) that significantly discuss him. Good luck and let me know if you have further questions about how Wikipedia works. -- But|seriously|folks  04:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability is demonstrated by reference to other sources that significantly discuss the subject. It's not whether we think the subject was notable, or whether he was objectively notable in the sense of being "famous". In my view, a reference that someone acted as agent for a writer does not satisfy WP:N. If there was a book written about Hellmer, that would support notability. If he was a subject of newspaper accounts (not just mentioned by them), that would support notability. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people), you will get a better sense of what is required. -- But|seriously|folks  03:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Notability of Margaret Mercer

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Margaret Mercer, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Margaret Mercer seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Margaret Mercer, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 02:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content Moved From AtomikWeasel User Page

Hi AW,

I hope I'm responding correctly -- I've never used Wikipedia as a BBS or messaging service before.

Sure, I have a couple of thoughts on that topic, but I'm not sure of the methodology of putting in my $.02 worth. Do I just [edit] and type beneath the other comments?

JimFreund 19:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

←-------------→ I take no offense at your missing whatever salient comments I may have. ;) My question about responding was more of a technical nature than about the WP Protocol. I know from a number of friends and Web community people about the frustrations of the people who endeavor to do The Good Work at WP. My brother-in-law practically camcelled his ISP in frustration at having articles deleted. And if you know anything about the volatile and political nature of WBAI and Pacifica Radio, trust me when I say I've seen some of the worst behavior in people -- particularly in democratized situations where some set themselves as more equal than others.

If you do see this, can you point me to a primer on the tech side of these back pages? Not protocol or shortcuts or the like, but (for example) when someone like you writes me on my user page, how do I respoond? With anothe rparagraph on my own page? Or starting an entry on their page (such as I'm doing with you)?

Regards, JimFreund 17:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: Preceding Moved by AtomikWeasel 19:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Hellmer

Now THAT's an article. Well done! -- But|seriously|folks  01:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: Preceding Moved by AtomikWeasel 04:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to congratulate you for the grace you have shown during this whole affair. As relative new comer, you quite innocently stumbled into one of the long running, behind the scenes controversies here. It must be quite bewildering to find yourself amongst people who seem to be talking a private language. I would not have been surprised if you had decided that we are all insane here and left for good. I am quite glad you stayed, as editors with your type of interest are, in my opinion, especially valuable. Given then nature of the project we have technical and current pop culture down cold. We do less well on more obscure topics. We are aware of the problem, but every editor with interests out of the main should be treasured. I hope you stay around a long while. Dsmdgold 14:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] an > a

Thanks for fixing my article in the will rogers article. I should pay more attention when I'm editing. TheMightyQuill 20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)