User talk:Makomk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Makomk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - UtherSRG 22:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Okashina Okashi

Hi! Thanks for participating in the AfD. Just a reminder: a bias because you like the webcomic isn't a reason to abstain. Past AfDs have shown that many "Keep" votes are cast by people who like the comic, as well as those who think the article has merit (I, myself, have cast "Keep" votes for both reasons). Read over the article and see if you think it's well written (and fix it if you think it needs a tweak or two) and then decide. Thanks! Xuanwu 01:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FIPS (computer program)

Good work on FIPS (computer program)! Thue | talk 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

The issue with notability vs, verifiability is that Wikipedia:Notability is "an essay ... not an actual policy or guideline," whereas Wikipedia:Verifiability is "an official policy on the English Wikipedia." WP:V says, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Note that WP:NN states that "Notability is sometimes used as a synonym for verifiability, although others disagree." You'll aslo note that the "Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability" portion of the Notability esssay explains that "The no original research rule keeps out most of what is unencyclopedic. Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied." I think that pretty well sums up my position. Incidentally, this also the position of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales: [1] "Yeah, notability is actually a very controversial requirement within the community simply because it’s so subjective. What’s notable enough? So what we prefer to do is more or less shy away from notability, just because it ends up being a pretty unproductive discussion, and focus really a lot more on things like verifiability, whether or not the information can be verified. ... a simple example would be references to published books, academic papers, that sort of thing. That makes information verifiable. You can say, “I found it in this book.” An example of something that might or might not be verifiable would be something like a Web site about a band. So lots of little garage bands have very puffy Web sites about themselves that they made the Web site themselves, but you can’t find any reference to the band anywhere else. Not in any newspaper, not in any music sites, and you realize, Oh, this is just somebody who made a Web site and so the information that’s contained within that Web site is something that you really can’t verify." Again, Megatokyo and other "notable" webcomics meet this standard, minor webcomics like those you've recently nominated for deletion do not. The fact that the Megatokyo article can be improved has little or nothing to do with other webcomic topics having no secondary sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, which is why I've moved this discussion over here. Yes, too many wikipedia editors use the internet as a source when they ought to be spending more time at the library. Because some articles are not as good as they could be is a good reason for expanding them, adding sources, etc, if the topic is good. Articles based on bad topics get deleted. see Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_with_alternatives_to_deletion for more info. Yes, a lot of editors on AfD throw "non-notable" around so they don't have to write out the same argument for every fancruft or vanity article, and you can do a lot to help clean-up wikipedia by just following the numerous notability essays. I think an understanding that WP:WEB is based on WP:V is also helpful, citing both is probably better than citing just one, and I'd rather delete content knowing an official policy backs up the deletion rather than just an essay. Does that make any sense? -- Dragonfiend 15:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah. That makes sense now - thanks for clearing that up. I still suspect that a lot of webcomic and website articles that it really wouldn't be wise to delete (e.g. Megatokyo and 4chan) have tricky WP:V problems, but as it's official policy and there for a reason I suppose it's just best to follow it where possible, turn a blind eye where necessary, and hope the whole thing doesn't go thermonuclear. - makomk 16:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Youngstown Air Reserve Station

Before you delete material, I would have appreciated the opportunity to edit the content so as to not be a copyright violation. Proper citations and rewording of material would more than make up for any violation. --Daysleeper47 16:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the entire article was NOT a violation. Several sections, while uncited, were original and a citation would have been the only thing from keeping them from deletion. --Daysleeper47 16:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about that, I must have missed it. If that's the case, I'm afraid you'll have to try and get one of the admins to dig out the deleted content. - makomk 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

A very happy new Year to u Dear plz can u tell me what material is Copyrighted . what ever i have taken from sites is not Copyrighted and i have used them as Sources also .plz help in improving article Shabiha (t • c) 17:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)