User talk:Andrewa/archive10

''This is an archive page. Please don't update it. All new discussion should go to User talk:Andrewa. TIA Andrewa (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)''

Proposed deletion of Regal Manufacturing Company
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Regal Manufacturing Company, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Article which does not refer to any specific company and serves only to provide a place for people to put spam links.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Reentrant tunings
I like the idea of organizing the Reentrant tuning concept, however I think a Category isn't the way to do it. I suggest you consider creating an article "Reentrant tuning" and within the article listing those instruments which use reentrant tuning. That way they'd be in context, and the concept itself would be explained. As it is, Ukulele isn't really a "Reentrant tuning", but an instrument which uses reentrant tuning. And Category:Instruments using reentrant tuning is a bit of an arbitrary category. Think about it and see if making an article Reentrant tuning is more workable. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help with such an article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, I overlooked that you had the actual Reentrant article too. I still think that as an actual category it's excessive. I'm not an expert on woodwinds, but at least Category:Transposing instruments seems to have some conceptual commonalities, whereas banjo and uke don't really have anything in common besides having a high string after the low strings. Don't get me wrong, I 100% thing there should be an article about Reentrant tuning, I just think that it's a very narrow category that groups together items which have one small feature in common. It's like how having a category for two-stroke motorcycles makes sense, but having a specific category for "Motorcycles with Watkins-type pulley brakes" would bring together a bunch of unrelated models that happened to have that feature. The downside of having lots of categories (as opposed to plentiful wiki-links) is that it starts crowding the category section at the bottom of the page, whereas the other current categories are pretty vital to the definition of the Ukulele. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Backstage Pass: Powerhouse Museum
-You are recieving this message because you are listed as interested in wiki-meetups in Sydney-

The Powerhouse Museum will be giving Wikimedia Australia members (and friends) a personal tour through their collections - much of it not on public display. They'll take photos for us and give us access to their curators. Afterwards, they give us a meeting room and we help improve articles about their items. 20people Max.

Would you like to come along?

Signup and learn more here: www.Wikimedia.org.au/wiki/backstage pass

Date & Time: Friday the 13th of March @ 10am. BYO laptop. Where: Powerhouse Museum, Ultimo. map

Hope to see you there, Witty Lama 05:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to see you can come! I've added you to the attendance list. Did I understand correctly: you can't see this page: http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Backstage_pass ?? It's a publicly viewable webiste, just not a publicly editable one. So you should be able to see it, unless I'm getting something wrong somewhere... Witty Lama 05:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Activedi.jpg
Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image had been tagged with the Copy to Wikimedia Commons template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:Activedi.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 6 star rank
As you are a regular editor of the 6-star article here's a heads up on a CsD. I was initially going to AfD the article for WP:OR and no WP:RS that supports the page but then found it had been recently deleted with the discussion at Articles for deletion/6 star rank and so CsD for the same reasons. I'd advise moving the article to within your user space so that you can continue to work on it and to give you time to develop an argument as to why it should exist as an article. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 06:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Move
I left you a reply at Talk:A World to Believe In. ~Moon~ 月 と  日の出  ~Sunrise~ 18:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain
I do not understand your position here. Are you saying that Google News and Google Scholar should not be used to help determine whether there is a primary topic?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Andrewa (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why not respond to all the results I provided from Google News and Google Scholar?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Because our earthly life is finite. I can't fix everything in Wikipedia that could be fixed, or answer everything that could be answered, and don't try to. I don't find the case convincing on balance, but others might. Good luck. Andrewa (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that life is finite. Therefore I don't oppose what other editors are doing unless I can give some reason.  You say that you don't find the case convincing, but you don't say why.  This is frustrating, because I have no idea what your reason is.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you don't like my conclusions, or agree with my reasons, but I have given them. Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You gave no clue why you think the primary topic for the term “Emoluments Clause” is not Article I, Section 6, Clause 2.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the evidence supports there being a primary topic. I thought that was clear. Andrewa (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You did not say why. No one presented any opposing evidence.  The evidence I presented was clearly overwhelming (including Google News searches, Google Scholar searches, and a quote from an unrebutted relibale source).  Next time you're involved in one of these disambiguation issues, please try to discuss instead of making bald assertions.  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)