User talk:Brentt/Archive1

Archive 1 5 September 2005 - 3 June 2008

Welcome to the lion's den ;-)
Hey, welcome to the AA article! I've been with it for a while, and seen my share of drama... It's nice to have another skeptic there! Thanks for going back and signing your comments on the Talk page. That makes it a lot easier to keep track of who said what!

Also, for a little background on the controversy... I haven't see any posts by Marcus in ages, but he's been very helpful in providing pro-AA material. He clearly is a fan, but he's doesn't seem adverse to the idea of including criticisms at all like some other, newer participants are.

I know that I, for one, have gotten pretty "emotionally charged", so to speak, at some points in the discussions. I've found it very helpful to then take a day or two off from this article to calm down and collect my thoughts so I don't post anything that would only lead to a virtual screaming match instead of actually being productive. The week I was on vacation with no computer access was great :-) I don't know you, so I don't know if you're totally cool and collected or prone to getting into fights.  But if you stick around long enough to get steamed, I hope you take my advice and be careful in your wordings so that you don't accidentally piss off anyone who's less skilled at staying cool when tempers flare, and take breaks when things get too intense because things aren't very productive at such times.

Anyway, I'm glad to have you here! I hope I haven't come off as patronizing in any way, because that's not what my intentions are. I'm just sharing what I've learned myself though trial and error in this and other articles (and non-wikipedia debates) over the years. For all I know, you've been around the block a few times too, and don't need to be told any of this. But newcomer or veteren, it looks like you have the potential to be a great help in this article! Welcome aboard! --Icarus 19:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Martin Gardner
Hello! You wrote in Scientific skepticism that Martin Gardner died recently. I couldn't find any info on that. Could you please change the Gardner article or give a source?

Thanks. --Hob Gadling 11:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Appeal to authority
Hi, I wrote a response to your statement on the Pseudoscience talk page.I thought that you would benefit from the correction, you don't appear to be active on the page much anymore so I thought I'd repost it here. This is in response to you claim that referencing physicians is an "Appeal to Authority". (I don't mean to come off as hostile, from reading your web-page it seems we might have a lot in common.):

If you would have paid closer attention in your Classical Logic courses Apeal to Authority is not a fallacy. What you are thinking of is Appeal to Improper Authority which is considered a fallacy. For example "dentists generally agree that Einstien's Theory of Relativity has been well confirmed by experiment" would be an Appeal to Improper Authority, even though the claim referenced is probably true, whereas "physcists generally agree that Einstien's Theory of Relativity has been well confirmed by experiment" is an Appeal to Proper Authority. Both are Appeals to Authority but only the former is fallicious (even though claim being supported is the same). If all Appeals to Authority were to be considered fallicious just about every single scientific paper ever written would have to be considered fallicious, as referencing the work of other scientists, i.e. authorities on a subject that the author may or may not be familiar with,and most always not nearly as familiar as the person they are referencing, is ubiquitous and necessary in science, as we can't all study every aspect of such a broad subject as physics or medicine.

Also note, as someone has already pointed out, if all Appeals to Authority were considered fallicious you would have no argument yourself, as the idea that Appeals to Authority are fallicious comes from your misunderstanding of logic, which is a field I'm assuming your not very familiar with yourself since you don't understand the different kinds of appeals to authority, and therefore you are obviously appealing to authority (authority which you apparently misunderstood).--Brentt 04:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note, which may not have been hostile but was certainly condescending and in fact wrong.


 * It is in fact a fallacy to say that "the medical community agrees that X is true; therefore it is true." It is not a fallacy to say that the medical community agrees that X is true, if it can be demonstrated that the medical community agrees that X is true.  I agree that "appeal to authority" is a rather misleading term; it may be that we can agree that it would be fallacious to either make improper appeal to authority or make an appeal to improper authority.


 * But this is the case with all fallacies - they work because they bear a resemblance to valid arguments.


