User talk:Mstuczynski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey I've created (or at least I think I have) a sandbox version of the Crow/Corvus article we talked about here User:Plcoffey/SandboxCorvus (genus), and it would be great to have whatever input you feel like giving. Thanks! Plcoffey (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Byllis 2 Celtics 3 Smile from David Shankbone 4 Non-English sources 5 Josh Romney 6 Louis Statue Typo 7 Regarding Mike Bowers' notability 8 Thanks 9 RE: Durgin Park 10 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Alexander (politician) 11 Citing sources 12 Note 13 Longstreet

[edit] Byllis

Hello and thanks for your help but i meant that Byllis the ancient city is to be another article and the later bishopry another.10:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celtics

Please accept this invite to join the Celtics WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Boston Celtics. Simply click here to accept!

Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 16:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Smile from David Shankbone

[edit] Non-English sources

Hey - I just wanted to let you know that non English sources are acceptable as per WP:V. English sources are certainly preferable, but not a requirement for an article to meet verifiability. Thanks. matt91486 (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Romney

Hi, I respectfully disagree with merging or removing this article right now. As it stands now, I believe it qualifies under the Politician guidelines and should remain for the next few weeks. If Romney decides not to form an official campaign, then I would support a merge. In the meantime, I feel this article is an asset and not a liability on Wikipedia. Jrclark (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

'I understand you are interested in this subject, but if you could point to some aspect of politician qualifications, or basic qualifications where he fits, it would go a long way towards saving the page. '

If I get a chance in the next day, I'll see what I can do - I have already seen articles in which the incumbent intends to campaign on the point of lack of qualification, so we shall see. Perhaps I can find some more information on his education and private sector career (I think there is already an adequate amount of information available in regard to his time on the campaign trail). Lack of experience in itself is not a reason to merge or delete an article - as seen on the national stage, there have been charges made against Presidential candidates in this regard. Jrclark (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Statue Typo

Thanks for fixing the caption on the photo I added to Walpole, Massachusetts. Feel free to proofread me whenever you're up to it! I uploaded and placed a dozen photos today and I don't doubt I've botched a caption or three. --House of Scandal (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Mike Bowers' notability

Mstuczynski, please let mass spectrometrists question Mike Bowers' notability. I would appreciate removing that tag at least to show respect for his Distinguished Contribution in Mass Spectrometry Award. Mgnelu (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not state that he was not notable, I stated that the may not be notable. It is incumbant upon you as the article's creator to prove notability. Please read WP:BIO and WP:PROF, make the nescessary changes, and I will be happy to remove the tag. This was simply the result of new pages patrolling where we are encouraged to tag new articles with with the proper templates so that they can become encyclopedia worthy. May I also suggest, that if you plan on creating any pages in the future, that you ensure that they come up to standards before you save the page. This will obviate the need to tag the article. Mstuczynski (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines say that you should use the expert-subject tag if you are not an expert in the field and you are not able to determine notability by yourself or by discussion with the author. I know you meant well and I appreciate your work. Please replace the notable tag with the expert-subject tag. There is a Wiki project on Mass Spectrometry. Mgnelu (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you may not understand my intentions. I am only asking for confirmation of his notability as it concerns inclusion in an encyclopedia. If he is in fact worthy of inclusion you should not have any difficulty finding proof of this. Or if I might restate, the article is not about mass spectrometry, it is about Michael T. Bowers, who happens to be a mass spectrometry specialist. And yes, WP:PROF criteria #2, would be sufficient. Is there any reason you have not tried to make the needed changes yourself? Nevertheless, I do not deem this a significant problem and will make your desired change Mstuczynski (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If ever in doubt about a scientist's notability, Google Scholar can give you a pretty good idea. Now that's not the kind of link I would like to add to an encyclopedia. There are people more intimatelly familiar with Bowers' work, who are eventually going to describe it better than I could. I didn't change your edit because I didn't want to impose anything. If it was up to me, I would have completely removed any tag questioning Bowers' notability. Mgnelu (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am only in doubt because you continue to refuse to make any references to his notability. WP:BOLD encourages you to add that link. Would Bowers himself publish a paper with no citations? If you think he is worthy, show why. Otherwise you are just asking people who are not familiar with this man to do your work for you. I have looked him up and I am pretty confidant that I could prove his notability myself. The point is, I did not decide to add him to this encyclopedia, whereas you did and thus are obligated to show why. You seem to spend more time arguing with me than improving the article to encyclopedic standards. Mstuczynski (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quickie (sex). Thanks a lot, I got a chuckle out of it! For the record, it's closer to four this week ... probably well over a hundred at this point. I decided a while back that Wikipedia articles tend to have certain flaws that will either draw them toward the AFD chopping block or to POV/editing disputes, and I enjoy what I call saving articles from themselves. I also learned it's twice as effective to actually improve the article as to simply argue that it can reasonably be improved (although I also think that's a valid argument). In any case, I'm hardly the only one doing this. --Dhartung | Talk 09:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I have to admit, I love the way you work here. If I was a barnstar kind of person you would have more than a couple from me. Keep up the good work and I will try to live up the standards you have set. Mstuczynski (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Durgin Park

