User talk:Kevin Murray/archive one

Hello Kevin Murray/archive one, and Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are some good places to get you started:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Template messages
• Sandbox

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes (~~~) to produce your name only. If you have any questions, or are worried/confused about anything at all, please either visit the help desk, or leave a new message on my talk page at any time. Happy editing, good luck, and remember: Be Bold!

— FireFox • T • 10:33, 5 March 2006

Welcome to Wikipedia! You are making excellent additions to this article. But it would be nicer if you made more edits with each contribution, rather than dozens of tiny little edits each day. Look at the history of your contributions, and you will see that it is hard to follow the overall changes due to the number of tiny, albeit necessary, edits. Thanks! Yaf 12:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Monitor example.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Monitor model.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Joe E. Lewis article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! --Calton | Talk 02:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a good start, I don't see much POV. Im going to tag with {{Wikify}} & {{cleanup}} if you dont mind. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your many contributions to Catalina Yachts and noting my interest in sailing in general. I've been doing research into boats for my own reasons and noticed the wide disparity of articles about boat manafacturers. As an example, I started the article for Island Packet Yachts to wikipedia (which is what startled me that Island Packet had no entries). I might take a look around and see if there is some wider "sailing" projects with which we (and anyone else here) might be able to collaborate. Bradfordschultze 23:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin --

As I continue delving deeper into the sailing articles, I realized that there are several that have very little information at all; the term monohull for example is barely defined at all. I'm thinking, then, that the best use of our time is less of a classic collaboration and more of a division of labor so we wouldn't spend time on the same articles but rather divide and conquer. Personally, I feel that my strengths lie toward structuring new articles and encyclopedically correct writing; I'm less confident of my abilities with getting into articles that already have a healthy debate and a lot of already-designed content.

I'm down in L.A. by the way. My wife and I are taking a sailing course but I wouldn't call us anything other than casual sailors! Bradfordschultze 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest you not create articles with very little content, they are all getting tagged for deletion. I tagged several, then realized they were all being created by you. At least one other person is also taging your article. I assume you will be expanding them, but as they stand they do not look good. That means you need to put a hangon tag onm each one. --ArmadilloFromHell 05:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you might have discussed this move with the people who are working on this before unilateraly making such a major change.

Please return this article to where it was and let's discuss the alterantives for change.

I don't completeley disagree with the new title, but it may not fit where the article is evolving.

Thanks

Kevin Murray 18:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a page is not a major change, especially at such an early stage in a page's life. It only involves hitting the "move" tab at the top of the screen - hardly major. You might want to take a quick read through WP:OWN. I am not moving it back to the old name since it violated more than one guideline at WP:NC. If you don't like the current name, feel free to start discussion at the current talk page - or be bold and try a different name that does satisfy WP:NC. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you deleted the article Santa Cruz Yachts. Please reinstate. This is part of a series of articles that several authors are working on. This was a work in progress which I began yesterday.

There is a fine line between advertising and objective information. I am not attempting to promote the brand, but it is an extemely fine though very expensive product.

I woudl appreciate some discussion before you make any more radical changes to my hard efforts.

Sincerly.

Kevin Murray 19:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor marked that article as blatant spam and I agreed so it was deleted per WP:CSD#G11. I have restored it and moved it to your user space at User:Kevin Murray/Santa Cruz Yachts. Please flesh out the article there and make it sound less spammy before moving back into the regular article space. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that rather than jumping to the "spam" conclusion in the future, that you post your concerns at the discussion page, and or contact one or more of the major contributors.

No. Develop first, post later, skimpy microstubs written in adspeak should be deleted on sight: Wikipedia is drowning in spam and personal vanity, and puttering around in the hope that maybe one of the dozens I tag daily ISN'T spam this time would be utterly unproductive. We have no shortage of articles nor of spam; we do have a shortage of good-quality or even adequate articles: what's the hurry? Is there a prize for being first? --Calton | Talk 23:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:CSD#G11 speedy deletion criteria was added recently because of what Calton is alluding to - and I've heard that the directive came straight from the top including User:BradPatrick and User:Danny. Just do some Special:Newpages patrol sometime and you'll see the mindboggling amount of spam that comes in. Everyone is free to create pages in their user space - as I did - where you can let new articles gestate into something that doesn't fall into the WP:VSCA category. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, other articles you created are being marked as {{db-spam}} by other editors. You may want to look through WP:N because I'm not sure they would survive WP:AFD if someone brought them there. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kevin. Let me try to explain what the problem is, and isn't. It isn't about copying from one article to another; you are of course right that this is indeed permitted. It certainly isn't about trying to sabotage your edit (and if you think so, I would like to remind you to WP:AGF assume good faith. What this IS about is about what that passage of text is on its own, separated from the article it was taken. Please, first note that it contains no references. This may be due to two things: one, it could be that the material you transcribed is already reerenced in one of the references at the bottom of the William Shockley article. Two, it could be that the article itself is badly referenced (that happens). Please bear in mind that I am not an editor of that article; I am an editor of the Race and Intelligence article. As you may have noticed, this article is rife with references: nearly every statement is referenced in some way. That is not the case for the section you added. It has been either separated from the main references of its article, or not properly referenced to begin with. The fact it was basically copied from another part of Wikipedia doesn't guarantee it's a good quality excerpt. Actually, it's not bad at all, just lacking references. That is why I put the (citation needed) tag and why a reference to the William Shockley article will not do in this specific case. I hope now my objection (which is really rather simple) is clearer to you.--Ramdrake 12:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Ramdrake's concerns have been acknowledged and addressed. A citation needed marker was placed at the Shockley article, which is well referenced in terms of sources but not footnotes at the paragraph level. Additionally I have provided some direct references at Race and Intelligence to the sorces cited at William Shockley and otherwise. Shockley's information is included for a historical perspective only as his "work" was not compelling science, but brought media attention to this sensitive issue a generation ago.

I have nominated the article you created, Nelson - Merek, for deletion. You can comment in the deletion debate here. Picaroon9288 21:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove afd tags while the deletion discussion is ongoing. You are, however, invited to join the discussion. Picaroon9288 22:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but my decision still stands as delete. Cbrown1023 01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I have struck WP:CORP in my !vote. My decision still hinges on Google hits, regardless of which guideline we use. Sorry, I will stick with DELETE for now. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your note. I'm afraid 1000 google hits would not suffice to establish notability. WHen I enclose in brackets, I come up with 10,000 hits, of which 452 are unique. Those beyond 452 are repeats.

452 UNIQUE google hits for "Nelson Marek" Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though my vote is delete, the fact that you are working this hard to bring the article up shows that you are a good editor. Cbrown1023 03:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol :)... sorry, but no I am not a sailor. :( Cbrown1023 03:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fofr your note. Googlehits are really an indirect means of guaging notability. Searching the internet may also not turn up a lot on people who died before the onternet was created. Read notability for a better understanding, but basicly, if you can show that the subject is remarkable in some way-- natioanlly known, commonly known, historically demonstrable laike Wright, the best, the first, among the top contenders in their field and acknowledged as such by heir peers-- then that's probably notable. Regardless of how many hits they get on the nternet. What you need is to people to cite somw document that establishes the claim. Hope that helps

Also, you have a clear mind and reason well without being incivil. You should post your comments to the AfD subpage of the article. Your comments would be of interest to any editor taking part in the discussion and to the closing admin.' AfD is not a vote. It is a consensus building process. An admin will look at the discussion, decide if their is a consensus and then act on it. The admin could decide that the delete position lacks merit and conclude there is no consensus or conclude consensus should be to keep. If keep or no consesnsus, the article stays.

If the consensus is delete, you can appeal that decission at WPDRV.

It's been a pleasure discussing this with you. You keep a cool head under preassure. Regardless of the outcome for this one article, I hope you stay and continue building Wikipedia. There are many, many articles that don't look as good as yours. You would be a real asset at Wikipedia:cleanup. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that every article on a yacht manufacturer that you've written so far has a long list of competitors and "past manufacturers & designers". I have two questions about that.

First, since duplication of information is considered a Bad Thing at Wikipedia, I think the lists should be split off into separate articles that can be linked from each article in a "See also" section. What do you think about this?

Second, what are the "past manufacturers & designers" lists? They're the same for each article so far as I can see, and it's not clear what they're supposed to be or how they're related to the subject of each article. I thought at first that they were entities that had previously done work for the company in question, but since all the lists are the same that explanation doesn't seem likely to me. What are they? — Saxifrage ✎ 04:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and listify the competitors, since spam or not, they don't belong in each and every article. You didn't explain what the past manufacturers &etc where, though, so I'm not sure how to listify those. What are they?

As for notability guidelines for companies, those aren't subject to meaning-changing edits without long, protracted discussions and a firm consensus. You're welcome to discuss it, but major changes cannot stand unless they have clear community support. WP:CORP is a working document, so changes to it disrupt the smooth working of the project. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's appropriate to add guidelines that encourage articles on small companies to be kept, and I'll have to hear the arguments that people come up with in the course of discussion before I'm convinced that it's something that will benefit the project.

As for "listifying", it's Wikipedia jargon for turning it into a "List of..." article. Reading the sailboat design and manufacturing I clued-in that the "past..." ones are just historical ones, and the others are current ones. I'll go ahead and make one list for yacht manufacturers in general so that these lists can be removed from each article, and you'll see what I mean. It'll be at List of sailboat designers and manufacturers, so-named to match sailboat design and manufacturing. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make the original comment neutral regarding why, which turned out to be a good idea now that I understand better the motive behind changing it. I added to the comment to the effect that it was just due to a misunderstanding of how guidelines worked. Does it sound fair as I wrote it? — Saxifrage ✎ 06:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at AfD are rarely completely deleted or edited. It tends to make people wonder why they were deleted or edited and cause trouble. Instead, the custom is to strike out comments that are retracted, and this is generally respected. This is especially so since only part of the comment needs retraction and the rest is still relevant. Of course, if anyone brings up what I wrote and retracted as "evidence" of some kind, I will object strongly that my words are being twisted to show something that I don't believe or support. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've created List of sailboat designers and manufacturers. It's pretty bare and basic right now, so feel free to tweak the wording. (Just keep in mind that most lists have pretty short introductions, just to give context, so don't go overboard either. That's what Sailboat design and manufacturing is linked for.)

I've changed Beneteau and Catalina Yachts to take advantage of the list, so you can see how it works. (I also did some rearranging and formatting of them while I was at it.) I'm done for the night though and it's a long list of pages that need to be modified. If you want to do some more of them I'll check in in the morning to see how progress is. Otherwise I'll get to them soon enough. Cheers! — Saxifrage ✎ 07:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, dude, you need to run a spell check on your user page!