 * The problem with the pseudoscience article is that those who are trying to write it seem to believe that if a certain number of people, so called "experts" label something a pseudoscience, then it must be a pseudoscience. In fact, pretty much any authority on anything you can imagine has - and in all likelihood continues to be - dead wrong on some of their tenets, and any honest expert will admit as much.  (Though he/she will also say the problem is that they don't know what they're wrong about and must do their best on the basis of imperfect knowledge.)  --Leifern 19:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I plan to avoid adding anything to the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2005_French_riots

I don't like rumors that make a bad situation worse especialy when they are originaly spread for selfish reasons.

glad to know there are other skeptics out there.

grazon 07:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

American bison?
Hello; Your comments regarding the article are applicable to almost every other article in the Wikipedia. If you can point out what in particular you think needs support, we can try to address it. Else, the tag does more harm than good. Haiduc 03:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ghorban Tourani
I have removed your clean up tag. If you feel the style needs changing, do so (as you did with the date - which you quite inexplicably americanized). Thanks Refdoc

The article is short. The main notability is the death/murder. I am not sure what you feel needs cleaning up here. Refdoc 09:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

s11
Your comments were not appreciated, nor was your editing. Please can you undo all of your editing on the above article, and restore its previous well-researched content. The article took over 25 hours to write, and was a collaborative act that was requested via 9/11 conspiracy theories. As has been explained, there is no direct evidence of it, which is due to a Central Intelligence Agency effort at the end of 2001 to destroy all evidence disputing the official story. This is one of many stories therefore that, without the help of the CIA, cannot be stated directly. Nonetheless, it is such a powerful story that it was felt by Wikipedians that this one needed to be stated, and there was enough secondary evidence to prove without any doubt that the primary evidence does exist.

Your edits have destroyed all of this work.

Let me assure you that this was not invented last week. It has been a well established theory since September 11, 2001 itself. It has just been covered up.

Now, I am going to assume good faith and suggest that your agenda was not to cover up a truth, and that you were simply misguided. But please restore all of the information that you destroyed. Thank you. And if you wish to change something, please do so with consensus, don't just go about making enormous changes to something. Thank you.

And if you think that this should be destroyed, then please see 9/11 conspiracy theories for why you should not. Thank you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 13:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: see the s11 ''talk page to see why I "destroyed" all Zordrac's work. I was trying to make sense out of nonsense, but he apparently thought I was part of the CIA coverup team, because I was trying to remove his clear case of original research, nonsensical original research at that, from the article.''--Brentt 09:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo-science Pejorative
"Why did you remove this sentence: 'Terms such as "alternative" and "non-orthodox" express the same concept without being  pejorative.' It seems a fair, and probably widely held, criticism. [...]"? Because it's a criticism, not an objective fact, and needed to be written as such and cited. I think that disapproval is inherantly part of the word; a quote from the article:


 * Pseudoscience, in contrast, is characteristically lacking in adequate tests or the possibility of them, occasionally untestable in principle, and its supporters are frequently strident in insisting that existing scientific results are wrong. Pseudoscience is often unresponsive to ordinary scientific procedures (for example, peer review, publication in standard journals). In some cases, no one applying scientific methods could disprove a pseudoscientific hypothesis (that is, untestable claims have been made) and failure to test and disprove these claims is often cited as evidence of the truth of the pseudoscience.

alternative and non-orthodox do not express the same concept.--Prosfilaes 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Alfred Kinsey
You removed this paragraph from Alfred Kinsey with a single sentence of justification in the edit summary.
 * Alfred Kinsey's two volumes became the manifestoes of sexual revolution and the counterculture. However, That was not the intention of the scientist from Indiana. Kinsey, himself, was a life long Republican, and his research was sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation, established by the moderately conservative Rockefeller Family.

I disagree with this edit for two reasons: The paragraph doesn't explicitly state that he was conservative, just that he was a member of the Republican Party (which is verifiable and factual, and could be ) and that he did not intend the massive social change that his papers caused (also can be verified (or refuted) with sources). Perhaps the "manifestoes" part could be re-worded, but I think it's certainly important to acknowledge the social effects of the reports. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I'm re-inserting the text, because I think it's removal takes away from the article, and possibly compromises the NPOV. --TexasDex 07:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the discussion page:
 * Regarding this paragraph:
 * Alfred Kinsey's two volumes became the manifestoes of sexual revolution and the counterculture. However, That was not the intention of the scientist from Indiana. Kinsey, himself, was a life long Republican, and his research was sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation, established by the moderately conservative Rockefeller Family.


