User talk:Brain Rodeo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Spottacus, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 23:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tenny

I have been reading your edits to Tenney, Minnesota and find it quite interesting. Are you one of the six residents? -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 16:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a resident, although I will soon own a couple of vacant lots in town. I live in Fargo, ND with my wife and three kids. Many people have lake cabins or vacation properties - I can't afford those luxuries now, but I bring my family to Tenney about twice a month in the summer for exploring, yardwork, and bonfires. Someday soon I'll have a lot more disposable income, but for now my hobby is visiting Tenney, exploring, helping the folks who live there with upkeep and maintenance, and improving the Tenney page here at Wikipedia. If you're local we could sure use some help in the spring with a big cleanup project at the old Tenney church (now city hall). Let me know if you're interested! Spottacus 07:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I have never heard of Tenney until I stumbled across it. I'm in Shakopee, Minnesota. If you are interested in Minnesota articles you should join out Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota. There are some pretty dedicated people there. We recently got Minnesota and Climate of Minnesota to featured status, and History of Minnesota is up for it now, check it out. -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 02:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I just want to remind you to keep the article encyclopedic. The section you added here is decidedly not. -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 20:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course you're right, and I've edited the section in question. It may not be salvageable, but it seems like a courtesy that I owe to the folks in Tenney, since vandalism is a real problem for them. And if the articles I wrote for Wikipedia and Wikitravel get them any more slackjawed drivethroughs, then they may experience more vandalism as well. Spottacus 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Good call on deleting the "Exploration" section altogether. I probably would have done it myself in the next few days. Now I need your advice on citing my source for most of the historical information in the Tenney article. The majority of it comes from an unpublished, uncredited booklet that was distributed at the city's centennial celebration in 1985. How in the world do I cite a source like that? Or can I at all? Secondly, I rely on the US Census Bureau for the statistics on Tenney's declining population. Is it enough to mention in the text that the stats are from the Census, which is well documented information in the public domain, or do I need to be more specific and provide a link to the Census Bureau's historical data website, or do I need to be even more specific and provide a link to the pdf download page for the specific census year referenced? (This gets very tedious after a while). Let me know what you think.Spottacus 14:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the matter of your article

The article is indeed written like an advertisement, though not blatenly obvious. Even if you don't think that it is, the article doesn't follow Wikipedia formatting guidelines. A quick rewrite can easily solve the problem. Have a nice day! (or night, depending on your time zone ;) ) --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 01:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC) No, it's written as a stub. It doesn't extol a company's virtues or solicit business, nor would advertising benefit this company in any case. A little constructive criticism would be welcome, but open-ended advice like "a quick rewrite can easily solve the problem" is useless if I don't know what the problem is, and so far the problem has not been defined. Any thoughts?Spottacus 01:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mountains

Do you have references for Sawtooth Mountains (Minnesota) or Misquah Hills articles? I looked around when I created the Eagle Mountain (Minnesota) page, but I couldn't find anything. -Ravedave 18:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I just did a Google search. The info on the Misquah Hills came from http://www.rook.org/earl/bwca/lists/glossary/m.html and the article on the Sawtooths came mostly from memory. The Sawtooths is from some time ago, and I couldn't even tell you whether I did any research or just keyed in what I already knew for sure.Spottacus 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the Misquah Hills and the Sawtooths considered separate ranges? I thought that the Misquahs were inland and the Sawtooths were on the lakeshore. Kablammo 21:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm prepared to be proved wrong, but I believe that Warren Upham, the state geologist who wrote the great reference book "Minnesota Place Names," described Minnesota as having only one mountain range, and questioning the validity of describing the Sawtooths as mountains. That would mean that either the Misquah Hills are part of the Sawtooths, or they are a separate feature, but not mountains. Since they're part of the same geologic feature, and considering their close proximity, I've considered them to be a part of the Sawtooths but with their own geographical and political delineation. Spottacus 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I doubt that either range would be considered mountains by most residents of Alpine regions. Undoubtedly the Sawtooth and Misquah share the same geology, but without a source (whether Upham or someone else) say that one is part of the other, or that they are the same, it might be best not to assert that. I'll do a little digging myself with the meagre print resources available to me. Thanks for creating these articles; we need more articles on the features of Northeast Minnesota. Kablammo 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not being an expert myself, I think the best thing I can do is defer to a geologic authority. Upham is the only such person I've found who makes any kind of statement on the subject, although his original reference book was published around 1920 or earlier and the entire region may not have been surveyed by then. Make whatever adjustments you deem necessary, I'm agreeable. Spottacus 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

