User talk:Mcha6677

Redirect ;) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Meghan-ize, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems 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 Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the 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. mcr616 Speak! 22:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Mcha6677/sandbox Jimfbleak (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Dutch reach
Sorry to be so late getting back to you. I was busy at WikiConference North America, followed by catching up on matters more sensitive to time during a still incomplete recovery from jet lag upon return last night. I have not taken the time to review your sandboxed article properly, so I'm only giving a hasty impression.


 * Wow, it seems an awful lot of carefully documented material on one method of avoiding one kind of bike accident. As you noticed, I have contributed words to Door zone which is smaller. Due to my long time in WP I have the direct power to move an article into mainspace for full publication, but figure more thought ought to go into this one. The two topics are obviously close, and my guess is it's better to combine the two, perhaps under a different name such as Dooring. Your topical sections are misformatted and I probably missed other minor defects that are trivial to fix. The main course I think of following is:


 * 1) Trim your sandbox article down to less than half its current size. This is the hardest part.
 * 2) Decide whether I have guessed right for a name for the future merged article.
 * 3) Alert watchers of the existing article and let them comment for a few days or until agreement develops.
 * 4) Move Door zone into the agreed title.
 * 5) Paste your article into a section of that article.


 * You have taken a wise course in asking me, cycling being dear to my heart. Indeed I miss the road, having biked only about a mile in my week in San Diego. With any luck we can get attention of other minds. Wikipedia works best, in my long experience, when we take the time to get a few opinions on a moderately big action such as moving and doubling the size of an article. Oof, I'm tired and still have things to do in WP and in Wikimedia Commons before maybe putting together something to say at tomorrow night's astronomy meeting. Smart people pick only a few really important things to concentrate on, but I'm not that kind of smart. You can put your reply under mine, since I know how to watch. WP has wonderfully diverse and complex ways to handle conversations, as we do for nearly anything, but whatever works, we do. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Early am, 10/14/16 Jim, Thank you for your response to my request for help -- actually much prompter than I had hoped or led to expect. Is this the proper place to continue our discussion? Not on your talk page where I contacted you? So here are my initial thoughts on your points:

1) Agreed it needs to be cut. The easiest part to separate out, and is quite long, is the Safety Considerations. I could condense it considerably but with loss of clear rational reasons, and it would look more like opinion piece then, than something neutrally and thoughtfully observed, analyzed and evaluated, and is laid out transparently.

I would also welcome any suggestions what other sections might not useful or worth including as judged by bike safety concerned editors or contributors if possible before hand.

I do consider the Safety sections a real contribution, put open to expert debate. Is there any other place where such a cultural zebra can be collectively examined and reviewed? Well maybe some safety journal or obscure policy journal would briefly consider it. But Britannica published expert reports on then modern subjects as did early encyclopedists in France, yes? And putting a Dutch Reach assessment section up for public review available for Europeans and bike experts to commment upon would I hope sharpen, correct and clarify or debunk the basic claim of "commonsense" superiority claimed by its advocates.

But I won't cry too much if it is cut as I could put it up on my website. Could it then be cited? - Would that be acceptable?

2) Where should it go? Be merged: Should it be a sub-section of Door Zone?

I was surprised not to find "Dooring" or "Doored" as a separate category - maybe they do appear in another Wiki -- ?Dictionary? But Dooring is the fundamental reason why the Door Zone has been 'invented' by traffic planners, no? So for me, Dooring / Doored is the natural super-category to include Door Zone, Dutch Reach, anti-dooring high and low devices: bike radar, warning lights linked to driver/passenger unbuckling; anti-dooring campaigns, Door Prize, door latch rubber reminders (as found in AU), etc./o

Alternatively, all might be subsumed under bicycle safety, and/or Dutch Reach might be relegated to "Cycling in the Netherlands" category. But there I think a problem arises as we wouldn't put Bike Lane or Bike Tracks in that category, and the "reach method" may not be of actual Dutch origin at all, and is not called that name in Holland (nor as yet by any other). So I thought as a subject it was big and important enough to stand on its own. Perhaps I'm unduly influenced by the media reception it continues to garner -- YouTube views jumped 100,000 yesterday. But as long as it can be found, have a pointer "Dutch Reach" directing to where it eventually finds a home, great. That would do fine by me.

3) Put it up for other editors to review/comment.

Gladly, I guess! So how exactly do I do that? Hit "Put up for Review?" a button I think I saw for the first time after I saw your reply? I hope you will remain available to counsel me when needed as it ventures forth.

3b) As yet not addressed on this, is my relationship to the subject -- self claimed and obvious by virtue of my advocacy role. How do I inform them of this?

This does related back to keeping or cutting Safety Considerations --My bias may be beyond just authorship. I consider it a valuable contribution: Its quite likely no one has ever addressed this issue of relative safety of the far and near methods in any systematic fashion -- unless some old study was done in Holland several decades ago as it was debated for inclusion in the legal code, and is now forgotten and lost. As part of my project's due diligence I am still looking for reliable history sources in NL.