 * It seems that whoever wrote this was trying to imply, by pointing out that Kinsey was a Republican, that he was conserative. This is an anachronistic implication, most people who held what today would be considered liberal and progressive viewpoints were Republican because the Republican party back then were the most supportive of liberal and progressive causes(for example civil rights legeslation was almost always championed by Republicans and zealously resisted by Democrats.) The situation changed in the 70s when a idealogical reorientation took place across party lines, thats when the most conservative element of the then conservative Democratic party crossed to the Republicans--the reason why Republicans are the conservative party today. Republicans have always been fiscally conservative, but being a Republican was the only option back then for a liberal and progressive minded individual.


 * And because the Rockefeller foundation was founded by a moderately conservative family does not mean that people they funded were conservative. Point being Kinsey was most likely not a conservative and I am going to delete this misleading paragraph.


 * And perhaps more egregious part of the paragraph, the reports were not a manifesto. They may have played a part in the coming of the sexual revolution, but a manifesto implies that this was the purpose of the reports, which it was not.  --Brentt 07:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Phrenology as Protoscience
This section is silly. Phrenology only bears the most superficial resemblance to modern neurology, and even that is a stretch. Yes, its been quite well established that personality is a function of the brain; but thats quite different from saying skull shape offers any glimpse into personality--and the nearness of the skull and brain offers absolutely no basis for saying that the ideas of phrenology were incorporated into neurology, as seems to be the unstated premise of the section. This section was not worth its page space--I think most people would agree aside from the person who wrote the section. Atleast be more specific as to what ideas were incorporated. (the gall area thing doesn't count, a chance nearness to broca's area means nothing.) I'm confident if pressed to be mores specific little can be said for the idea. --Brentt 21:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think that phrenology is a silly, outdated idea. However, I don't think that means this section needs to be deleted. I think the section is fairly NPOV, and if you disagree, why not edit it instead of delete it?
 * Many totally wrong ideas have contributed to science, and this deserves mention: I believe one of the first people to seriously research EEG was in fact looking for evidence for telepathy. If it is factually correct that phrenology was the first to claim localized brain activity, and the fact that emotion takes place in the brain, then why not mention it? As to the language faculty, that seems like a fairly minor issue to me, but I believe that this sentence just serves to point out how wrong the theory was: out of all the faculties suggested, only one was even close to being correct. The way I see it, this sentence reduces the credibility of phrenology, rather than increasing it.
 * Anyway, not wanting to start an edit war, I did not revert your deletion yet -- but I hope you revert it or at least replace it with something more to your liking. --Zvika 13:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't say phrenology was a silly outdated idea (that goes without saying). I said that section was silly and was original research--or atleast I suspect its original research (it certainly was not sourced). Its probably true that many wrong, and even pseudo-scientific, theories have contributed to science. But that doesn't mean phrenology did. There is little connection between modern neurology and phrenology, (aside from the fact that some authorities think that many conclusions reached by people studying fMRI scans are little better than phrenology, but thats the reverse of what the paragraph I removed was saying.) --Brentt 02:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever. It seems that if you really want to get rid of the BS in that page you're going to have to do a lot more than remove that paragraph. See for example the recent changes: some people are perfectly serious about this stuff. I went through a session of cleaning it up a couple of months ago, and it's starting to get cluttered with nonsense again. I give up; I will stick to noncontroversial topics from now on. --Zvika 17:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Anneliese

 * ''Eventually, Anneliese's knees were destroyed through obsessive genuflection forced by the demons' orders, which she couldn't defy. She died at age 23, acording to witnesses finally freed from the demons, after the last exorcism made on her. The autopsy report said that her death was caused by the malnutrition and dehydration that resulted from almost a year of semi-starvation. Other theories suggest she might have suffocated due to side-effects of the powerful drugs she took.