Hi Kevin Murray, as I've read that your an (English-speaking) sailor, could you help me with the following question? What is the English word for the "harness" worn on sailing ships to prevent people from falling over board (or from the ratlines etc.)? Is it "lifebelt", can it be "lifebelt" even though a different word is more common, or is "lifebelt" plain wrong, and that harness is actually called something different? Thanks in advance. --Ibn Battuta 22:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC) PS: Is there a forum on the English Wikipedia where sailing-related questions can be asked? Thanks. --Ibn Battuta 22:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:German_salad.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —790 23:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm new here, but I really liked your comment. Would you possibly consider looking at the AfD discussion on my article: Whip Jones,

I really can not believe that there is so much dscussion about deleting it, while there are sooo many other articles that are weak.

Please take a look and give me a strong or speedy keep if you agree. Thanks!!!

- BMcCJ 01:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your comments on my talk page. Good work. Shimeru 02:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits should be discussed on the article's talk page rather than my talk page, so every interested person can contribute. I may have been the one who reverted your edits, but I hadn't someone else probably would have. KarlBunker 03:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the above contributor had reverted an article twice without discussion at the talk page, so I contacted directly. --Kevin Murray 04:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to discuss a comment you made. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Moalem, after I stated my opinion that I believe the subject of the article fails WP:Bio and Wikipedia:Notability (academics), I then pointed out the promotional nature of the article. You responded with "SWAdair, are you seeing him as being on the Grassy Knoll as well? Are you allegingg that Wikipedia editors have conspired to promote his book. Let's stick to the facts here and cease being so judgemental." Okay, let's review the facts: 1) On 18 DEC 06, I reverted spam inserted into Evolutionary medicine, where an anonymous editor had added Moalem to the list of "most prominent scientists" (giving him first mention, no less), mentioned the author's soon-to-be released book and linked to a commercial site promoting the book; 2) On 22 DEC 06 a new editor created an article for Moalem -- this is the only thing this editor has worked on; 3) On 22 DEC 06 another new editor begins editing, inserting mentions of Moalem into several articles -- this is the only thing this editor has worked on. Now, it doesn't require a conspiracy theory to realize what is going on here. Someone is attempting to use Wikipedia to promote a non-notable individual and his upcoming book. If you'll check my edit history you'll see that I take pleasure in saving articles from AfD when appropriate. This case, however, is not such a situation. This is a case where the individual does not meet notability guidelines already established and where the article is, IMO, a rather thinly-veiled attempt at promotion. I believe your "Grassy Knoll" comment was uncalled for, as well as the implication that I was being unduly harsh in my assessment of the situation. Forgive me, but when I see spam, I call it spam. SWAdair | Talk 05:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment. I'll have to take another look. Maybe I'm missing something, but he seems to be notable.

--Kevin Murray 05:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I have to admit that at first glance the list of things he has worked on or is working on impressed me. It wasn't until I did a line-by-line comparison between the article and the notability guidelines that I determined he didn't make the grade. The bar is deliberately set high and he isn't quite there yet. He comes close, and may very well meet those guidelines within a year or two, but right now I think he just misses making the cut. SWAdair | Talk 05:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and reviewed through why I opposed the deletion. I can't and won't dispute your allegation that someone may be manipulating Wikipedia as you say, but that is independent of the criteria supporting the notabilty of the person in question. Life is not always fair, but in this case these issues are independent, and I believe that your allegations at the AfD discussion are irrelevant and unrelated. Being nefarious and notable are not mutually exclusive. Sorry to be on the other side here, as I expect that our goals will generally be aligned.

--Kevin Murray 05:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, fair enough. I can live with that.  :-) I appreciate your taking the time to review things. Happy editing! SWAdair | Talk 05:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

My but you are strict! But since we are now on the same page, I look forward to a spirited discussion at Bardia Mural. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 22:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- perhaps bcz you saw me in my jackboots, and i'll have to rehabilitate myself by ferreting out my stash of nice-pills [wink]
--Jerzy•t 08:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Sorry, I didn't express myself very well - asleep at the wheel at almost 1am. What I meant was that the information must be able to be corroborated from some source other than wikipedia - and yes, that could be books, radio, TV, or the web. David Cannon 11:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article has some positives. It's quite detailed and has plenty of sources, although quickly moving the mouse over them to see the link doesn't make me think some of them are going to be particularly reliable. Looking at the bigger picture though, she seems to be an unremarkable journalist for the majority of her career. The international work is possibly more noteable, but she seems to be independent rather than employed by any major network or news agency, and I'd imagine there's a plethora of people with similar credentials. I'd definitely be in favour of deleting rather than spending time cleaning it up. One Night In Hackney 23:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edits you made today on the Stono Bridge article. I did so for several reasons. First, you removed all the historic information from the intro. This info needs to remain in the intro for several reasons. First, an intro is supposed to summarize most of the article giving the reader a preview of what is to come. Second, by asserting notability in the first paragraph, the article is immediately considered to be notable, and thus usually not subject to AFD votes. Also, when moving sentences around with citations please be careful you take the full citation code or the citation will not appear properly in the reference section. Second, you seemed to have rearranged a lot of this stuff I had added. I don't mind this in the least as long as everything continues to flow smoothly. But I felt that a lot of the edits you did made the article a lot harder to follow. I also saw that you added two links which I had removed. The first was commentary on the building of the tunnel from what appears to be a blog. Blogs are not considered reliable sources, and as such I try not to use them or link to them in articles. The other links went to a mayor's state of the city address I believe. I only found one mention of the bridge in there following a brief once over. As such, I removed it. Please let me know if you have any questions, or comments. I don't mean to be rude in my actions, and am glad that article is now in much better shape. Thanks! KnightLago 04:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your encouragement on my edits to the David Ritch page. It's nice to see editors who don't take bold editing personally and are willing to be supportive. I'm busy with family stuff for Christmas for a bit, but I'll do a full revision of the page as soon as I get a chance. Thanks again, Wintermut3 05:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I offended you, that was not my purpose. I was just trying to put things back where I thought they best fit. I reverted your edits for a number of reasons. First, the lead the article has now is too short again, and the historic information should be mentioned there. I would point you to WP:LEAD regarding the duplicate information. The lead is meant to summarize the entire article and mention any high points. Next, the history section as it stands again I feel is poorly put together. Starting the entire history section with "This is among the sites..." doesn't flow well. I also don't like the history section as it now stands. Also, you removed the information about the construction accidents. Those were not copied and pasted, the source was cited. Maybe I did not rephrase them enough, but the information should be in the article. I also noticed you removed the price of the bridge. I think that should be in the article as well. I would also give the Stono Bridge more attention. If you do not do that in this article someone will start an article eventually called the Stono Bridge. At that point any mention of the history of this bridge outside of the fact that is sits on the site of the old stono bridge, will have to go to the other article. KnightLago 13:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I referred your request to another Wikipedian User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) who specializes in air force bios... Most congressmen, have official bio's to reference.

-BMcCJ

66.82.9.88 22:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I'm going to edit it a bit more, I'm worried its not strong enough yet, and the original author and the hornsby photo have disappeared.

-Bruce —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.80 (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I read your deletion criteria at Shukri; I think that citing Google hits is a dangerous precedent to be following, since the WP guidelines do not specify that notability be established by online sources. I think that g-hits are a tool for demonstrating notability, but an absence on Google (etc,) is not cause for deletion.

Clearly this was a weak article, but we are finding credible sources under other spellings. Under the assumption of good faith why should we doubt that the Cairo museum is a valid source of information? I realize that some things aren't easily verifiable, but this isn't a murder trial.

Cheers!

--Kevin Murray 03:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Citing GHits is one method for helping to describe relative notability (or non-notability). It would be just as egregious to not cite a total lack of GHits as it would be to not cite millions of GHits for a notable subject matter. While the lack of GHits for a topic does not mean that a subject is non-notable it does indicate that offline sources are going to be necessary and for an online community to debate notability of a subject that can only be verified offline is more difficult to discuss and will take more careful attention to avoid reliable sourcing and avoidance of hoax articles. There is no reliability that the name of a museum is a source for what is contained in the article. For every U.S. flight-related article it would be inappropriate to reference the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum as a reliable source for the same reason. There's no faith that just because the article concerns a military commander in Egypt that a Military Museum in Egypt is going to reference the information. Besides, would that information be verifiable by the front desk? An expert within the museum? We should require that sources be explicit and fulfill the needed role of verifying the information being claimed by an article. Could you see how false information could easily be introduced by vandals if we were to accept ambiguous or completely unverfiable sourcing simply because someone typed it in once? ju66l3r 04:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite OK to cite offline sources, as long as they are specific, e.g. book, title, author, page nos, publisher, date etc. If someone challenges it, it's up to them to look at it. See User:Tyrenius/Satchel Cohen hoaxer. However, there are specific guidelines for certain areas such as museum archives (I can't find them offhand). Tyrenius 04:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this. Now the AfD is closed can I ask you move the page to whatever the offical name is (Paul Gelogotis Bridge? Gelogotis Bridge? Stono Bridge?). Thanks! Akihabara 04:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Original Barnstar for your efforts to help stem the tide of thoughtless deletions. Tarinth 17:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds ok. I assume there's some sort of Military project somewhere on Wikipedia, it might be an idea to see if they've had any discussions of a similar nature? Even if they haven't, I'm sure they would want to be involved. What are your opinions on John Campbell Ross and the like? It's somewhat puzzling that people become notable simply by being old.

Don't get me wrong I wasn't say he's not notable or should be deleted, it's just that people can become notable for, well, doing not much. One Night In Hackney 22:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is being a journalist or editor of a newspaper inherently notable? I can't speak for American newspaper editors, but in the UK if you asked the public who the editor of their daily newspaper was the majority wouldn't be able to tell you. Columnists are generally more well known, unless the editor happens to be someone like Kelvin MacKenzie. Thoughts? One Night In Hackney 22:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew there would be one. One Night In Hackney 22:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bula Mr Murray I am now beginning the process of verifing my written articles which have been marked for AFD the wikipedians have given me a couple of months to do this and for that I am grateful.

the process will have me getting documents then getting the leading family of the District to approve by making a traditional presentation with the Yagona Plant and also insure the governing authorities (Fijian affairs Board and the Provincial Council) has no objections then I have to scan the documents and ensure they have the official stamps etc as you can see a long process.

what I want to do is have a reference page where I can load all these documents as cross reference area for those wanting verification for my articles on Lomaloma Tikina (District):

Turaga Na Rasau, Keni Naulumatua, Keni Naulumatua II, Adi Mere Tuisalalo, Adi Mere Samisoni, Lomaloma, Sawana, Tuvuca, Namalata, Turaga Na Ravunisa.

