User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2008/April

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

HJ Band

Done, thanks for the heads up. Sorry about that TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Army Fortresses in Japan proper

Thank you for your interest in List of Army Fortresses in Japan. Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Army Fortresses in Japan proper I have made an attempt to find references for the article and could find nothing to support the assertions made. Consensus is leading to keep and improve, but I am not seeing where improve is an option. If I am mistaken and there are references available please add them to the article. Jeepday (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking for sources. I still tend towards keep, as I imagine that there will be sources available from Japanese language websites, and perhaps in specialized military history books which may not be available on line. Although the list is old, please note that no one had informed WikiProject Military or WikiProject Japan that the list existed until I did so a couple of days ago. I have every confidence that this list will improve with time. Take care, Xymmax (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Question

List of Major League Baseball players suspended for performance-enhancing drugs why is this article ok and not List of Dominican Athletes With Unethical Sports Practices ChuloConWepa (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough question. The biggest problem with your list was that it was too subjective. With the other example you cited, there are objective, independently verifiable standards that one must meet to be included in the list - they must be major league baseball players, and they must have failed the league's collectively bargained process for testing for specific drugs. With your list, the only thing that was objective and independently verifiable was that the people on the list were Dominican. This invites people to make their own subjective judgment as to what constitutes "unethical" and can rapidly turn into an easy way to disparge Dominicans in general as unethical. We call such articles "coatracks", and they tend to be deleted quickly. Take care, Xymmax (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC).

your comment about CIB awards

I have been reading the past debate about an article on Leo Meyer in which you participated. I can not address the primary item of your contribution, as I am not aware of your Wikipedia rules upon which you base them. However regarding your inclusion of the statement, “The fact that the subject obtained three awards is mostly a testament to longevity, and a williness to stay in infantry units. In addition, I note that according to this link (http://www.army.mil/symbols/combatbadges/infantry.html) the rules permitting multiple awards of the CIB only took effect in 1952, greatly reducing the number of eligible awardees.” First, I am not an expert military historian or a history researcher, but I do like military history and spend hours watching the History Chanel”. I must take exception. Drawing conclusions (and I am not implying you were incorrect or not about the subject of the debate) based on inaccurate interpretation is not good reporting or shows bias. You need to read the information found at this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Infantryman_Badge) which would explain that the award is given only one time during any of the events identified under the heading “Specific eligibility requirements” by the Army. Your implication that more would have received the award is incorrect. Your statement “…greatly reducing the number of eligible awardees.” is backwards. It actually increased the number. If they fought during WWII between 1941 and 1946, once or ten thousand times in direct action with the enemy, they got ONE. There are no other events between the End of WWII and the Korean War, and that is what the 1952 decision was supporting; that Korean War participation is included as criteria for issuance of the Combat Infantryman Badge and if you had one from WWII, you were eligible for another. And note that the Army has made provision for up to 4 possible issuances (hoping that that should never be necessary I’m sure). There has never been a fourth awarded. Understand the Wikipedia article on the CIB. Further research would provide information which would explain that the award was originally tied to the receipt of a valorous medal starting at the Bronze Star and going up. I recently came across an item in an old Army Stars and Stripes which reference the death of a retired Army Colonel, Leland Fair, who had served for 33 years and fought in WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam. He only had two Combat Infantrymen Badges. Like a whole bunch of senior soldiers who found themselves in a third conflict, they did not serve in a position which met the criteria and allowed them to be eligible for a Combat Infantryman Badge. Doesn’t mean that they weren’t there, it just means that they didn’t meet the rules. Just be sure of accuracy of interpretation when using facts, unless your intent is to fool and dissuade. John

Hi John. I'm always happy to have a reasoned discussion, and I while I too am not a military historian, I assure that I did read the article you cited, and that my intent was/is not to fool anyone. I will concede your point that the timing of the rule change would not have changed the number of CIB receipients. For some reason, without looking it up I put 52 with Viet Name. As you correctly point out, the change was for Korea, so there are no soldiers who would have been eligible for a CIB who were excluded. I trust no one was misled by my error, and I thank you for correcting me. I do still feel that, while eminently noteworthy, the receipt of three CIBs does not merit inclusion in this encyclopedia under the existing guidelines. However, that is an abstract position; the consensus was that it does. I respect Col Meyer's accomplishments, and hope that his Wikipedia article allows his memory to live on. All the best, Xymmax (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no dog in that meyer fight. But I am impressed with anyone with more than an EIB. Thanks for responding.

stop changing my edits

okay??? stop changing my edits, got it!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coedhacker (talk • contribs) 01:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I will never rest

So you should give it a rest, UNDERSTAND????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coedhacker (talk • contribs) 01:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Feedback on Source

Dear Xymmax, I saw your note on Cult free world's page and agree with you. I should have notified him (usually he follows contribs so I thought he would have seen this but still, I should have told him). Thank you for your responses. We have few outside opinions on Cult free world's proposed page. Many have told him that the court case is a primary source and that the newspaper article is unreliable if it is under suit and found "on the face of it" libelous and defamatory (especially with no corroborating evidence), but he ignores all of our comments. If you have any further comments that would be helpful. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

What? Me? Update what script? *lost* - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant that the "Nonadmin closure" part of your rationale doesn't really seem to fit anymore. :) Xymmax (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playlist: The Very Best of Korn

Hi there. Following your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playlist: The Very Best of Korn as keep, can you point me to the page on Billboard.com that mentions the album, as I have been unable to find it. Thank you. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. The link I followed is here. Let me know if it doesn't work for you, because I just had to go through Google to make it come back up. Take care, Xymmax (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the Stephen R Pastore article. I can assure you that the only citations that will be added to this article will be links to or references to Pastore-created websites, books, or press releases. Believe me, I have spent more time than I'd have liked looking for SOME legitimacy to his claims and those are the only places I end up. FYI, this guy is kind of scary, has blown into town with fantastic claims, has way too much money, and has been "collecting" local writers with promises of publishing contracts, connections to agents, etc.... The problem is, the agents don't exist and the publishing house is a vanity press....not a legitimate tradition publishing house. There is a cadre of individuals who have determined that he is in the process of scamming unwitting writers....either to steal manuscripts or to establish himself as an agent for these writers....who will then have to pay him for his services.

I'm curious, though. (I'm not a computer whiz so forgive me if this sounds simpleminded.) When somebody creates a persona for themselves like this, what prevents them from eliminating everything you've done to edit it and replacing it with the original material. I had originally put links in to New York Times articles about the clubs Pastore supposedly owned; but those links were removed in subsequent edits by Pastore.

Again, thanks. (74.47.86.38 (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

You're welcome :) I have no axe to grind, but I did see a lot of unsourced information, the majority of which I removed. I have this page watchlisted, and will look to see if unverifiable information creeps back in. On the article talk page I linked a couple of pages where any editor can go if there are concerns with the information presented in an article. Finally, anyone can revert to prior version of an article - its all listed under the history tab - but anyone else to then change it back. If the process is abused, then site adminstrators can limit access to the page, block editors who violate the rules, or take other action. If you want to add other information in the article you are welcome to do so, but remember than any information (in addition to being from a reliable source, which the NYT of course is) must have a neutral point of view. Take care. Xymmax (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)