User talk:MIDI/Archive 2008 May

Beerhoff
Yes I figured I wanted to see whether somebody would delete it or redirect it. Many people aren't aware of the German spelling so it probably wise to have a redirect. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks: I'll get on with creating some articles now. The uneven coverage of parts of Africa and Asia is beyond belief. Anything which attempts to counteract systematic bias. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦  $1,000,000? 11:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, nice work on the Mombasa bridge. I've created a new category Bridges in Kenya. This is aexactly the sort of content I want to see started on here. There must be zillions of bridges in Kenya yet there was nothing. Very few people seem to be conscious of the poor development in such parts of wikipedia ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦  $1,000,000? 15:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Howdoyoudo08's page list
Thanks for changing the Howdoyoudo08's page list to User:Howdoyoudo08/Howdoyoudo08's page list! Howdoyoudo08 (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruck Shack
Look, please dont delete my article, its just a joke, cmon, me and my friend are justtrying ot have fun, plus i doubt anyone but us is gonna find search "Ruck Shack: dude! Lazkataz (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Berkshire WikiProject
How do you join Berkshire Wkiprodject? Kinky Guy (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Peacock Insurance
Dear Booglamay - I have read 'my first article' and believe that i have met all of the critera to list this entry within the encyclopedia. Can you be more spefic and advise me why you believe this is not a suitable entry or any erros i have made within the posting process. Kind regards. Josephopelman (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I note your comments and believe that the original posts were requested for deletion due to the reference sources not being inserted to the route of the coverage unlike the most recent post and therefore at first glance not verifiable. I believe you are suggesting that one persons opinion of notability may differ from another's but is instead qualified in wikipedia's definitions as follows:
 * An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable.
 * This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose, although people gathered for more specific purposes may be governed by more specific guidelines. For example, people gathered together for the purpose of making music are covered by WP:MUSIC.
 * Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities including, but not limited to, charitable organizations, educational institutions, institutions, interest groups, organizations, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, religious denominations, sects, etc.
 * I believe this has been demonstrated?, should you wish, i will try and find further verifiable sources that match the above description. I look forward to your comments. Josephopelman (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2008


 * I'm confused. Are you saying the information provided about peacock is not "worthy of notice" or any you saying the reference sites with verify the contents are not suitable or both? N.B. To be the first insurance broker to manage to conquer the technological issues of quoting and selling motor trade insurance on-line (something of a holy grail with in the insurance world) is worthy of notice to the industry particulary in view of the audience size and growth in this area. Josephopelman (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2008


 * Hi Boogeyman's - We may have to agree to differ. I have commented in bold on your most recent post below. I have also cited the Wikipedia guidelines in italics to provide a reference to substantiate my reasoning why i disagree with your request for deletion of the listing. Your last post:
 * What I'm saying is the information provided in the article does not state why the business is notable (according to Wikipedia guidelines) I disagree - the guideline states: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources - Which Peacock has, on an important matter to the financial services industry and one "worthy of notice", a point that can not be refuted. This is not the same as whether the business is notable. The business must pass at least one criteria.
 * This may be the case You imply that the listing may have passed the criteria, which I have also demonstrated above, therefore the only other point of contention would be the reliably and independence of the source.
 * - but the one source you provided doesn't really qualify as a credible source - it seems to be a club's website (and therefore not authoritative). :::Again I'm sorry and have to disagree, Wikipedia statues - Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities including, but not limited to, charitable organizations, educational institutions, institutions, interest groups, organizations, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, religious denominations, sects, etc. Conceqently the source meets this criteria in buckets as it is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose with and interest in a particular breed of dog.
 * So Booglamay, we have a difference of opinion, i have demonstrated using the Wikipedia guidelines the validity of the listing. To date you don't believe this to be the case. Unless you can demonstrate to me with a specific piece of Wikipedia guideline that i have met the criteria or indeed you change your mind we may need to look at the next steps to get an independent review. I note the co-founders vision where he statues "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. — J. Wales, Founder of Wikipedia". I don't believe that omitting the Peacock entry will assist in one of Wikipedia's core purpose's. Josephopelman (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2008


 * Dear Booglamay - Please accept my apologies regarding the misspelling of your name is was a Freudian slip. We are not going to agree. I have cited the exact text from the Wikipedia definitions to reinforce my points, sadly you have not. You instead make no valid points which ARE reinforced by exact guideline or policy. You have also introduced a new argument which may also be flawed. You have assumed the business's are linked, you quote - in fact, it unrefutably states that the two organisations are linked in business terms. This could potentially create a conflict of interest, and debase your argument. which i cannot find any proof of, a 'statement of facts' and a 'recommendation' can never be construed as a 'link in business' as you propose. Either way, it was always my intention to source further references to Peacock. To stop this going on indefinitely, I have added a link to a similar related entries within Wikipedia. Can you point out with the exact text within their article where it state's\demonstrates why the business is notable (according to Wikipedia guidelines). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashburnham_Insurance_Services_Limited. Regards.  Josephopelman (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Booglemay- Not wishing to question your knowledge about the intricacies of business relationship and affinities but one organisation recognising the good work of another does not make it bias. The reference site states no where that the two are linked or indeed receive any form of remuneration FINANCIALLY (as you state) or otherwise. However, so we can move on from here i feel i must reiterate that i intend on finding additional sources in the future, regardless of whether you or i agree.


 * With regard to you 'quoting guidelines' i stated the words "VALID POINTS which ARE reinforced by EXACT guideline or policy" The important words being 'valid' and 'exact' and not whole chapters for you to hide behind on points which i don't believe have a valid argument.

HOWEVER, PLEASE PLEASE lets try and draw a line under this entry so i can create a valid listing that meets your interpretation of Wikipedia. In the link added below can you point out the EXACT text within the article where it demonstrates why this business is notable (according to Wikipedia guidelines).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashburnham_Insurance_Services_Limited. Josephopelman (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Camelia Elias
Hi - I think that the Elias page should be deleted. Why did you remove your CSD tag? Bit Lordy (talk) 18:54, 22:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Lin
Why don't you take a look at who deleted that page originally. You cannot tell me it was warranted. Essjay was banned from wikipedia for falsifying information. What I "recreated" is absolute truth that one cannot argue. If you would like to be in contact with Mr. Lin yourself, I would be happy to direct you to him. Selfgrandiose (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral axis
After discussing with the admin, I've moved the page Proof that the neutral axis of a beam lies on the centroid of the cross section to the Neutral axis article, and tagged my external link reference on it. I agreed with the admin that the title was too long and that the page should have been deleted. However, I don't think it should have been speedily deleted as it is a common mathematical proof in college text books that I could not find listed anywhere on wikipedia. I did my research, created the page and was continuing to construct it when it was deleted before I even got close to finishing. I won't say any further cause you're probably just a delete freak, but I do want to ask that you pause and put articles up for regular deletion instead of speedily deleteing them for no reason. Markozeta (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)