I need advice or some direction on how I could do this, I am going to make an attempt but if I get it wrong then I may need some help and direction from you.

I would be grateful for assistance in this matter

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Malo (Thank you) Maikeli

Are you related to Hornsby? Can you get a photo of him for the article? Where in California are you? I have added more info, its looks like the article just needed a little cleanup. You already did a fine job. Don't forget to back up your information elsewhere on the web. I also add biographies to findagrave.com in case they get deleted here. You can also add them directly to Google at base.google.com. My rule of thumb is to store biographies in at least three places on the web. I am up to 5 places now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 5 days are up, but it may take some delay for an admin to call the result due to the holidays. (I don't want to call it, having been a partisan in the debate.) I think we should wait. I suggest doing a content merge at that point, and a history merge later if the result survives; if you are an admin & want the practice, i'd be glad to help you thru that, but be warned it's an annoying effort to do it up to my stds, and i wouldn't mind just doing it when the time comes.
--Jerzy•t 01:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay in responding. It took me 26 minutes just to check and then add a "Speedy Keep" to the AfD, what would normally have taken me about a minute and a half. The emergency department is keeping Security busy tonight.  :-) The AfD was nominated by a SPA imposter. The established user who had edited the article is User:Evolu, and the nomination was by User:Evoluu. The imposter's only edits, other than recommending "Delete" on the Sharon Moalem AfD, have been an attempt to delete this article -- first by tagging it for speedy (obviously not a CSD) and then by AfD. SWAdair | Talk 02:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was driving down Route 5 from Sacremento to Los Angeles and spotted an unusual place just south of Patterson, California around exit 248. It was surrounded by a 15 foot tall fence, and had a building giving off steam in the back. It was on the west side of the highway. Do you know what it was?

I add to the article a bit, fixed some linguistic POV's, fixed the links, and will work on the redlinks therein in the next couple of days. Would you reconsider your vote to keep on the AfD page. SkierRMH 06:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in cleaning up and improving the article on Saga (singer)! Even though I am part Jewish, I think it is important to not let an individual's political opinions get in the way of the quality of their article on wikipedia. The Saga article in particular has been under attack multiple times, but thanks to me and a few others, it has survived deletion. I will attempt to get a hold of Resistance Fall 2000 to sharpen her article further. --Wikischmedia 18:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (You replied on my discussion page) "You have done a great job in finding sources that were eluding others. It is great to see someone with objective journalistic dispassion, especially in light of the message, which must be concerning to you. --Kevin Murray 19:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)"

• • I'm not bothered by it one bit... --Wikischmedia 19:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I'm concerned about any divisive trends which prolong polarization. --Kevin Murray 19:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep the last information you removed. I tried not to be wordy, but those words make the article precise. As it stands now it reads: The new elevated design allows traffic to move faster, while vessels pass under a 65 foot clearance and through 90 feet of horizontal clearance between the bridge supports. What type of traffic, foot traffic or vehicular traffic? Also, this: The South Carolina Department of Transportation opened two lanes to traffic in November 2003, and opened the remaining two lanes in June 2004. Which two lanes are we talking about? Again, are these lanes for boats to go through, or foot traffic to move through. You need to be more clear because non-locals such as myself would not know for sure what you are talking about. Let me know what you think. KnightLago 19:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do give the reader credit. And less is more, usually, but not when you are writing to inform and are not clear. Lanes as used is vague. People use lanes, bikes use lanes, cars use lanes, and even boats use lanes. If you object to the use of vehicular because you think it is too formal, or whatever, come up with something else. But something needs to go there. Also, the same thing for traffic. Which traffic are we talking about? KnightLago 19:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you found some helpful information. I think he's probably notable per se simply for having been associated with the creation of Runescape, which is particularly notable in its own right. Also, my read on the WP:RS guideline is that it is okay to consider press releases as accurate sources of information if there's no reason to disbelieve them...And for something that is a simple matter of factual accuracy (the name of your company's founders) I can't imagine we wouldn't regard that as reliable.

Unfortunately the page on him reads a bit like a MySpace page and not an encyclopedia entry, but if you're willing to pitch in that's great. I think it is probably worth keeping the article on him. Tarinth 22:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see reason triumphed with keeping LB, for a change.User:DGG 07:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the admins don't seem to consider Ghits to be a good indicator of notability. The main problem with it is that it suffers from substantial recentism--subjects that are in the news right now get a lot of news hits, but important events from the past might not get any. In general, if something gets very few google hits I try and avoid assuming that it is non-notable, but if it has a lot it is one of the factors that encourages me to dig deeper. The only real ironclad proof of notability (that most admins seem to care about) are written articles from independant, reliable sources. Tarinth 17:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin, I've removed Electricmeat9999 (talk · contribs) from WP:AIV. I'd encourage you to read the instructions found at the top of that page. In particular, editors must be warned in accordance with the type of edits they've made before a block is requested. Also, since blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive, generally we refrain from blocking a user if they appear to have stopped vandalizing. That page should clear up what the proper process is but if you have any questions at all, feel free to ask me either here or on my talk page. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All righty, understood. Thanks. —bbatsell ¿? 00:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no set number that I know of, but it does reinforce the idea that she is non-noteable and not worthy of mention on Wikipedia. Davidpdx 00:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well my articles have been deleted except on the villages, anyway so be it, my only interest was to write about Lomaloma Tikina, Turaga Na Rasau and history of the title holders etc, am I to close to the topic to be unbiased??

you've read my user talk page do you think if I re write the article with my list of sources and references of which I have alot will it be challenged again as it may seem I am just blowing my own trumpet???

anyway deeply discouraged but I accept the verdict

Maikeli MB 04:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made several edits to the article, and made a few minor corrections and posted some comments on the talk page. This article is very troublesome as it involves a living person and contains controversial material that is unsourced. Also, to much weight is given to her activities with Whether Underground and not enough attention given to what she has done. If this is a biographical article it should attempt to act as a biography and not an op-ed of the subject. I therefore would urge you to be aggressive in your editing of this article. If there is any information of a controversial nature that is not sourced or reliably sourced you should remove it or edit it. Also, more attention probably should be given to her early childhood and career and what she has done and is doing including some mention of her activities during the 1960's and 1970's but as it now stands far to much attention is given to a 20 year period of her life when she is now in her mid 60's. That about 90% of the article is dedicated to about a third of her life isn't biographical at all. It's someone trying to highlight something they want to draw attention too and it's not acceptable on Wikipedia. Also, if nothing can be done to make this article more NPOV you should seriously consider requesting that it be deleted. I hope this helps you in this article. Edward Lalone 02:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much information available on Bernardine Dohrn online therefore it would be quite difficult to rely only on online sources and create a good article. Most of what is published online about a person tends to be there for a reason either negative or positive. Most of the articles and other information on her tend to focus on her involvement in the Weatherman. You shouldn't worry about relying on what is available online as that is the most easily accessible source of information. There are numerous offline books and articles about Bernardine Dohrn that may be useful if you have access to them. Speaking to a Librarian at your local library about how you can get more information about Bernardine would be very useful as they are trained and have the resources to search out information in books and can obtain them for you through Inter-Library loans. Edward Lalone 20:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I unforunately don't have time to work on this article either. I made some minor changes to the article to help it become more consistent with Wikipedia policy as you requested that I do before Christmas but was unable to do so until now because of the holiday. As I know very little about this subject I am not prepared to do any credible research. My only suggestion to you would be to reference the information as that would make it more NPOV than it would be otherwise. I understand that you are only involved in this article to see that it conforms to Wikipedia policy. This is my only interest in this subject as well. I will attempt to find source for the information in the article online as I have time and to insert some references. I will try to work on this article as I am able but I have several articles that I have to finish that are time sensitive. Thanks. Edward Lalone 23:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no offense taken here; however, you should be aware that replying to every contrary vote in the discussion is usually counterproductive and hurts your case. If the delete goes through, there is always WP:DRV where you can make a statement. Regards, Danny Lilithborne 23:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making such comments about me without asking me for more information was an extremely poor decision on your part. User:2Cold06 is almost certainly a new sock of a banned user who has been waging a war on Alpha Phi Alpha and related articles for at least six months, and this article appears to be part of the same. I've been taking an extremely conservative tack, rather than taking the easy route and blocking him. However, the user appears to have revealed himself at the bottom of the AfD. In the future, ask first if you don't understand something like my comments on the AfD. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the author's behavior in other respects does not bear on the notability or verifiability of the article, which I believe is the subject being discussed at AfD. If you think that he should be blocked or otherwise punished, then do it.

I'm sure that you intentions were good, but I see too many abuses at AfD to debate each in private. Sorry.

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 21:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If the article is just a POV fork, then it's all relevant, and the article would merit deletion. That was the entire point. If you're not happy with what you see at AfD, attacking nominators is not the answer. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy, there is a big difference between criticizing the form of a nomination and attacking a nominator. I have done the former and not the latter at CC Poindexter. --Kevin Murray 21:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin,

Thanks for all your help with Daniel Terdiman. It would really help me and other fellow editors if you could fill in meaningful Edit summaries and use Template:Inuse.