Ok, there are apparently two main POVs in this story which we need to avoid pushing. The "natural cause" POV, and the "supernatural cause" POV. The first removal I made,i.e. removal of the phrase "forced by the demons orders which she couldn't defy", is clearly needed as it implies that she was in fact possessed, and therefore is supernatural POV pushing.''

The "according to witnesses" mitigates somewhat the POV pushing of the second edit so I suppose strictly speaking its not contentious that the people thought they saw that she was "freed".

The last sentence I got rid of because it sounds like original research. The only reliable source we have of the natural, or from the supernatural POV the way in which the demons apparently killed her, cause of death is the autopsy report. If there is a reliable source for that speculation then it should be included. Otherwise it sounds like original research. That being said, I'll leave it for now since it is controversial whether the fact that a piece of information is unsourced is enough reason to delete it. Although its a bit of a superflous speculation as the natural cause of death seems to be established.

So I'll leave the last two contentious sentences, and get rid of the first "forced by the demons, which she couldn't defy" as it seems to be pretty clear that it is supernatural POV pushing, and doesn't really add any information which can't be inferred by someone predisposed to the supernatural POV. I hope this is a good compromise. --Brentt 22:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Brentt and thanks for your involvement in the creation of this article. Just a short note now - the "other theories" I was talking about is, among others, the theory of Felicitas Goodman, presented in her book investigating the case. I'll back it up with more details when I find a spare moment. Regards. --MichelAngelo 11:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
I've spent some time on wikipedia trying to clean up the nonesense of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists (I gave up on this page, because it was me against a couple others who were adamant that a hanging google link was damning evidence of CIA conspiracy, and any evidence that contradicted their postion was just part of the CIA conspiracy and therefore shouldn't be in the article). That being said, your description of the 9/11 Truth Movement on the pseudoscience page was way POV:


 * 9/11 Truth Movement: hack and insubstantial scientific methods used to disprove the factual account of the destruction of the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

While I myself would not hesitate to call them hacks when speaking of them, because there is no problem with myself having a POV, when we are editing wikipedia we have to try and not use language like that, because of the whole NPOV thing ya know?

As a general rule of thumb, if you can tell which side of the argument the editor stands by their contribution, it wasn' written in NPOV language. --Brentt 01:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. I think your edit is superior to mine.  Thanks.  Morton devonshire 18:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
David Duke? Thanks, man. Very discourteous of you. Levine2112 18:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Hi Brentt,

You may find this interesting in light of the pseudoscience discussion:

-- Fyslee 21:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * HomeoLinks
 * The Memory of Water

Full-On
I thought it was pretty uncontroversial that "full-on" is a subgenre, or style, of psytrance. "Driving basslines" would be a start I guess (although someone once said "describing music is like dancing to architecture"). Frequent uses of "reverberation, pitch shifting, and filtering..." is not much better than saying "Full-on frequently uses sound", as just about every modern music uses "reverberation, pitch shifting, and filtering", not even just electronic music (you'd be suprised at how many professional singers can't sing on key, hence pitch shifting) and EQ is filtering, HP and LP filters have been used since edison cylinders, and reverb is just something you can't really record music without (and has also been artificially simulated since edison cylinders). --Brentt 09:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Brentt I agree with you, but it is something that hard-core Psychedelic base is going to complain and whine about. I really can't tell the difference between the styles. That's why a musciology reference is important. I do know that full-on uses a lot of DSP effects. Yes, it's true a lot of music does, but not in the abundance that Full-On does. It is very noticeable especially with a pair of headphones on. I have little time to discuss this, but we can continue this discussion in a few days. -- HotshotGG 22:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC).

Response?
Hey Brentt, you didnt respond at Please be careful when blocking. I thought it might be connected with the disgruntled imposter who created User:Moriori. (note the fullstop after Moriori), but no, that can't be right because he wouldn't have had the facility to block you. Moriori 23:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: inflammatory comment on Coulter's talk page
Well, I'm not entirely sure the comment was inflammatory in intent (though it certainly is in effect). Shortly before that comment was posted on the talk page, someone had edited the article to call Coulter a "cunt" (which happens fairly frequently). Perhaps they were trying to bring this to other editors' attention. Or, perhaps they were simply being facetious or offensive. I don't know and I'm not really sure I want to judge that.