On further review, I've determined that Upham didn't consider the Misquah Hills to be a part of the Sawtooth Mountains. In his entry on the mountains of Cook County, Minnesota Upham referred to Carlton Peak as the highest summit of the Sawtooths, and Eagle Mountain is 500 feet higher than Carlton. Later he refers to the Misquah Hills as an "east to west range," and doesn't mention the Sawtooths. So you were clearly right, and I'm making edits to that effect. Nice work on the Duluth Complex article, by the way. Short and sweet and well documented. Spottacus 03:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I wrote a brief article on Palisade Head which perhaps could be referred to or linked in the pieces you wrote. I'm not sure if it considered one of the Sawtooths or if it is an anamoly, but it seems to be part of the Duluth Complex. I look forward to working with you on these articles. Kablammo 23:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I the Sawtooths article to your Palisade Head article. I liked the photo in the Palisade Head article so well I downloaded it and now I'm using it for wallpaper. Spottacus 20:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The photo (which is not mine) has some visible spots or artifacts in it-- I downloaded it myself and cleaned it up but I haven't yet figured out how to upload it to Wikipedia to use in place of the one now there. Incidentally, I found a source (Ojakangas) which says the the Sawtooths are east of Palisade Head, so apparently it may not be considered to be one of them-- I'll confirm that again next time I check the source. Kablammo 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hills or Mountains?

The Uncategorized tag has been placed on a few of your contributions. There does not yet seem to be a category for Hills of Minnesota or for Mountains of Minnesota (although there is one for Rock formations in Minnesota). It probably is time to create one. I have a hard time calling them mountains; what do you think? Kablammo 23:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There already is a cat - Category:Mountains of Minnesota -Ravedave 01:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
As long as they're big hills that rise above the surrounding country, I'd call them mountains. I think to some degree the distinction between hills and mountains has to be relative and is somewhat subjective. Incidentally, are there also categories for hills and bluffs? Spottacus 15:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Bluffs may fit under Category:Rock formations in Minnesota. On the question of hills vs. mountains, the wikipedia articles on them mention some British usage with the line between them set at 1000 or 2000' above sea level-- a definition which would make a mountain out of the entire state of Colorado. I suppose that if a hill is referred to as a mountain, it is not up to us to redefine it, so the Mountains of Minnesota is the category that should be added to any article which refers to a Minnesota "mountain". Kablammo 16:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Bluffs have a somewhat different geological meaning--the term is usually used to mean sedimentary rock shelves with sides worn down by rivers. Barn Bluff in Red Wing, MN, along the Mississippi would be an example. Different geologists and geographers form different countries use the term mountains to mean different things, but the most standard geological term, and one which differentiates mountains from bluffs, applies to peaks generated by orogenic activity, or Orogeny. The Misquahs and Sawteeth both fit this bill, both according to Raisz and Ojakangas (and most likely any other geologist who has identified rock samples in or from this area--though these two are probably some of the best published and most readable authorities on Minnesota geology). As part of the Duluth Complex, they are also part of the Laurentian Shield, the precambrian super-range that includes the smaller ranges of the Misquahs and Sawteeth in Minnesota, the Penokee Range in Wisconsin, the Gogebic, Porcupine, and Huron Mountains in Michigan, Ishpantina Ridge, Mt. McKay and the Norwesters, and the Killarney Peaks in Ontario, The Laurentian Mountains and Gatineau Hills in Quebec, The Torngat Mountains in Labrador, and the Adirondack Mountains in New York. It might be an idea for Wikipedia to develop a geological category: "Mountain Ranges of the Laurentian Shield" or "Mountain Ranges of the Canadian Shield" in which all of these can fit. I would be happy to write any articles for this not yet written. As far as local references to "mountains," "hills," or whatever, in the Western United States 300 feet of topographic prominence is usually the standard of differentiating a mountain from whatever surrounds it--usually other mountains or foothills. In the Eastern US, using the Catskill Mountains as an example, locals tend to define individual mountains as having 200 feet of prominence. I think either category could serve the Misquahs, probably also most of the Sawteeth. But as some geographers joke: if the locals call it a mountain, whatever it is, one approach is to be nice and just agree with those nice folks, smiling and nodding if necessary.Geograph66n 21:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I favor Mountain Ranges of the Laurentian Shield and would love to help in any way I can. Let me know if you decide to spearhead such a project. Brain Rodeo 00:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Brain Rodeo; this sounds great to me. I favor Mountain Ranges of the Laurentian Shield also. Thanks much for your offer of help. I'm right in the thick of paper/exam-grading at the moment, but I'd love to start work on this when the semester ends in December. I really enjoyed your article on the Leaf Hills Moraines. Hopefully I'll get to visit them one of these days.Geograph66n 22:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, although I can't take much credit for the Leaf Hills Moraines article. It was a very good collaborative effort with several significant contributors. I'm afraid that for all my enthusiasm I'm not very qualified for articles of a geological nature, but as always I'm very willing to try. Brain Rodeo 22:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pics