Thanks! -- Jeff G. 05:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you noticed my changes to your user page, and basically reverted two of the ones I commented as 'Removed some instances of "My " to make it more third-person, consistent with "Kevin Murray lives". I suggest adding "His" instead, if (presumably he) wants to reveal his gender.' at diff. My problem with that is that now the first sentence is in the third person, and the second and third sentences are in the first person. IMHO, a single point of view can only help a non-encyclopedic article like your user page. -- Jeff G. 06:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have another suggestion for your user page, {{clear}} between the userboxes and the barnstars.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin,

principally I have no qualms with changing my vote if new evidence is presented to show that someone is confirmed to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:PROF by independent means, and I normally would have no problem with Terdiman if if was not that the references are a little thin and, even if he passes this AfD, in a month or two he will be back on the list. Show some more reference (even if not as link but to literature or non-trivial magazines) and I am sure it will pass this AfD and won't be nominated again. Take care Alf 16:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)~

I'm not sure what you're asking for - do you want the text of the deleted article? | Mr. Darcy talk 21:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Poindexter known for something besides starting the fraternity? I tried looking it up on the web, but couldn't find anything. But I know I have come across his name in relation to something, with a side note about the fraternity that struck me as totally outside the realm of what I was reading, and pointless. So, if you post an article about him, try to see if you can find off-line resources that are more informative. If I come across it again, I will let you know. KP Botany 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you brave man. But I do believe that good articles, particularly minor biographies can be written by editors who know nothing of the subject--sometimes expertise can make encyclopedia articles on people less neutral than they should be (the big books Britannica, etc.). He's notable for the fraternity alone, but if I come up with anything else, it's all yours. KP Botany 00:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN073850677X&id=8Nw2XHOGMh8C&pg=RA1-PA45&lpg=RA1-PA45&ots=QwMq0tN3lQ&dq=cc+poindexter&sig=qEsqC2VCOC593uF1lGzEAJ-m5HM

https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/1348/1/V04N01_003.pdf

172.197.40.4 16:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I knew there was something Kevin. If you have any questions about this article, let me know, and I can either answer them or find someone who can. KP Botany 03:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that CC Poindexter should be included in the Alpha phi alpha article. your opinion? MrDouglass 13:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering.. why your message on the Alpha Phi Alpha talk page was removed? [1] It was said to be because you were a banned user?! Any truth to this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlpha_Phi_Alpha&diff=101940590&oldid=99173997 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.156.7 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ccson wasn't specific enough. The banned user was and is 2Cold06. -- Jeff G. (talk|contribs|links|watch|logs) 11:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking on goodfaith i'll say that it isn't, but there has been no attempts to place the comments by the non banned user back into the talk section. Maybe a note to CCson and a reinsertion of the comment would remedy the situation. 172.190.227.237 18:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

any new news on CC Poindexter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Phi_Alpha#CC_Poindexter

I think it looks fine now, a lot of references - that's good. John Reaves 03:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be properly referenced in the text. The easiest way is to go to the history, select a preceding version, open the edit box and copy the coding (obviously not then saving that earlier version of the article). At the moment it disadvantages it because no one can tell what references what. Otherwise, please revert to preceding version and leave the new one on the talk page. Thanks. Tyrenius 04:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your collegiate approach and your reformulation, which I read through before doing yet another myself, using the LA Weekly, which has made a huge difference. Your idea of shifting the emphasis onto the Monroe issue was definitely the way forward. Tyrenius 12:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the human touch. It's certainly an interesting progress, and it's only the pressure that's forced the article through changes. But you're right about the work! Tyrenius 16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. While practical, I think it is a bit "odd" that the user needs to click the reference to go to the bottom of the page, and then click in the wikilink to go upwards to the section. While visually "appealing", it is of no use for casual readers, as they need to do two clicks to get the same information they would get by just scrolling down the page. Anyways, if that was the proposed solution, I would not object, at least not for now. -- ReyBrujo 17:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on saving the article! --Kukini 00:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha...although lack of understanding typical headings within wikipedia and purpose of said headings is a sad commentary on the AfD reviewers. If any of those links you gave backs any statements in the article...please put that info into "note" format to strengthen your efforts. --Kukini 00:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin, I've commented in the AfD regarding the article in it's current state - see [here] for my commentry. I'm happy to revisit this but he still seems to be just another producer of short films who's received some funding to kick his career off but has attracted no media interest beyond noting the release of the short films. Peripitus (Talk) 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You left a note on my talk page about this article, but I don't see myself in the edit history and I don't recall ever editing it. Good luck with the AfD. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - just re-read your comment (now that I'm awake). I did edit the film festival article, but only to stub-sort it. Again, good luck. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you get in touch with Adam Bayliss, say what you're doing and ask him for copies of some reviews, as he will have press cuttings. Tyrenius 23:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated the article Gordon dalbey for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon dalbey. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Gordon dalbey during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 17:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am hoping that you will join the few of us at the disney wikia. [2] We dont have alot of people there, so who ever we can get would be welcome. Want to know how small that thing is? I just now created a Jafar page. JUST NOW. and I became a member about a week ago. So umm....yeah, come help? thanks. My user name is the same as it is here. =]--AngelicDemon92 00:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Talk page#Using talk pages. Also, what gave you the idea that Kevin Murray would be interested in a disney wikia? -- Jeff G. (talk|contribs|links|watch|logs) 11:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to this page. Someone just tried to nominate it for deletion again... what to you think of this? I lean more toward tring to revise what is there rather than delete it. The wiki should have an article on this topic-- though, the present verson is quite racist and one sided. I hope you'll be a part of trying to fix it. futurebird 20:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That format is certainly more acceptable than the previous one. If the referencing issues can be overcome, than I would have no problem with its inclusion. It will definitely need some very solid references though; with controversial topics like this people will tear any poorly referenced section of an article apart. These articles are already in poor enough shape as it is. (By the way, I'd recommend putting the improved chart into your user space. The admin closing the AfD for IQ by Ancestry could very easily end up deleting it instead of making it a redirect.)--Dycedarg ж 06:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a problem with your note (I did make a slight alteration though to make sure that its clear that you're not proposing keeping it in its current article after modifying it), although I'm not sure how much of a response you'll get. I've noticed that after a couple days AfD discussions tend to die down, and this one was so very one sided that I wouldn't bet that many of the people who voted are checking it for recent developments. So unless people demonstrate a significant problem with the format of your example, I'd recommend just going ahead with it. The major people had with it was the sourcing and format, and if those are fixed I can't imagine anyone having a problem with its inclusion in the main article. Keeping it in the current article though is almost certainly out of the question.--Dycedarg ж 07:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: That's way out of line for you to be nominating an article for deletion and then deleting references and text based on your subjective interpretations of the WP Guidelines. I have reverted your deletion. You may be right about the quality of the references, but this should be discussed. I'm sure that you are working with the best of intent, but as the nominator I see implied bias toward the article. --Kevin Murray 18:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all out of line. I cleaned up a terrible article (which you should have done if you want it kept} and deleted trivial references that failed WP:EL. Bridgeplayer 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen you edit summary where you accuse me of being biased. Please carefully read WP:AGF. Bridgeplayer 22:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I said: "reverted edits by potentially biased editor". Any nominator of an AfD who deletes 2 out of 3 references of the article and about half of the text without discussing it, during an AfD debate seems "potentially biased" at minimum. --Kevin Murray 23:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kevin here that 'Any nominator of an AfD who deletes 2 out of 3 references of the article and about half of the text without discussing it, during an AfD debate seems "potentially biased" at minimum.' FTR, the edit summary is here, the article is Redhouse Yacht Club, and the official discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redhouse Yacht Club.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin

Thanks for the note. To be honest, I can completely understand why it's thought my article should be updated, but if you think it's worth saving, here's some notations.

I was named as one of the most influential people in UK online journalism by the UK Press Gazette in 2006 (ahead of James Murdoch, no less), but the link now seems to be dead.

The story of my return to Yahoo! is told here: http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/recruit046.shtml

You can find a complete index of my articles for the Guardian and Guardian Unlimited [3]

So if this is not enough, so be it. The very last thing I want to do is spam Wikipedia, so if this doesn't meet accepted standards, I completely accept that.

Thanks for paying attention to this, and keep up the great work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lloydshep (talk • contribs) 12:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello. I wish you would stop protecting and encouraging promotional biographies such as Marc Fest, Daniel Terdiman, Gordon Dalbey, etc; it dilutes the quality of writing found here, and it makes it more tempting for self-promoters, PR flacks, and agenda-pushers to use Wikipedia to further their causes. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response at User talk:Wile E. Heresiarch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 06:45, 30 January 2007

I haven't read the other two articles yet, but I strenuously object to your categorization of the Daniel Terdiman biographical article as "promotional".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a vote is necessary at all (see WP:VIE for why it might be counterproductive). It's been discussed; if you want, you can just perform the merge, and people will come in after you and edit the details. Shouldn't be a problem. >Radiant< 12:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I get that, but now we'll get a meta-debate on whether a vote is allowed on the issue, how its results should have been interpreted, and other bureaucratic details. Might I suggest that if/when you're uncomfortable about such a big edit, you create the edit e.g. at Wikipedia:What's that page again/Draft (or User:Kevin Murray/Draft for Somepage) and then tell people, "hey, I've merged it and here are the results. Any comments or objections?" Of course it's your choice about what style of editing you prefer, but things may be easier to accomplish this way. >Radiant< 14:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your text at the top of the merged page says the discussions were merged, but as of now they are not. Do you plan to bring over the discussion at WP:ORG or should we look for an admin to unmerge them? I did not see a consensus at WP:ORG that there should be a merge. Now I have no way to even see if mention was made there of the proposed merge. If you are an admin, please add a copy of the old WP:ORG guideline and its talk page as part of my userpage so I can refer to it in future discussions at the new merged guideline. Thanks. Edison 22:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You posted on my talk page "Parties to the discussion at both pages were notified directly that the merger was close to happening, and the consensus was reached after several days past.." I had written extensively on the talk page and had edited the project page, and I received absolutely no communication from you about the proposed merge. I have copied the discussion to my own offline storage, but I want a copy of the deleted guidelines. The discussion should be brought over to this page if you want it to replace the old page. Are you an admin who can furnish it? You said on the WP:ORG talk page "the vote is now open." I had my head bit off when I suggested a straw poll on another proposed guideline. Votes are not binding, and things are only done by "consensus" whattever that constitutes. I have compared the process to the caucus race in Alice in Wonderland [[4]] to describe how WP:PORNBIO and even WP:N staggered toward becoming guidelines: "they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out The race is over! and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, But who has won? Thanks. Edison 22:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copy of the old guideline. The issue I was involved with was whether a campus paper, (at a school where it has an independent editorial board and a good reputation journalistically, such as Columbia or Havrard) could help to support the notability of an organization (a theater group, a choral group, a band, a performing arts organization) on campus. I had argued that such a paper was not uniquely subject to sympathy or influence to get coverage for an on campus group. A non-campus paper in any town could be influenced to give favorable coverage to organizations supported by the publisher, by politicians, or by large advertisors. I was about to revert to the text proposed by Rossami which said:

"2. Independent student-run college newspapers may be a source for information on campus organizations but additional independent sources are needed to fulfill WP:N. 1 Note 1: "Independent" student-run newspapers are characterized by an independent editorial review board and a policy of editorial review of stories which are written by identified reporters similar to the practices and standards used by The Harvard Crimson or Columbia Daily Spectator. Papers without such standards do not meet Wikipedia's standards as reliable sources." Should I go ahead an add that to the new guideline, or is it unnecessary? What happens the next time a college organization's article omes up for deletion and there is disagreement about whether campus paper articles can count as part of the substantiation of notability, versus the other view that all the campus paper articles in the world contribute nothing toward notability. Edison 22:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitrariness is what disturbs me. I really do not have any vested interest in campus papers or campus organizations, and have been out of college for decades. Would we exclude from notability determination about sports teams the newspapers and TV stations in theri home towns? Or would we exclude the New York Times if it were shown that several of their reporters were too cozy with the subjects of their articles? I just demanded objective proof that the better college papers were less reliable that papers in towns of comparable size to the college community. I know how biased such small town newspapers can be. Edison 01:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin. I've not yet read into this merger thing you've been talking about with Companies & Organizations, but I think it definitely falls within the scope of the Organizations WikiProject. I need a few good coordinators to help me, if you pardon the pun, organize the project. Oldsoul 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for your in-depth reply. After reading through some of those pages you've talked about, I realized how superfluous a lot of those debates have become. Instead of focusing on the micro analyzation of policy, we should all be focusing on the meta-framework for all organizations on wikipedia. Which is exactly what I aim to foster over at the WikiProject mentioned above. I hope you'll find time to read through some of our discussions there, and consider join as a project coordinator. Best, Oldsoul 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I consider corporations to be a subset of organizations? Yes. In my mind, they are by definition, a type of business organization. Yourself? Oldsoul 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to know that there is some consensus on that. Thanks, and look forward to working with you on the Project. Oldsoul 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin. I was wondering if you'd like to get involved in the Business and Economics Project - an awful lot of the articles that have been tagged for B&E are company bios and I'm having a hard time figuring out which ones are notable - I assume most are but very few of them have even one citation that would support it. We could sure use some help. See here.

Also is there a category tag I can use to flag company articles? I looked for one and can't find it. Egfrank 16:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin,

I tend to agree there is little value in those criteria and they are redundant. My only interest was in tightening up the criterion, because it was regularly being referred to in AfDs when there was precious else notable about a company, and I didn't want to start the process of changing the guidelines wholesale.

Akihabara 11:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Original Barnstar for your tireless efforts to improve Wikipedia by helping to make articles about somewhat notable subjects more encyclopedic and well-referenced.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is much appreciated!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, thanks for taking the time for that. >Radiant< 11:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that Bannisdale Beck doesn't contain a word of content?-MsHyde 02:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• An administrator has deleted it. The correct procedure was speedy deletion. I did not know.-MsHyde 08:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If the correct thing to do was speedy delete, why did you not tell me that? And why did you remove the "prod" tag? I have put many tags on today, and there have been only a few complaints. I am not sure I understand the few complaints, either. You removed a tag which gives five days time for fixing, I put the more serious AfD tag up, the article is immediately deleted. You have not replied about Iqbal, either.-MsHyde 08:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you do a Google search for that guy? It's a fairly common name, but nothing comes up for barrister or lawyer. For human rights, there is one hit: "Human Rights in Pakistan - Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary ... I have been informed that, as a last resort, Mr. Khan's lawyer filed a ... On 13 August 2002, in Lahore, Fouzia was shot dead by her brother, Yasir Iqbal. ... www.extrajudicialexecutions.org/ communications/pakistan.html - 196k " I think that article could be a hoax.-MsHyde 03:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made a ridiculous accusation on the article talk page. I have removed a small amount of incidental wordage. I have restructured the article under headings, it now meets WP:MOS, and added cats. Any objective view would see this. The article structure was a bit of a mess and I sorted it out with no sourced material removed. My concern is with the integrity of Wikipedia. I am also fed up with unfounded accusations against me. Any more and I shall take it forward as an incident.

Before you hit the revert button again, please read my version and explain why it is not better. Bridgeplayer 17:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bula Kevin

sorry to bother you just following up to see if you had time to review my article which was AFDed until I get cited sources I have tried to e-mail you to send a copy for you to review, but with no response. maybe I have the wrong e-mail?

was wondering if you were still interested in reviewing? if not thats O.k to, please advise

Thank you Maikeli

MB 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no worries on the time thing I still had a few sources to add but I just wanted you to review the format so far, my sources a very comprehensive so far.

can you e-mail through wikipedia? I just copied your e-mail then used my private e-mail to e-mail you.

now user David Cannon said he has deleted until I find cited and verifiable sources, just out of curosity how long should I wait before undergoing the process to get the article reinstated?

anyway thanks for the speedy reply hope alls well in your end of the world

and in my Langauge 'Loloma Yani' or in english 'Well wishes'.

Thank you Maikeli

MB 22:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work with you if a few others get on board. Like JK for example, and Jamal. This whole process just makes me nervous. Let's see how they feel about it. futurebird 23:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at User_talk:JzG#Deleted articles on Cable Companies. I asked the deleting admin to undelete some of User:Bill Clark's articles tagged during his tantrum, and he adamantly refuses! Dhaluza 00:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, thank you for informing me. Exeunt 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the addition by User:Ed Thatch, a single-purpose editor. From my brief skimming, it's a law suit brought on by the Argent Funds Group (which McMahan owns) accusing McMahan's daughter of stealing computers. These guys are persistent. Exeunt 01:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should Raymarine be moved instead of redirected? From your edit, it seems you feel (and I agree) that perhaps "Raymarine" is the correct entry instead of "Raymarine Marine Electronics". - Davandron | Talk 18:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Murray

Regarding the Bruce McMahan article, I can assure you the unidentified user was correct in stating the florida complaint you post is a document under seal, and its disclosure constitutes an illegal act. Moreover, this complaint IS NOT the work of the Federal Government, as you state. It is a State complaint, and as stated, is under seal. I have removed this complaint, and I respectfully ask you refrain from posting this complaint, as it constitutes an illegal act, which you have now been apprised of by an identified user. Nole7 23:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nole is a single purpose user or sockpuppet. This document, which is the original complaint in the matter is a public record, available through the Freedom of Information Act and published elsewhere on the web. Florida does not have jurisdiction outside of its border even if the claim is true that the case is "sealed", and that the seal is pertinent to document already obtained for publication. --Kevin Murray 06:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin, Just got your message. No I am not the IP address you are asking about. I didn't know my IP address until it was posted, but it doesn't match that one, so I'm not sure what the question is. My edits were removal where a citation was needed, Wikipedia guidelines say remove it immediately if there is any question, don't wait for the citation and removal of one link that is not a verifiable source. Perhaps I didn't explain my edits sufficiently in the space bars, but I did use the terms I thought were the correct ones. I was not vandalizing anything. It seems a lot of people are putting up articles, documents and then they are being removed, especially in the last couple of days. And they aren't being accused of valdalism. I personally haven't posted one document, link, or source, I have only questioned the reasons for this article being on Wikipedia. It is just the nature of the tabloid press that they pick all of this up from a single source, so that doesn't make Dealbreaker.com (bills itself as a Wall Street tabloid)anything more than a sensationalistic link posted first before any positive info about the subjects. It's interesting that court documents are being removed as not pertinent to the article, but the content of the tabloid article is being touted as the important source for the entry. Type Five 17:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Kevin, I found out how to check my IP address, that is not my address.Type Five 17:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I agree with your comment re: "distance learning." Type Five 20:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I will just engender hostile reactions and this will become more of a contentious edit war for Wikipedia. Type Five 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I've done a lot of document editing in my life and I know there are lists of many subjects that need work, what's the best tutorial on here for understanding the process or do you just make your way through the community portal?Type Five 23:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, not that it really matters at this point, but I just discovered that "CabbageFairy" (a/k/a (allegedly) Alison McMahan) did actually "try" to contact you, although for some reason unbeknownst to me, she did it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FireFox Ronstock 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin:

Just wondering why it was you reposted the Kramer article? Is there a source for that bio information outside of the New Times? Seems rather incongruous with your position.Type Five 21:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Type Five[reply]

I think the post by you should be removed by yourself or Guy at this point since you both have such senior status. It's the choice and credibility of the source that is troubling. Perhpas there is a secondary on this to back it up.Type Five 22:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Type Five[reply]

Hi there! When you merge a page, you're supposed to replace it with the redirect, not add the redirect tag to the top. Otherwise it may wrongly appear in category and link lists. HTH! [5]. >Radiant< 17:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest I haven't been paying attention to the debate there lately. I left the debate because it was going in circles. I think it's good to have a guideline on local items, because it's an issue that comes up a lot; I have no particular opinion on the present version. Note that I didn't "last remove the guideline tag". Rebecca changed it from guideline to essay, I restored the "proposed" tag because at that point it was still under discussion.

At any rate - the page appears to have been stable since the end of December, and Rebecca was still editing the talk page by then, and it's linked from {{IncGuide}}, so I seriously doubt it has gone under the radar. As such I would be more interested in arguments over the content of the page (which, by the way, you're free to edit, I'm sure you knew that) than arguments that it has no consensus. If it truly has no consensus, there must be people who disagree with its content, and if there are, it should be possible to discuss that. HTH! >Radiant< 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've dropped a note on the village pump and AFD talk. I'm not going to join the discussion there but I think some others should drop in to comment. >Radiant< 17:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

On the Walnut Creek, CA entry, the external link to Dan Haren's blog was not a "spam link to blog posing as a footnote" but in fact a cited source. The blog is an "official" blog on the MLB website, wherein he notes that he lives in Walnut Creek. I'm not really sure where else you can get a verifiable source of his place of residence (neither the Oakland A's official site nor ESPN's website make any mention of his place of residence - only his birthplace). I know that there are a lot of wikifolks out there who are vehemently opposed to links to blogs, and for the most part I understand, however there are certain instances (albeit few) where a link to a blog may in fact be appropriate. For example, in WP:EL "Links normally to be avoided" #11 on the list is "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority" (italics added). Now the term "recognized authority" is perhaps a little bit ambiguous, but I think that it's safe to say that a major league baseball player's own official blog posted on the Major League Baseball website could reasonably be determined a "recognized authority" when it comes to the player stating where he lives. Without this link, the addition of Dan Haren to the list of Walnut Creek's famous citizens is yet another bit of unverified information. I'd like to restore the link, but I'd rather of course talk about it first before I take any action.

Oh, and one more thing: it's really not necessary to warn me about spamming of articles on my User talk page. I was acting in good faith and I'm sure that there are other, more civil ways to broach the subject.

