User talk:Cap'n Walker

Please feel free to leave messages on this page.

Welcome to Wikipedia!
did you kNow richArd stallMan BuiLt emAcs?

Wikipedia has lots of cool facts, just like that. --RucasHost 16:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Leave me alone, creepy man. I'm sorry that you didn't like my vote on your AfD. Cap'n Walker 16:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis
Thanks for your input at the RfC. It will now be renamed Jesus as myth as consensus has been reached by all. Outside help is vital when tempers are fraying and your input was much appreciated. Thanks! Sophia 05:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Russ Martin
Thanks for your input! I am a fan and will try to source as much of the info as I can. Please continue to give me your input as I am rather new to this and would like to make a worthwhile contribution; I figured something like this would be a good place to start. Waco huber 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Before you delete this just read it and think about it. Russ Martin may be just another "Wacky Local DJ" to you,but Russ Martin is a hero to a lot of people down here. The work that he has done through the police and fire foundation that he created has helped more than a dozen families of police and firefighters who have fallen in the line of duty. He stands up for these "Civil Servants" as they are called, I call them Heroes, when no one else will. He has also donated not only money but his time to help out a no-kill animal shelter in Dallas. If it wasn't for Russ and his listeners, that shelter would not have made it possible for a little dog named Mercy to have spent her last days on this earth as comfortable as she could after a man doused her in gasoline and set her on fire, only after he had wired her mouth shut. If you or any one else wants to see any details of Russ' work or the reasons that he should be noted somewhere other than his own website go to russmartin.com and see for yourself.

Thank you


 * I won't delete this because it's civil and coherent (although I believe you called me a jerk in a previous post). I appreciate the work this guy does; however, lots of other people engage in as much or more charity work yet don't reach the threshold of Wikipedia notability. Anyway, it's not like I get to personally decide whether his article gets deleted; it's up to the community.  Perhaps they will agree with you. Cap'n Walker 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, i was not trying to a Asshole about the deletion thing, I was just voicing my opinion and i apologize for coming off as a Jackass, As for my literacy skills, I have learning disability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Japollard2007 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Could have fooled me. Your original message:  "YOUR AN F*** TARD!!!, WHO ARE YOU TO DICTATE WHO GETS TO KEEP THEIR PAGE AND WHO DOESN'T!"  Nonetheless, I accept your apology.  Cap'n Walker 20:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Reference" was added to Kunio Kishida
"Reference" was added to Kunio Kishida Furui gang 09:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Leonard R. Brand
I have added information citing the notability of Dr. Brand to the website. Thank you for your assistance. Goo2you 21:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Another administrator removed the speedy tag, as it certainly asserted notability even without the reference. I concur. Questioned notability is a matter for WP:AFD. In fact, is quite possible that the actual notability would be found sufficient there. Looking at your speedies, I see most of them fully appropriate, but I urge you to more carefully distinguish between the  assertion or indication of some notability, and actual notability according to WP:N. It is necessary to be particularly careful with articles about those holding non-conventional or minority views. I find it useful myself to re-read WP:CSD every week or so. DGG (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[[Bronco Somerton
Mr.somerton has an interesting story that should be left on wikipedia for others to see so please leave it alonedoesthisonework 12:10pm

Notability of Tags (computer program)
Hi Cap'n Walker,

You marked my brand new article about Tags as possibly not meeting the notability guidelines. Could you explain to me why you did that? Maybe you have suggestions how I could improve the article, or give me a hint why the topic is not notable enough.

Julian Gong 11:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC) (it's fine if you reply here, I'll watch this page)


 * You've discussed what the utility does, but you haven't indicated why it is notable. For example, has it been downloaded a significant number of times?  Has it been reviewed by prominent computer-related publications or websites?  Has it received other types of media attention?  There are a lot of utilities out there, but not all of them are notable enough to merit encyclopedia articles.  I held off on nominating the article for deletion to give you some additional time to work on it.    Cap'n Walker 15:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Uptill now (since the launch in August) the program has been downloaded somewhere between 200 and 300 times. Thriftmac.com and thefreemacclassroom.com were quite positive about the software. Also, at sourceforge.net the software is ranked in the middle between very popular projects and inactive ones (about 11000th of over 20000 projects). But I doubt whether that kind of information should be included in a wikipedia article.
 * In any case, do you find that notable enough? It appears to be a rather subjective decision... Julian Gong 14:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right, it is a subjective decision, and not my decision alone. In my opinion, a program with 200-300 downloads is not notable enough for inclusion.  I will nominate it for deletion and let the community decide.  Cap'n Walker 15:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw your nomination for deletion. That's ok, I'll be patient and see what the wikipedia community thinks about this subject.
 * However, I hope you can imagine I was not very charmed by the word spammy. I really did my best to write an article as neutral as possible and to provide as much information as I could - which is still not quite alot just because it is such a simple program. Information of the kind that would give indications of its notability, as you suggested, would (in my humble opinion) make the article more "spammy". Also, I think there is no need to use such words if you can talk freely to the original author, like with me.
 * Julian Gong 17:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you are unhappy with my opinion. Articles posted on wikipedia are subject to criticism -- that's the nature of the beast.  Cap'n Walker 20:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

LORD Corporation
Cap'n Walker, don't you have anything better to do than running around Wikipedia tagging articles for deletion? I had barely hit the Save Page button and you had already tagged it. You didn't even bother checking out why the article was created, and what links to it. This kind of behavior just one step short of vandalism. &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I tag articles I believe are inappropriate for Wikipedia. You have the right to contest the tag.  Grow up.  Cap'n Walker 20:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Even a cursory review of your "contributions" reveals little or no constructive edits on Wikipedia. It's mostly in the nature of speedy deletion tags other destructive activity.  I stand by my statement.  And you don't know me, so don't even presume to tell me to "grow up". &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 20:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the speedy tag (and added one reference), as the article didn't appear to me to be especially spammy. Feel free to take it to AFD for fuller discussion, of course.  JavaTenor 20:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also might suggest you to take a brief look at WP:NPA before you post something like this again. JavaTenor 20:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Covert Incest
Someone who I believe is biased against psychology has been making lots of recent edits lately, namely in taking things out. I would like you to review them when you get a chance. I'm all for objectivity, but I think someone who knows a thing or two about human psychology should be the ultimate judge, not someone who questions its "reliability."Forest Path (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider this somewhat amusing considering WP:RS and WP:V. I'm curious how you would write an article on psychology without the use of reliable sources.  BTW, I'm the editor s/he is speaking about.  WLU (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, should have guessed I would find you here. Again, let me repeat, I DID NOT WRITE THE ARTICLE.  And it was Cap'n Walker himself who wrote the bulk of it and used these "unreliable sources" you speak of.  Now, let's see you backtrack, WLU.Forest Path (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)