My main concern is that it is written like an advert; it lists the dishes served of all things :) Also, I think it fails WP:N. Sorry. Feel free to improve it and vote "Keep" on the AfD. Cheers, _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I admire your enthusiasm. Good luck! _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 20:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Alexander (politician)

I added OR and V to the nomination because its suspect since the creator has a personal bias toward the rticle in question. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The web site in question does not constitute as a reliable second party source (secondary source). Especially since there are topics on the page that do not discuss his political carrer. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It confirms the first sentence of the article. The rest is about his life, and unverifiable. This is the difficulty in creating biographies while the person is living. If you dont wish to respond, you dont have to. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am just adding here to point out that the article has been greatly expanded today, though not finished. Some mentions of notability are there, such as his unique status on the ballot, his various activist positions, his radio show, and his run for mayor of Los Angeles. I haven't utilized many of the sources I will be using, I just want to point out that it may be too soon to make a concrete decision. KV(Talk) 00:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

Please read WP:CITE for the correct syntax for citing a single reference multiple times in the same article. Articles can't use other articles as references either, the reference must be copied over and cited in line in the original article. This helps prevent synthesis and unattributed OR from creeping into those articles. Please don't remove fact tags without first replacing them with inline citations. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting reading, would you be so kind as to tell me where you believe your position is backed up? Mstuczynski (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

When an AfD debate is blanked weeks after the fact, and replaced with the "courtesy blanking" notice, that is not vandalism. It indicates that the subject wrote in (usually to OTRS) and asked that it be done. The content is still visible if you consult the history.

Furthermore, it's not a good idea to use "RVV" when reverting something done by an administrator.

Just so you know. DS (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, that discussion had been subjected to multiple blankings both during and after the AfD. I was so used to it, I reverted without checking. Good faith edit on my part. Poor execution unfortunately. Mstuczynski (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Longstreet

Hi. I know that Wert had been discussed on the talk page, that was why I replaced it and asked that it not be removed again. I had no interest in Fuller, he would be more appropriate on a Blitzkrieg page as far as I know. Sorry for the confusion, I was reverting vandalism there when I noticed your ref was missing again. Mstuczynski (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I had been examining a group of changes as a whole, so did not recognize what you were reverting exactly. Thanks. BTW, the Fuller book is actually pretty good, although dated. Not really an appropriate citation for a bio of Longstreet. The problem was that the other editor was taking a very abbreviated description and either he or Fuller was overlooking necessary detail. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Could you give me a hand reverting this guy who is making the incessant JFC Fuller changes and deleting the cited Wert sentence? Thanks, Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)