User talk:Blorg/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Michael E. Berumen

Why did you remove Berimen's book on the basis of self-publication. Many philosophers have self-published, ranging from Hume to Russell. This is a good reference book. User:Icut4you

  • I (Blorg) did the deletion, I wasn't logged in.

I don't think Berumen is quite in the same class as Hume or Russell; or for that matter the other sources quoted on that page. Putting him there suggests that he is a noted authority on business ethics, and that his book is an accepted text. This is not the case.

One would expect an accepted text on business ethics to be found within university libraries. Yet his book is not in the libraries of a handful of universities I tried: Yale, Harvard, MIT, Northwestern, Pennsylvania, and Chicago. Among these are some of the top business schools in the US, who might be expected to have a book on business ethics. Nor is it in the British Library or the Library of Congress. (The book is in the Stanford catalogue, his alma mater.)

On Amazon, the only place that I can find where the book is reviewed, only one of the reviewers has reviewed any other books. I think a book should be more generally accepted before it is included as a reference. Blorg 13:38, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Even Hume and Russell were not in the same class as Hume and Russell when they first published. It's in barnesandnoble.com and others, too, and I know it is at the LA library (one of the largest in the world), 'cause that's where I heard him lecture. Quite good. Anyway, it seems as legitimate as others on the list. I do not think one has to be well known to be included as a reference. If it bothers you this much, remove it; I am not going to get into a revert war. It isn't that important. icut4u

[edit] USS Potomac (AG-25)

I have renamed this as you suggested, and amended the links including yours in Camp David. Thanks for pointing it out; I've no idea how it ended up with an em-dash in the name; it certainly wasn't deliberate. -- Chris j wood 12:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Contrail and chemtrail

See my remarks at Talk:contrail. You were right to snip the long and copyvio-ish section. Briefly, chemtrail covers the subject and needs at most a very brief cross-reference in contrail. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia UK/Wikimania 2006

Hi, this is a circular to Wikipedians in Ireland to draw your attention to Wikimedia UK, where the establishment of a local Wikimedia chapter for the United Kingdom (and possibly for the Republic of Ireland) is being discussed. See the talk page, as well as the mailing list; a meetup will take place to discuss matters in London in September, for anyone who can get there. On another topic, plans are being drawn up for a UK bid for Wikimania 2006, which would be conveniently close to Ireland. On the other hand, Dublin's bid was one of the final three last year - might we bid again? --Kwekubo 03:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ordnance Survey Ireland

Hi, cheers for that. I've gone a bit further with making it read more neutrally as far as I can judge. Though I don't know much about the subject either, so I too have stayed within the basic facts that are stated there. TerraGreen 14:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

thanks for the archive tip. i will reinstate it, then archive it. I communicated with Amazon about the Berumen reviews, as a matter of fact - i'm a pretty frequent reviewer there myself (under my real name Olly Buxton). it turns out that fully ten of the seventeen reviews they had at the time had been submitted by the same person! They removed them, needless to say, and have since revamped their system so it is harder to sumbit mutliple reviews of the same product. Cheers, anyhow. ElectricRay 13:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bogosity

Nice. I like people who coin useful words. well done. ElectricRay 13:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berumen

I understand your reasoning, but I'd rather leave it as is. He does have some minor claim to notability. It's not a strong keep on the subject matter, but a stronger keep on the principle. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi! Thanks for correcting the information. Danny 17:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

I deleted a subpage of your user space per our earlier conversation. IN NO WAY am I trying to step on your toes, so if this wasn't your intention, let's be sure to chat soon. I think based on our email conversation, this is what you intended and I suppose it was just overlooked.--Jimbo Wales 22:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message; that's fine, I had created that subpage here before I moved it, no need for it to hang around now. -- Blorg 23:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael E. Berumen

Wow. I now feel REALLY stupid. Not only did I undelete an article I shouldn't have, but I did it on the word of another user without checking for my own reference if it was true. Nothing against him, it's all me. Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways. Mo0[talk] 17:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)