User talk:Killerbeez

What is your basis for editing articles. Are you a wikipedia agent?

Who is asking this question? Killerbeez 08:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dae Gak
Per your request, I reviewed Dae Gak and its history. In my opinion the article does not establish the notability of its subject. I searched on Google but could not find any independent profiles of the subject or other evidence that he meets our criteria for inclusion. For those resons I've nominated the article for deletion. Articles for deletion/Dae Gak. Regrarding your account, you are registered. The other user may have been referring to the fact that you haven't written anything on your user page and so your name appears as a red link. There's no dishonor in that and you are as much a Wikipedia editor as anyone. If you want to change that just click here and write something. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the orphaned redirect. You may want to give your opinion of the article at Articles for deletion/Dae Gak. While it isn't a vote per se, it is a forum for gauging commuity views so the more well-stated views the better. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 23:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * K., yes, I recall that the notability standards once included sales figure for books and similar metrics. However those don't directly translate into notability and accurate sales numbers are hard to obtain. The new standard, in WP:BIO, directly gauges if a subject has actually been noted. The main criteria is having multiple independent, non-trivial profiles. If folks write about you then you're notable, if they don't then you aren't.
 * As for learning to edit, you might consult Five pillars and Simplified Ruleset for basic principles. For editing itself there's How to edit a page, plus many tutorials at Category:Wikipedia tutorial. A good way to learn is to look at a bunch of random pages to see how they are composed. Feel free to ask me or anyone you spot for help on specific questions. Cheers, ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 23:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: I should have posted this template here earlier, when I warned the other editor. Even when your cause is just you shouldn't get into back-and-forth revert contests with other editors. It's better to work out differences on the talk page. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 07:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

removal of sourcing tag on dae gak page
I am planning to remove the source tag again on the Dae Gak page. Please see the discussion on that page and comment if you disagree. Durruti36 20:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability Questions
This isn't a field in which I'm expert. A quick Google check on Jakusho Kwong brings up more substantial references than a similar search on Dae Gak did. the Soeng Hyang article has the potential for being better sourced, due to the interview mentioned. Also she appears involved with a notable Zen Center.

Wikipedia is pretty much a do-it-yourself operation. I encourage you to improve the articles if possible. If you think the subjects aren't notable enough to have neutral articles written about them then you can nominated them for deletion. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 18:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: Our article on Kwan Um School of Zen says that Soeng Hyang is the head teacher of that school, lending her additional notability. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 18:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh good! Thanks again! Killerbeez 18:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Biography Project
Hi there. I see that you've been adding citation and biography boxes to a number of articles about living people. I'd like to encourage you to join the Biography Project so you can familiarize yourself with the assessment criteria and project. I'd also like to encourage you to work on articles rather than doing too much evaluation of articles before you've gained experience adding to and writing articles. We need more folks doing the work of making the articles better, I think anyway. At any rate, welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you have fun working on articles that appeal to you. Nightngle 13:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
Officially, AfDs are discussions rather than votes. Good closing admins will give more weight to well-reasoned arguments than to mere "delete per nom" entries. While anyone can comment, !votes (the "!" means "not") by newcomers are discounted. I see that someone has already marked the newcomer as such for the benefit of the administrator who closes the discussion. That's all typical. Not to worry. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)