4) Move Door Zone into "New Category" and

5) Sub-ordinate Dutch Reach remnants within it. No problem. Again, as long as it can be found on Search and intralinks etc.  But these two things -- is this not the product of the senior editors who weigh in?  I'll be happy to throw in my $.25 and then defer.

As for the clean up work -- when does that get done or need to get done by? I am not familiar let alone facile with formatting tools etc etc. I'm a content guy, your age without the tech savvy; having enough trouble figuring out Wordpress links, embeds, formatting - its all a fog. I just got some books out of the library but while building my project out have hardly the time or residual eyesight to read. But eventually I'll do what needs be done as best I can.

A last but important question:

6) Is there any constraint against my posting my/this article now on my www.dutchreach.org website, or while its in review or after when its been edited down etc? I do wish to make it available for briefing advocates, media, some Dutch and US bike experts who I've relied on for it and could shop it around for more review and improvements.  It is a work in progress which will go on for quite some time I expect. Which will in turn help to improve with more documentation and info the Dutch Reach and associated categories I suspect as well.

So there it be. I'll await your thoughts and advice esp. on the cuts and whether chopping out the Safety Section seems the most expedient course, but do you agree? Do you recommend another alternative?

Thanks for taking the time and interest. I'll be away til Monday starting mid-day today Fri. So no hurry.

Best wishes, mcha6677 (Do I need to stick with the username on these pages? Is it advisable? What is public? What pages are restricted?)??

Mcha6677 (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)mcha6677Mcha6677 (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC) Mcha6677 (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)mcha6677Mcha6677 (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer


 * Continuing with discussion in User talk:Jim.henderson that I also mentioned in Talk:Door zone.


 * So, with a little thought and actually reading the draft, I have changed my mind. I recommended the subtractive approach. Not so good, because of the large amount of repetition and WP:OR. Better to use the additive approach. Once the question is settled of whether we will move Door zone elsewhere, start a new section of that article with the best paragraph you can think of as a summary.


 * We indeed must think about what we write, but we must not present our own conclusions. This is a major way Wikipedia writing is different from just about any other kind. What we do is summarize what our sources say. We seek dissenting opinions that are held by similarly good sources, and summarize those, too. We may say one is more accepted in the field if that is true, but not that one view is right and the other wrong. However, I am getting a little ahead of the plan for this topic. Make a WP:Section with a summary paragraph and save (publish) that. Wait a day or so for a reaction. The reaction can be in edits to the article, in the article talk page or in your own talk page. If it goes well, which is to say nothing happens or, better, someone else makes a few cleanups and improvements in the article, then proceed with a few more paragraphs followed by another pause.


 * The additive process usually works best when it is done slowly. At each pause, leave a finished product, not an ugly rough draft. Some other methods work similarly well if you know what you're doing, but I find less trouble with this method. The alternative of suddenly presenting a few screenfuls of rough text often triggers rejection by fellow editors, who would gladly clean up a paragraph if that's what you give them.


 * You have tripped up slightly in our Wiki jargon. A WP:Category is part of a tree structure of articles. Each WP:Article is in a category or several. It's a fairly minor point in WP, though a major one in Wikimedia Commons. You can simply ignore it; many old-timers are eager to take care of it.


 * What I have proposed in the article talk page is a WP:Move, also called Renaming the article. Another question is WP:Article size. I sometimes WP:Split articles that are too large, and more often WP:Merge ones that are too small. If your Sandbox article were to become an article by itself, it's big enough. Problem is, it's too big for the somewhat scanty acceptable information. That is, it's big because of your own arguments, and redundancy, and I forget, maybe some other things that don't belong. Boiled down, it would be a scrawny article.


 * Bicycle safety is not terribly large, in part because it points to several detail articles that handle details. Oddly, I see that it has no link to Door zone, nor has Cycling infrastructure. It should be attended to. Adding another door article would, if anything, make this more difficult. The dooring article could be merged into one or the other without making either of them terribly large, but I'd rather leave that as it is, and simply expand the door article. Drat; I was going to devote myself this month to picture sorting and live teaching, not to thinking about links and allocation of text among articles.


 * So, I'm out of ideas for tonight. Remember to sign Talk Page additions with four tildes ~   Jim.henderson (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 22)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.


 * User:Mcha6677/sandbox may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Mcha6677 Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KGirlTrucker81&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Mcha6677 reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KGirl (Wanna chat?) 16:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The addison lean


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, The addison lean, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —teb728 t c 10:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"Holländische Griff" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Holländische Griff. Since you had some involvement with the Holländische Griff redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -KAP03 (Talk &#x2022;&#x20;Contributions &#x2022;&#x20;Email) 01:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

"Maniobra Holandesa" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Maniobra Holandesa. Since you had some involvement with the Maniobra Holandesa redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 23:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)