Dunno what to tell you about the Duluth complex pics. I am not sure the Minnesota Geological Society gives away much work. Another complication might be that it is owned by the MGS and not the author. You could start with the email address on the main page [1] and see if you can get the author's name. As for the other pictures you may want to check out this page, Wikipedia:Example_requests_for_permission, it gives examples of how to request permissions for pictures. Good luck, tell me what happens. -Ravedave 03:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City

Looks like Tenny has a rival: Bear Head Lake, Minnesota :) -Ravedave 04:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. If Bear Head Lake is an unorganized territory, that means that it's just a patch of land with no municipal government. So it might as well be a farm field or an island in a swamp. Bear Head Lake, you just got served! Spottacus 04:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tenney Fire Hall

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Tenney Fire Hall, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://wikitravel.org/en/Tenney. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 02:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leaf Mountains

You seem to have access to some good geography references. Do any of them say anything about the Leaf Mountains? They are prominently mentioned in my primary source for Red River Trails and perhaps they merit an article. Kablammo 23:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As you may have guessed, I was hoping you's say that! If you do a stub I can add some material from the Gilman book on the Red River trails, which describes the area pre-settlement. Thanks. Kablammo 00:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Great job-- I'll add some sources and text on geology and history. Due to other commitments (and nice weather) it may take me a couple of days to do more than dabble. Kablammo 14:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I might be done now. (Never say never.) Thanks for setting these up.
On another matter, see this suggestion: [2] To tell the truth, I'd do it-- and take a look at the Leaf Mountains and Inspiration Peak on the way, and catch Traverse Gap on the way there or back.
Regards, Kablammo 18:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you think we should change name of article to just Leaf Hills, with Leaf Hills Moraines being a redirect? Leaf Hills may be a more common name.
  • I responded to your comment on my talk page. To keep threads together, I'll respond to your inquiries on my talk page, and watch yours for responses to mine, if that's OK.
  • There does not seem to be a lot of interest in a gathering even in the Twin Cities, much less a hamlet which makes Lake Woebegon look metropolitan. I nevertheless would be interested even in a small group if we could entice a few others -- perhaps CJLippert would come. When do leaves peak out on the prairie? (Oh, that's right-- you don't have trees. I'd have to catch them on the way.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kablammo (talk • contribs) 12:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's see...
  • I would be okay with that, although I think it would be even better to have Leaf Hills redirect to the article as currently titled.
  • We'll do as you suggested.
  • I have a wife and three little boys, and my boys love to go to Tenney to run wild and have picnics and bonfires. In addition, the city owns a building called the "Social Hall," which is used for parties and events. I really enjoy having parties and picnics, and would love to host as many people as might choose to visit - whoever they are. Spottacus 14:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah! Someone was talking about me... I felt that unexplained tickle in my psyche for the past week, and wasn't sure why. BTW. WCCO-TV was saying that there are 2 areas where the leaves have 50% turned; one of those areas appeared on TV as the Leaf Mountains. Otherwise, in about 3 weeks, the Iskigamizigan area of the zaagajiwi-neyaashi ("Sugaring-grounds" of Shaw-Bosh-Kung Point) of Mille Lacs Lake will be changing colours here. CJLippert 18:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another name question . . .

. . . regarding "Blue Earth".[3] Can you help? Kablammo 23:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Town team baseball

FYI, I'm proposing merging all of the town team baseball articles into one. See the convo here. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 20:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You might consider taking the teams listed here and making an article to the effect of List of Town Team Baseball teams in Minnesota, rather than let them idle on that talk page. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 05:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a very reasonable suggestion. It would be a list of leagues in Minnesota, rather than a list of teams. I might do it, if I can figure out the proper way to configure a list. I'm a little behind the curve when it comes to formatting issues. Spottacus 07:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thinking of changing my user name

I'm thinking I'd like to change my user name for personal reasons, namely that it's also used by another family member in a different context (and has been for some time), and I want to avoid confusion and conflicts. I'm asking friends and acquaintances to share their wisdom with me. The following issues are bothering me:

  • Procedurally, is there anything I should do other than just click "move" and do it?
  • Will my past edits be adjusted to show the new name, or will the old one remain and merely redirect to the new one?
  • Will other users think there's something shady going on?
  • Is there a way for me to notify others that I'm doing so? (I think probably not)

I want to consult with those who I've met and worked with through Wikipedia. Please leave your thoughts and ideas here. Spottacus 01:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this will answer your Qs: Wikipedia:Changing_username I would personally go for it and put a note on your new user pages saying "Formerly known as Spottacus". You could also put something in your signature mentioning your old name. -Ravedave 02:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox (boxing)

This seems to be a duplicate of Orthodox stance. Is there some good reason why it should not be merged/redirected? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss it at the article's talk page.Brain Rodeo 14:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Vintagekits can't edit there for the moment. Best to use his talk page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meetup RSVP

Minnesota Meetup
Sunday, 2007-10-07, 1:00 p.m. (13:00)
Pracna on Main
117 Main SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Map
Please pass this on! RSVP here.
Spam delivered by -Susanlesch 15:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hope to meet you somewhere else some other time. -Susanlesch 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I live too far away for a meetup to be practical, but I've discussed a meetup in my neck of the prairie with Kablammo.Brain Rodeo 16:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Attack

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on this page, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because the article is a page created primarily to disparage its subject or a biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to. (CSD G10).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting the article, 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. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate the article itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Larry Givens

An editor has nominated Larry Givens, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Givens and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up quicker

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up quicker, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up quicker. скоморохъ 06:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cedar

The problem with the article as it is now is that it looks, until the end, like it's its own community. Official existence (or lack thereof), you know, is a big thing with US geography articles, so it needs to be emphasised that this is not its own community, not something out in the township. I'm editing again, seeking this time to solve problems without restoring the ones you believe I caused with the first one. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Scandals in sports

Category:Scandals in sports, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Panama Lewis page fraud by wiki against Aaron Pryor

The piece on Panama Lewis is a fraud against Aaron Pryor. Did you write this ? Aaron Pryor won the first fight against Alexis Arguello from start to finish. The fight was not even close. Have you actually watched the fight ? The page appears full of undocumented Point Of View content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnShocked (talk • contribs) 03:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] =================================================================

[edit] =========================================================

Why are you Brain Rodeo fighting to perpetuate this slander against Aaron Pryor ? Why not let the truth stand, late in arriving as it is ? Where is the text you deleted which I wrote, and what are you claiming is in that text which is not acceptable. I documented what I stated in that piece with the facts: the tape of the fight itself. What could possibly be wrong with that ? (also, what is the official method for sending a Wiki editor, such as yourself, a message ?)

[edit] =========================

As I have stated, citing truthful statements about Pryor-Arguello-1 by boxing writers at that time is difficult, because of the promotion campaign pro-Arguello, anti-Pryor which Bob Arum had generated at the time. I do not know of a single boxing writer who told the truth about this fight.

And that is a big part of the reason why boxing fans like me stopped reading boxing writers and eventually lost interest in the sport, and ultimately why boxing is dying as a viable sport right now. Finding the accurate quote you state is required is simply not a likely development. Most people writing today about this fight, simply have not seen the fight.

Note references to a "black bottle" (it was transparent plastic) and the writer who wrote that wiki piece said that it was after the 12th round, when it was after the 13th, which I corrected. He simply had not watched the fight. What is the value of someone claiming a quote of someone else, when the fight tape is available ?

[edit] ==========================

[edit] ===========================================================

[edit] Speedy deletion of Antonio Johnson (boxer)

A tag has been placed on Antonio Johnson (boxer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Deletion is called for here. This boxer is a local fighter who has not participated in any notable amateur teams, nor has he fought for or wn any notable or recognized championships. Fails WP:ATHLETE. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Allen Litzau

A tag has been placed on Allen Litzau requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Same issues as with Johnson above. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Better, and enough for me to remove the speedy delete tag for now — but I may put it back later. A few concerns: 1) "The American Boys" website may not be considered a reliable source, since it seeks sponsorships for these boxers. 2) Some of the acronyms needed to be spelled out, such as MBF and PAL. 3) It would help greatly if you could find some references from something like a newspaper or magazine to help establish credibility and notability. Keep working on it, and let me know if you need help. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 20 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Duluth Complex, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 15:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

BR-- Thanks for the note, and for the good start to this article! Regards, Kablammo (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)