Thank you,

Spicoli 02:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be interested in the above. Tyrenius 01:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what ways do you feel I've "run amock"? futurebird 21:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way have I "run amock" at all. I have been working with great care and respect for the work of others. I have not deleted anything, and I always try to preserve the changes others add. It really hurts me that you seem to think that I've "run amock" in any way at all. I just need to say that frankly and openly to you.

I feel that also, some of the time, you have been rather dismissive about my concerns about accuracy in things like the Bell Curve Graph. I suppose this may not be an important issue to you, but this issue has a direct impact on the students I teach every day. They see and hear these messages that "they can't make it" and that "they can't succeed" all of the time from every source. I see the impact of that on people's lives. It really hurts people. It can make them give up. It is too much to ask that these articles are clear and accurate? I don't think it is too much to ask.

I hope that you can understand. futurebird 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• FB. I'm the one who has been suggesting that we remove the bell curves. Kevin. --Kevin Murray 02:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FB. I'm the one who has been suggesting that we remove the bell curves. Kevin.

Okay okay okay.

I'm sorry for being so... sensitive. This is so much work and I don't want to do it all myself. But I can't seem to get anyone I know to really dig in and help. It feels like a lonely battle some of the time and I keep my guard up. Possibly a little too much.

This stuff isn't exactly bring out my best side. I don't think we can remove them, though, they are sourced, the source is bad, but it's a source, you know? What can do is put them in proper context.

I just made a new version of the curves with the labels Gottfredson uses in her study. I'm hoping this will cause people to re-think using them as the lead image. What do you think? futurebird 02:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I wasn't trying to make the graph more palatable. I was trying to make it more true to its source. Have you read that paper? It's really disturbing. I think when one encounters disturbing things on the wikipedia the way to address them is to add more information about them. Then people can see for themselves how bizarre some of the ideas really are. You can see this this is one persons view of how the world works, and you can then stop thinking that this is how you ought to see the world because its a "fact" --maybe, I overestimate the ability of the lay public to think critically just as some of the researchers cited in the article under estimate the ability of entire nations to do the same things.futurebird 02:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please weigh in on this IfD [6] futurebird 05:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are not really the right place for all of this, Kevin. My comment was intended for you, not everyone on the talk page.futurebird 03:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comments on my talk page. For the sake of continuity, if you wish to continue the discussion, please leave another comment there. YechielMan 00:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please note that there is not yet consensus to implement the changes which you have here, the opposition which you have faced in doing so really should be a showing of this. Please also be mindful of the three-revert rule, it does apply to project space as well. There's really no need to edit war over this, if it's truly a desirable change, it will reach consensus. However, it's not appropriate to apply while it's being discussed and hammered out and while strong disagreement from multiple editors is still evident. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly all sides are dancing on the foul-line of 3RR. Please read through the recent discsussions and edit history; there is much support for the modification away from "non=trivial" and multiple. The recent revert by Falcon jumps back over quite a few edits by a diversity of opinions. Regardless, we have all worked together smoothly before. --Kevin Murray 14:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to come up with something coherent to change it to, not just say "what we have currently is bad" and then change it to something malformed and unexplained. —Centrx→talk • 14:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your apparent absence, there was discussion where several editors proposed alternatives, a combination of which was posted tot he text after apparent consensus. Then the objections came; so unitl something was changed the discussion was not well attended. --Kevin Murray 18:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the disputed tag. The disputed tag does not mean "There is a problem or deficiency in this guideline that should be fixed or improved", it means "The entire concept of this guideline, in theory and in practice, is disputed." If your concerns would be assuaged by replacing "multiple, non-trivial" with "sufficient, that does not make for a "disputed guideline", that makes for a disputed sentence, and even many such disputed sentences do not make for a disputed guideline. The objections you brought up on the talk page about the removal of the guideline tag were all of this kind. Unless you think that the entire concept of "notability" as being a requirement for Wikipedia articles is wrong, then you do not dispute the guideline, and even if that were your position, there would need to be substantial reason given on the talk page, supported by others, in order for the guideline to be "disputed". —Centrx→talk • 00:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W.R.N.

I removed the statement about only allowing 2 days from the discussion pages of WP:ORG, since a further check did show the merge tag had been up way longer. I just do not want to see a destructive merge (in the form of a mere redirect) done hastily, and in a truly open ended voting process there is a tendency for people to want to solicit votes or even to create puppet voters. With the overall "low voter turnout" in Wikipedia debates that usually has an overwhelming effect. It seems like a week of active discussion should give most interested parties who have the page on their watchlist a chance to contribute. How long do you suggest we leave it open? Also a merge would seem like a happier outcome if those who have put together a guideline could see in a sandbox version what the "merged" guideline might look like. I see some value in the WP:CHURCH proposal, and I just hate to see all that dumped. I note that "church" means a group or a building, a key example being Pilgrim Baptist Church. The Category:Churches in the United States by state specifically refers to buildings. The group meeting there has some notability and the structure does too. It could prove notability on either basis, but I am sure there are some out there which might need some support from sources talking about the building and other sources talking about the congregation to make up an encyclopedic article. Edison 00:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "stop moaning" [7] does that not seem a bit incivil ? I actually respect you and admire your hard work to improve guidelines. I sense the level of frustration, and I'm sorry if I raised it with my recent edits, but please realize that I am also attempting to so organize the notability guidelines as to recognize the consensus of what is said in AFDs and to allow those with varying viewpoints on what should or should not be included as articles to find and codify their common ground. If you read the talk page of WP:CONG you will find that such common ground has in fact been established between those who sometimes come down on different sides of the fence in deletion debates. Edison 00:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a proposal going at WP:N to change "notability" to "encyclopedic suitability" (with "encyclopedic" left implied, but we should be clear on that in the guideline at least!). I started that somewhat by accident actually, but I think it would be a much better term. Really, from what I've seen, real inclusionists and deletionists don't tend to be very far off. I'm all for an article on a school, a Pokemon, or a fictional character-if and only if the subject has good secondary sourcing. If the only source is "I watched the show/read the school's website/read the book and found that...", what we have is probably a good deal of original research. And it's easier to get into then most people think. Let's say one watched Star Wars, and puts into the article "Darth Vader is Luke's father." Already, we're into OR! The only obvious claim from the movie is that Vader states he is Luke's father, as well as Leia's, and that both come to believe him.

On the other hand, if a literary critic or reviewer states h(is|er) conclusion that Vader is indeed Luke's father, and speculates on what was going through Anakin's head when he turned to the Dark Side, we can certainly state that, attributing it to the critic. Basically, what secondary sources do for fiction is let us state more than the obvious. Conclusions may have been drawn about the character's motivations, thoughts, etc., but unless they're spelled out, we can't draw those conclusions. We can, however, see if a reliable source did, and if so attribute their conclusions to them. The same is true of most other articles-it's just far too easy to slip into OR territory without secondary sources to draw from, and impossible to write more than could be found in a directory or plot summary guide (which we are not) without stepping over that line.

That's the main reason I support WP:N as the top standard, and basically the only standard. The proliferation of secondary guidelines might be useful as a list of cases where a subject is likely to pass WP:N. They're not useful (and are harmful) when people construe them as a list of exemptions to the primary requirement-that we summarize sources, period. This also prevents editorial bias-many secondary guidelines have arbitrary standards. (A "large fan base" or "cult following" in WP:BIO? Who decides what's large? Gold records in WP:MUSIC? Why not platinum? Why two? Why not one? Why not five? Why are we deciding?) If we follow WP:N as a primary guideline, we prevent a large degree of editorial bias-because then we do not choose what gets written about. Experts who write reliable sources and are unaffiliated with the subject decide what is appropriate for inclusion, by writing about a subject, or by not. That is as it should be-anything else is an invitation to creeping POV, by deciding that we want articles on Pokemon even if they're not sourced but others hold a grudge against schools even if they're sourced. It drives me crazy either way-people voting (! omitted intentionally) to keep material with no secondary sources in sight or to delete material with plenty of them.

In any case, thanks for your message and thought, and hopefully that's helpful! If you'd like to explain more in depth, please do feel free. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 05:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Notability chart.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You have commented on the AFD discussion for List of films featuring United States Marines, the discussion can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines.

Following support for my suggestion, I have done a userspace rewrite of the article at User:Saberwyn/Films featuring the United States Marine Corps, with the rewritten article in the top half and the current article with annotations as to their inclusion or non-inclusion in the rewritten list.

I would like to request that you review the rewritten article, and if you think it is appropriate, amend your stance at the AFD discussion. -- saberwyn 11:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a shower, and as the steam was hitting I was starting to come to the same conclusion that you seem to have come to. I apologize for my bluntness and snippiness, and promise to keep a more open mind as part of the effort. Please accept my apologies and lets communicate elsewhere than WT:SCHOOLS. Alansohn 22:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, thanks for the explanation. There doesn't seem to be a page for "primary notability criterion" so is it the same thing as WP:N. This Wikipedia jargon can get very confusing sometimes! Dahliarose 14:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you may not realize is that the user, User:Radiant!, who marked the page as a guideline was previously a tough critic of its status as a guideline, and had de-marked the page as a proposal twice (I think) before ultimately agreeing that it is a guideline, so the evaluation has really been going on longer than you think. I am working on a rebuttal to your instruction creep point: basically, the community did not act consistently, and that has been helped by this guideline. I'll add it to the discussion page. Mangojuice^talk 22:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding:

"Competitors in college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles."

I think perhaps we need some more stringent criteria here. As written, any first team college athlete from any college in any sport is notable. During your clean-up (which is much neater, and easier to read!) some wording was removed "at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports." I think this wording helped to support the case that certain college athletes have achievements which indeed are notable, but not EVERY college athlete. El Krem 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to reword it with the same intent & post, but it will take a few hours, & I'll try it on you first if you're on wiki. On your page here. DGG 19:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:DGG/WP_Projects for a small rewording, and a possible general capitulation--please change or comment there. DGG 05:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I replied to your general comment on WP:NOTNEWS indicating you didn't agree with the proposal asking for more specifics. If you could comment on what you specifically disagree with on that discussion page, that would be more helpful than a generic negative comment. Thanks! Dugwiki 21:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a template to use in an AfD, when it has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts (please do list appropriate AfDs there). I think it should go under the article details and above the nom statement, as it is a formal notice and not part of the debate. It will sign your name with date stamp automatically. Please pass on to others.

Mnemonic: List of Visual arts-related Deletions.

Template to use:

{{subst:LVD}}

Result:

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. Tyrenius 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably true that there is still no consensus for WP:SCHOOLS (I haven't looked over it lately), but this is precisely such a controversial area that would strongly benefit from some kind of compromise or consensus. School deletions come up regularly in AFD and DRV and in the past have frequently become shouting matches. Hence, it is an area where, in my opinion, we need a guideline, even if we don't have one yet. As such I would recommend against "closing and rejecting" this discussion.