By the way, I don't mind your removing my reply. Whatever works. Take care, Kasreyn 09:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Person!
I was the one who corrected the paranthetical rantings by Cyclopath (?) You must have mistaken me for him. --Sampo Torgo 08:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Woops, sorry. Brentt 08:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Policing of Burning Man Article
You rock! &mdash; X S  G  05:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Talk
Hello Brentt, please come and give your opnion here at the entry titled proposed change to the article. Thanks. Bagginator 10:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ottawa Psy-trance/Burner
Sorry about the delay in the reply... I myself am not in the psy-trance community, but know a few people who are. Is it Leslie or Jen? --Waterspyder 00:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I know her from bellydancing, and then from Burning Man. Ottawa only has 200 people. The rest are there for background shots.

Trust the mathematicians: they are smarter than you
The .999... thing is more relavant to math education than what working mathematicians actually do. Its a topic that highlights the clash between initial intuitions about numbers and sound theory. The reason why this topic is ever discussed, almost solely by math educators, has little to do with what .9999... equals (its indisputably 1), its about the reluctance of students to let go of intuitive concepts which don't work in theory. It is important that students grasp what .9999... means (or any infinite expansion) because if they can't grasp that, then they won't be able to grasp limits. And if you can't grasp limits, then your pretty much not going to be able to grasp a good portion of math and science (including the math and science that is responsible for your computer--in other words, mathematicians "wasting" time on this stuff, has given you the ability to "waste time" making yourself look stupid to mathematicians that are wasting their time reading stupid comments made by people ignorant of math on wikipedia). Brentt 02:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I already knew that a lot of mathematicians are arrogant, condescending, lacking in humor and socially disfunctional, but thanks anyway for the additional reminder. You stick to low-paid mathematics-related work and I will stick to working towards something more prestigious, more worthwhile and better paid. Deal?Golfcam 02:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Bordering on personal attack there (1. Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life." 2. Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.) Gdo01 03:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm actually not a mathmatician. I wouldn't have been so pompous as to say "they are [I am] smarter than you." Math is a hobby for me. Its an interest I have, like some people have interests in say, spy novels. I hope you have a good life, always making sure your doing something "worthwhile" and "workign towards" something prestigous (word to the wise, if your going to look down on others for not being where you want to be, alteast wait until your actually there). While mathematicians in their "low-paid" work (like actuaries and economists--applied mathematicians) waste their time figuring out fundamental crap that allows them or other people to figure out how to make your car go, and your cell phone work, so you can talk and mingle with your o' so prestigous friends. Many university mathematicians will be quiet content I'm sure with their low-paid work teaching your kids how to have some serviceable reasoning skills--your probably going to need someone to do that for you after all.Brentt 04:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Flaking
There is no way I would know from descriptions alone. Your dentist would know you well enough to know the problem and hopefully tell you directly what he thinks it is. Loss of tooth structure apart from caries and anything developmental usually comes in the form of abrasion, abfraction, erosion, and attrition. Erosion comes from sucking on lemons or exposing teeth to acidic environments regularly. Abfraction is usually along the gumline. That leaves two things: abrasion, which is loss of tooth structure from heavy forces from things like toothbrushes or toothpickes, and attrition, which is loss of tooth structure from grinding your teeth. Grinding your teeth at nite or during the day can thin out the edges of your teeth, the tongue side of your upper front teeth can be greatly affected. That may be a possibility you can mention to your dentist. If none of those reasons are the cause, then I would not know any other possibilities without again thinking of something developmental. I hope you figure out specifically the cause. That way, you and your dentist can help you prevent anymore loss of tooth structure. - Dozenist talk  23:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your Personal Attack
Your statement on this edit where you said "Dark Tea is pretty much a nut" is against Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks which suggests not to call other users names.Dark Tea 20:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed it immedietley to a not-so-personal attack. So go to a white power rally or something and leave me alone. Brentt 00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

theory
when you search wikipedia for "germ Theory" you find that it is presented as a theory. when you search for "theory of gravity" you find that is presented as a theory, when you look up Creation you find it is called a belief, but when you type in "theory of human evolution" you get nothing. Human evolution is a theory, a belief and a religion. it is a myth and its adherents promote it by calling it scientific. it has no basis in reality, has never been proven by scientific methods and the fossil record does not back it up. those clinging to it will grasp any straw as evidence, no I mean as "proof" of its surety. It is common in the religion of human evolutionary theory for its adherents to speak of non believers as less enlightened or undereducated (stupid) people who need someone (a god)to tell them what to think and do.It is by all scientific standards impossible for even one of the many proteins necessary for life to have assembled itself from primordial goop. the odds are 10 to the 40th power. impossible, yet those having faith in evolutionary theory say it may be impossible but here we are so it must have happened anyway. Kljenni 20:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

USMC
Hrm. As you seem to take an interest in it previously, the same user blanked the section about criticism of the USMC discussion, though this time he did replace it after blanking with a small blurb. Narson 15:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Peacock term
What's a peacock term you mentioned on the systolic geometry page? MK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Katzmik (talk • contribs) 11:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Article on Matrixism: an Entheogenic Religion
There is an article on a entheogenic new religious movement called Matrixism being created at User:Xoloz/Matrixism. There are numerous sources for this article yet it has because contentious because it deals with the subject of entheogens. Thought you might like to look at it and perhaps contribute. 206.124.144.3 05:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Weasel word
No, because "some" as you use it has no attribution whatsoever. I think your point is that not all conspiracy theorists believe such, so what you should have done is said "some conspiracy theorists". MSJapan 02:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words
Thanks for the tip. For that matter, the whole section (even article) needs an overhaul and more sources! I'm hoping to give it some in the near future (the home page is, after all, filled with links to valid media sources). Meanwhile, thanks for pointing me to the right part of the Wiki policy on this one. Deramisan 00:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Deramisan

Pound (mass)
You added an empty wikitable to the top of the pound (mass) article. I removed it, as I don't know what contents you were trying to add to the article. I suggest you add a /sandbox subpage to your userspace, and work on complicated formatting there instead of in live articles. Also, your addition of the source of the abbreviation "lb" makes the first sentence of the article, which wasn't very fluid to begin with, read even more awkwardly. It would be nice if you could maybe find a section of the body of the article to put the origin of the abbreviation in, and it would also be very useful indeed to provide in the article the source you got that fact from. Enuja 01:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know where the table came from. I didn't put it there on purpose if I did (I'm pretty familiar with wikip formatting). I think the origin of lb should be mentioned where lb is first mentioned. Yes, the sentence was awkward to begin with, so it was hard to fit it in there. But I can't see any other place it would be good to go. Except maybe one of those aweful "Trivia" sections or something (god forbid). Brentt 10:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As User:Rracecarr put in an edit summary for the edit that removed your introduction of the source for "lb," see the historical origin section. There already was an explanation of the origin of the abbreviation in the article, and I think it's in the best place it could be in the article.  Enuja 18:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Paul Addis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. WebHamster 06:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A speedy tag is very appropriate when one isn't confusing fame/notoriety with notability. Please see WP:BIO for the necessary criteria. A Reuters news article in itself is not an automatic proof of notability either, they frequently do stories on non-notable, not to mention totally uninteresting, individuals. The subject of your article may be famous locally but again that is not valid criteria for notability. Please read the aforementioned article/guideline and if you can write the article to meet that criteria then you may well be in with a chance, but at the moment the way the article is written it's a slam-dunk for a speedy. --WebHamster 09:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ask and you shall receive. Have a nice day. --WebHamster 09:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Brennt I've resurrected a temp User page to spiff up. Add citation to and represent. Any contributions are welcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Natevoodoo/Paul_Addis

--Natevoodoo 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know?

 * ... that if it wasn't for people like you then wikipedia woud not be so much fun Well done. Victuallers 07:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Shooting video
The video that posted on the NET ( In fact 4 videos ) were to Aegis defense corporation not Blackwater USA, and posted by former south african security contractor for Aegis--Max Mayr 15:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)