Regarding WP:BIO, I have promised to stay out of issues regarding that page for the time being. I would suggest you ask User:Uncle G and/or User:Centrx, who have made important contributions to the page as written. >Radiant< 10:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very "crystal ball" for you to be so confident that there will be no consensus on a guideline for churches and congregations, or on the one for news items. By the same token one could claim there is no consensus at WP:N where you and others have added and removed wording. Are you going to slap a rejected tag on it? You can go to any guidelien, argue about the wording, then claim there is no consensus, then slap a rejected tag on it and redirect. I do not see that that is an orderly way to proceed. I suggest that there have been and are AFDs for churches, and that a notability guideline is helpful in having an orderly AFD process and in suggesting to new editors what their article needs to have to be retained. Otherwise every AFD becomes a shouting match. Edison 14:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you talking to me or to Kevin? Sure, you can indeed go to any guideline, argue about it and say that it's non-consensual. That doesn't make you right. The point is that the pages are very different in scope, usability and community support. Because of that, calling WP:CONG rejected is correct, calling NOTNEWS rejected is somewhat dubious, and calling N rejected is simply false. >Radiant< 15:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, Kevin, I would recommend against nominating any guidelines or proposals for deletion. By tradition, we archive those rather than deleting. Also, it may help to be a bit more careful with already-accepted guidelines, as opposed to proposals. >Radiant< 15:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:NOTFILM, I would invite you to express specific problems you have on the talk page. You are probably correct that the current version doesn't have consensus as a guideline, but with work, I think a consensus version could be reached. On the other hand, if this isn't an appropriate area to have a guideline/standards page further work would do little good. Do you believe this to be the case and if so what is the difference between it and the other subject specific guidelines/proposals? I am open to reforming the whole notability guidelines system (this issue has reminded me both of what a mess it is and how it differs from my own preferences) but that is best done in a centralized discussion rather than by cherry-picking off weaker proposals. Eluchil404 12:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've developed great respect for you as well, but that certainly doesn't mean we'll never disagree! I certainly see your point with the film guideline deletion, but generally, such proposals are kept around and tagged as rejected. (See my recent proposal at WP:PRODUS, even though it did not achieve consensus and has no likelihood of doing so in the near future, a few editors have already used it to propose a modified version that might.) That's why I generally consider even rejected proposals valuable-they tell us "We've been over this ground, and people objected for these reasons, if you want to make a proposal in this vein, you need to address those objections." It also tends to prevent endless rehashing, since that way someone else coming up with effectively the same idea can see we've "been there, done that." As to notability itself, I've been growing progressively more disillusioned with any subguidelines to WP:N, and would like to just see us use that single one. I don't think N itself is "disputed", though-that indicates there's a serious question of consensus on the guideline, and the fact that the community at large continues to cite and use it, as well as that it's been used as the foundation of an actual policy (WP:CSD), seems to indicate that there is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title says most of it. I thank you for showing an interest in one of my ideas. I have put a list on my user page to show the basic outlines of the things I am interested in. I'm doing research into those areas, mainly because I want to, and am thinking about posting a few articles. Corrupt one 03:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have shown an interest, per WP:CREEP, in downgrading or tagging as rejected various subject-specific notability guidelines. How about having a look at WP:PORNBIO ? Why wouldn't WP:BIO suffice?Edison 23:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a few days off from following WP:CORP, and hope you can help me: what was the background on the addition of "one substantial" to the primary criterion? Was this to address my concern about Haynes Manuals in the footnote? I am not sure I like that change, (for three reasons: seems to be a dangerous expansion, opens the "what qualifies as "substantial" can of worms, puts WP:CORP out of sync with the other notability criterion, which still all require "multiple"). I can't even tell from the history if you made the change, but I know that you will be able to help me out with the background and logic behind it. Thanks in advance! UnitedStatesian 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this and reply there. Thanks. -- Hoary 00:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Kevin, WP:SCI has about 380 kilobytes worth of discussion, spread over a talk page and three archives dating back to september. How on earth is that "not enough discussion"? >Radiant< 08:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, please stop copy/pasting whole sections of WP:POL onto proposal pages. We know what WP:POL says, no need to repeat it everywhere, WP:NOT a book of law anyway. >Radiant< 09:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you disagree with a merge suggestion, you're supposed to discuss it on the talk page rather than remove the good-faith suggestion. And do I really need to point out that "Regardless, this is the wrong tag ... there are no rules at WP" is self-contradictory? >Radiant< 10:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Radiant! requested a third opinion on the matter of the inclusion or otherwise of the rationale for rejection on a number of project pages. I believe that given you are quoting directly from WP:POL, this is duplication, and is not necessary. However, if you feel that other editors may be in doubt over the matter of why the pages are considered rejected, it may be appropriate to leave a note on the talk pages of the proposals concerned. HTH. Chris cheese whine 10:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, thanks for your attention to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Rubenstein. You were so right I should have gone with my initial gut. I should have sought third-party input rather than trying to judge the case myself, or just ignored it completely. Lesson learned the hard way. I've redacted my comments at the deletion debate. --JayHenry 19:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this current AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity Christian High School (2nd nomination). With no SCHOOL-specific guideline, it is a free for all with every likely part of such a guideline re-argued at each AfD. Edison 00:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's kind of ironic that you're pointing out Agent86 is the lone dissenter at WP:CORP, while you yourself are the lone dissenter at WP:ORG. Food for thought? >Radiant< 09:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, it's not a problem. By the way, the reason guidelines are rarely deprecated is that they're frequently updated. I know several that look very differently from when they were first written. >Radiant< 13:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:CHILD. Despite many objections on the talk page and a long period of inactivity, one user has now decided that "There has been no objection to any of this ... therefore it is a "guideline"". Getting a bit surreal. >Radiant< 10:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you don't have this watchlisted, please do so. The proponent of the proposal now calls the statement that "you can't declare it guideline by fiat" nonsense. Please drop by on that page or its talk. >Radiant< 12:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! >Radiant< 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same issue at WP:YOUTH (which is basically a fork of the above). The author wishes to hide the fact that it is a failed proposal. >Radiant< 15:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with either tag is that editors perceive them as not very nice, and can get upset over them. This is worse for "rejected", so I tend to reserve it for proposals that are really unsalvageable or very bad ideas that everybody hates, and use "historical" for issues that could potentially work but for which debate died down. There's generally no real reason why we couldn't have, say, a notability guideline for software, so if at some point people want to put more work in it they can. On the other hand there's a very good reason why we don't have Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection and similar. >Radiant< 09:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the article could have alot more information and when citing one source try tagging a "ref name" to a citation as shown at WP:FOOT. This should help clear the clutter in the references section. When that is done you can either renominate it at WP:GAN or if you still disagree with it feel free to take it to WP:GA/R. Tarret 21:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im don't know why it won't work for you but you could try the WP:GA talk pages, someone there with atleast point you in the right direction if they can't help you fix it. Tarret 00:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following your contribution to the discussion on football player notability you might be interested in voting on this. Rgds, StephP 10:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finally went and read the policy page and saw what you meant... so sorry about that... I'll be swapping that tag out in the future when I come upon it being used wrongly. Thanks. (→Netscott) 19:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Skookum1 has written about other editors on several discussion pages (which now includes you, me, Hong Qi Gong, and at least one editor without an account) is almost wholly erroneous, frequently incivil, and is based upon a sackful of assumptions of bad faith. Don't mistake it for the views of editors who are properly involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Notability. I, for one, disagree with you strongly on the subject of one source being enough, and think that you are 100% wrong about that, and that any argument supporting the notion will turn out to be flawed and ill-founded upon examination, given that they've done so every time up until now. (Conversely: As far as I can tell, we agree about not having a morass of self-contradictory and arbitrary and ever more finely grained subject-specific notability guidelines.) But I certainly don't regard you in any way as editing in bad faith. Uncle G 21:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD applies. You were WP:BOLD, you were WP:REVERTed, now please WP:TALK about it on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still disputing the status of the page as a guideline, please say so, and why, on the talk page. That's what the tag is for. So far, you've only been disputing specific points, not the guideline status of the page, and in fact, it looked like we had reached a settlement there. If you still want to dispute specific points, there's a section=yes qualifier you want to put on that. Also note that this is exactly what JzG did on WP:N, for the same reasons. I wrote all that on the talk page. Please respond. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment on my RfA. I really appreciate what you said. Danny 15:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't go around tooting my own horn much, but this comment is really blatantly ignorant. In my over 2 years here, I've authored over 200 articles, including two featured articles, three good articles, and a handful more that are close to those benchmarks. Of all my contributions, only one article that I've significantly contributed to has been deleted, and even that was due to a shift in our sourcing standards and was in fact kept two times prior at AfD. I have not created an article that has been deleted, either by CSD or by AfD.

Where am I going with this? It means that a guy who's better suited for "designing guidelines for Myspace or Youtube" knows what the hell he's doing. Meanwhile, you're busy trying to force a template onto pages without discussing it with anyone. So maybe I'm not the one who needs a little work on how to do things around here.

Keep that in mind in the event you want to make such a rude comment to someone in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Jeff chose to delete my response from his talk page, I'll put it here:

I don't disagree that you are probably a great asset to WP as a writer, but I do not think that your comments and proposed policies demonstrate a reasonable vision for a credible encyclopedia. I also think that you prefer the process of debate more than truly seeking solutions, and you are not alone in this. I'm sorry that my comments were offensive to you, but life can be a harsh place and some times we must call a spade a spade. --Kevin Murray 01:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep that garbage here. It doesn't appear my understanding of what goes on is in doubt. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I call upon the two of you to terminate this discussion even in userspace. DGG 02:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm more than done with him. With that attitude, it's only a matter of time before he crosses the wrong person anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does! It's about damn time we streamlined that confusing mass of guidelines. Either there's enough sources to write a decent article or there's not. In the end, that's what it really comes down to, not some arbitrary cutoff of "Well we want to write articles about all of these, but we don't want to see articles on any of these." Really, all the sub-guidelines are is complex variations of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. The sources exist, we can have an article on it, even if we think the topic is ridiculous and silly. They don't, we can't, even if we really think it belongs here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly advise you to refrain from making personal attacks, such as the one you made when calling Badlydrawnjeff an "unscrupulous liar" here. If you do it again, I will immediately block you. FCYTravis 21:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is a good idea to just walk away and engage in some rewarding real world activity for a while, even if you are right and another editor is wrong about some controversy, just to let the hormones subside, so you can express yoiur point without exposure to sanctions. You can also ask another editor to take a look. Edison 21:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a guideline or policy page in Wikipedia which supports your admonition not to alter the text of a proposed guideline which tagged as "Rejected" as at [8]? If such a guideline came back in a new improved version, it might be better to start with some perceived good portion or more accepted kernal of the old proposal and build a new one around that, or to write a new one from scratch, but I can also imagine someone wanting to breathe new life into a proposal which did not gain consensus by revising it and seeking consensus on the revised one. I agree that it could confuse someone if an old guideline tagged "rejected" ceased to resemble the text of the guideline when the "rejected " tag was applied, but some guidelines have been tagged and untagged repeatedly, and anyone can access the history to see the wording at any point in the past. The actual number of editors claiming a "rejected" proposal cannot reach consensus is in some cases only a handful. Similarly, some guidelines currently in use (WP:PORNBIO) were approved by only a handful of editors. There are thousands of active Wikipedia editors, and I can well imagine that over time, as people join or leave the project, there might indeed be a consensus to have a guideline similar to one which failed sometime in the past. The USROADS project has used a newsletter sent to a couple hundred people and an IRC channel to canvass for support in deletion debates, and any other project might use similar tactics to drum up support for a guideline. The one on schools is an example of off-again on-again (off-again?). Edison 21:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment, I could see 2 routes someone might take, if fresh blood and enthusiasm led them to try and revive a "rejected" guideline. 1) From some source such as talk page of IRC discussions, or the discussion page of a project devoted to a subject area, arrive at a determination to create from a scratch a new notability guideline, put up a draft with a title like WP:MALL2 (as an example) and then publicize it at places like WP:N, WP:A and Village pump.2) The other would start basically the same way, but would involve replacing "rejected" with "proposed" and then trying to improve the old guideline to some quality and form which could gain consensus. I do not see much sense in doing editing or revision or small improvements of a stale rejected guideline which has no prospect of a broadbased debate and collaborative editing aimed at arriving at consensus. One exception I might make here would be if the old guideline referrred to some technical standard, such as 800,000 feet per ISCA for a mall to be "superregional" and the industry standard changed to some other number such as 900,000 square feet. It would seem reasonable to update any such definition or standard to avoid misleading passerby. The update could be labelled somehow to indicate it is a technical revision. Likewise a guideline might refer to the website or name of some standards group, like an organization which evaluates schools, or which judges the chart-topping records and if the name or website changed a technical revision might be appropriate. Another approach would be to leave it unaltered while labelled rejected but keep updating info in the talk page. There should not generally be major revisions of a rejected proposed guideline, if the "rejected" tag stuck. One reason for not doing substantial revision to a stale,rejected or historical standard is that few editors are watching it so it could get very whacky with vandal or idiosyncratic edits. I just wondered if there were any rule which would support ruthlessly reverting any edits back to the last version before the "rejected" tag was added, because I could not find any. Edison 22:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement and attempting help me keep up with the debate. I'll try to give the debate some consideration and input before it closes. Thanks again. -MrFizyx 03:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failte romhat! and welcome to the WP:IR. How active do you think you are going to be on this project or is it well down your list of priorities?--Vintagekits 09:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me whence you take the authority to deprecate a year-old guideline? If you believe that process wasn't followed in creating said guideline, please point out where this process that wasn't followed is officially defined. Thank you. >Radiant< 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that you're not, because the proposal was accepted as a guideline in February, 2006 (and also, that wasn't my action, but Inshaneee's). >Radiant< 15:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have it backwards: you don't make a guideline by taking some page and putting a tag on it. Rather, you add the tag to pages that are already a guideline. Check the page history, discussion, and Inshaneee's comments. I note that you still have made zero arguments with respect to the content of the page, which is what matters. You allude that what happened here is out of process, but if it really is out of process you must be able to point out where this process is defined. Otherwise you're basically asking that we comply with a rule that may make a lot of sense to you, but nevertheless you made up. See also WP:NOBOOK. >Radiant< 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see your opinion, following your contributions on the talkpage of WP:BIO. If international player does not mean notability, then I am wondering why this article will be kept. User:KRBN 20:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template says: "The template below has been proposed for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do. ›'"

There is no template below. Ergo, this template is redundant? Could you please explain why I'm wrong here (as you should have done in the edit summary in the first place)? Also, I made two edits, so reverting both was an example of the outrageous arrogance displayed here against anonymous editors. --91.148.159.4 17:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the template was supposed to mean "the text below is disputed", then I'm sorry, but I'm not the one who misunderstands it; you're the ones who've picked the wrong template. And that's not an excuse to simply remove the disputed text (which happens to be the essence of the guideline) and leave the remaining bit meaningless. The version you are reverting to contains about fifteen lines of definitions of words which are only contained in the sentence that you are removing. --91.148.159.4 17:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wrote the above before reading your response on my talk. However, I still don't understand anything. If there is a dispute about what the template should say, then why include it in the article at all? I'm telling you, with its present text, it's meaningless for any reader who is not involved in your dispute/edit war/whatever. --91.148.159.4 17:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was my mistake that I didn't see how the template works. I still think it is a bit difficult to read/notice in this form. --91.148.159.4 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your last remark, I'm sorry, but I see this as your persisting in your arrogance - not that it's something specific to you; after all this type of wiki racism is the most common attitude here. Everybody decent ought to respect my opinions, read my edit summaries, and try to understand what I'm saying rather than revert me without an edit summary, regardless of whether I'm registered or not. What matters is what is being said, not who says it. --91.148.159.4 17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I've got it (sorry for answering so slowly). Peace. Have a nice day! --91.148.159.4 18:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just updated the tasks template - {{Irish Republicanism tasks}} - which by no means has everything that needs doing but it's a good place to start. The Chronology one should be simple enough, as it doesn't require you to hunt for sources or anything. Otherwise just take a look at Category:WikiProject Irish Republicanism articles and see if there's anything you can improve. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd put this where you'd see it quickly in case there's more, and didn't want to fix it for fear of edit conflicting you. The phrase "and a part of the County." doesn't need a capital, it's only when county precedes the name of a county. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃

Please take a look at my reference to said essay at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Chiang. Does that seem like an appropriate way to relate the views in the essay when they seem to have bearing on a deletion debate? It is easier than the roundabout way I had to refer to it as a "former proposed guideline now labelled as "rejected." No claim is made that it has force, but someone wiill doubtless point that out. Edison 22:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have referred to it in a few AFD's noting that it is an essay which expresses the views of several editors that there should be a distinction between things which are encyclopedic in their notability and things which are newsworthy in the short term. Edison 00:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush for this, just if you get a minute. It's from the Provisional IRA article, and it's something largely obvious but I've not been able to source it, possibly due to my ignorance of which American media outlets would provide the information needed.

U.S. support has been weakened by the War against Terrorism^{[citation needed]}, and the fallout from the events of 11 September 2001.^{[citation needed]}

You'd think it would be easy, but I couldn't manage it. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was thinking something more along the lines of opinion polls or something of that nature as well though. I didn't keep up will all the laws and regulations that were introduced, but I remember plenty were introduced to do with funding, so I'm thinking NORAID may well have been hampered by them. I'm not sure whether the article refers to financial support, or just support for IRA cause in general. You'd expect support for the IRA to have decreased among the Irish-Americans except for possibly the more hardline people, but it's sourcing it that's proved difficult. It's easy for me to do the UK/Ireland details as I know which publications are best to look in for various pieces of information, I'm slightly clueless where to start looking with American publications. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found two sources anyway [9] [10], but thanks for the help. When I get some spare time over the next couple of days I'll try and update the tasks template, there's plenty of articles I've never had chance to have a proper look at to see what needs doing with them. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't doubt that you mean well and do a lot of good work here. >Radiant< 12:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you wrote on my talk page, Please look at WP:EPISODES. Is there anything in particular you would like me to look at? --Strangerer (Talk) 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at my talk page. Mangojuice^talk 15:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an additional comment at the discussion page (and slightly modified my recommendation), but am still not entirely convinced that the template ought to be kept. I've explained my reasoning in greater detail in the comment, but essentially I have two issues with the template.

1. I think its existence is premature until there is consensus for a wording at WP:N.
2. Even if you do not transclude the template, others still may.

I think we are essentially in agreement that WP:N ought to be the primary notability guideline and may be supplemented by sub-guidelines as necessary. However, I don't think its possible to try to establish such a structure until/unless we are able to reach consensus at WT:N. If/when that happens, I think we can and should recreate the template in an effort to standardise across all sub-guidelines. -- Black Falcon 17:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore the trolling. Constant correction of trolls is unnecessary. --Dragonfiend 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at Template talk:Rejected - jc37 19:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking pretty good, but the sooner your sig is removed from the article the better LOL. There's no rush for the rest of it doing. If you're after something to do next I could recommend the Molly Maguires. At the moment it doesn't have a lead which is rather important obviously. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It honestly doesn't look that different from the current version, a few minor differences. I think it's really funny that I want to say this, but I actually think your change violates WP:CREEP -- why go into such length trying to define how much sourcing or what quality of sourcing, et cetera: the current version seems fine, and (basically) reflects reality. I will look into things more carefully later. Mangojuice^talk 02:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that. I guess I wrote my edit summary that way because I was a part of the discussion, and it got a bit heated, and while I think the rejected tag will stand, I kind of wanted to do it in a mild-mannered way. The thing is, in my view, the policy as written is impossible. But some of the discussion on the talk page brought up some good points. I don't think those points had the right advocates -- there was a lot of fuzzy thinking and accusations, etc. Basically, I was trying to say (perhaps I didn't do it well, long edit summaries are weird to write) that if someone else (not previously involved in the discussion) came along, with some clear-thinking arguments and the will to rewrite the proposal into something meaningful, I wouldn't revert. Also I wanted to leave it so some of the editors who I essentially agreed with on most, though not all, points, could reopen the discussion or try to rewrite the policy if they had more to say. Rejection of a policy requires consensus, and my argument was already that the policy should be rejected, so I'm hardly impartial. I believe it reflects consensus, but I was trying to tread lightly... See why I couldn't say all this in an edit summary ;). Dina 15:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a go at teamwork, fine, I'm working in good faith here. If you want to head down the road you've been going down the last month, we can play that game too. I prefer the former, so don't force it to go nuclear and let's get the ball rolling at the talk page and we can resolve it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]