User talk:Miketwardos

Papervision3d
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Papervision3d, and it appears to be a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 04:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ed grothus
A tag has been placed on Ed grothus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Closedmouth (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Complex fluids
I noticed that you are the creator of the page on Complex fluids. I have been searching for sources, and as yet have been unable to find any. Perhaps you could help me improve the article? I personally find it an interesting read, but there is not much information. Also it needs work with wikification, style, and other such things. Otherwise I will probably redirect it to Non-Newtonian fluid, which I'd like not to do if it can stand on its own. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those links on complex fluids! I plan on working on the article whenever time permits. Of course, with my meager knowledge of the subject, I'll probably just work on formatting issues and sourcing whatever I can find. Is the study of complex fluids a relatively new field? Also, I would like to lay out comparisons between complex fluids and Non-Newtonian fluids, since I'm not really sure myself. Thanks again for your help! -FrankTobia (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Surfspot
I have nominated Surfspot, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Surfspot. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. &mdash;Moondyne 13:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Surf spot
I'm sorry the article you created on surf spots got deleted. If you're willing to put time and effort into the problems addressed at its afd, I'm sure it can satisfy anyone's criteria for being included in Wikipedia. I'll try to summarize why it was deleted, and what you can do to make such an article better in the future. The main issue is that the article sounded like original research (I recommend reading the policy if you're not familiar with it, since it's one of Wikipedia's core tenets, and it's a big reason why articles get deleted). In this case it means that the article shouldn't sound like you came up with it yourself: you need to demonstrate that what's in the article has been published somewhere else first. Some other issues were: no sourcing, written like an essay, and not wikified at all. These weren't the reasons for deletion, but it sort of contributed to the consensus for deletion.

Here are my suggestions: find one or more reliable sources that discuss surf spots, what they are, and why they are important. Use these sources to support the next article you write. Try to make the writing sound like an encyclopedia article, rather than a personal essay. This one can be kind of tough; I suggest reading through some featured articles to get an idea of what encyclopedia articles should sound like. Always try to adhere to a neutral point of view. Wikification helps make an article look more "professional"; I can always lend a hand with the more mundane aspects of formatting, so let me know.

My advice going forward is this: start rewriting the page within your user space, for example, at User:Miketwardos/Surf spot. This is called WP:Userfication and it can be used to get an article up to certain quality standards before you introduce it back into the mainspace, so that it doesn't get deleted again. You can ask an administrator on his talk page to view the surf spot page before it was deleted and ask him to copy it there. Then work on the page to address all the issues in its previous AFD. When you think it's ready, ask around a bit to see if people still think it has issues, and if not move it back to surf spot.

You might also want to consider adding surf spots as a heading to the surfing article, rather than have it be an article in its own right. That's entirely a judgment call, but it might be the right move. In either case you can use userfication beforehand to make sure your work doesn't get deleted again.

Let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing :) -FrankTobia (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Deborah Scott
A tag has been placed on Deborah Scott requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Expensive paintings graph
The graph you added to the List of most expensive paintings looks nice and could add a quick overview of the times the paintings in the list were produced to the article. My main objection is that it currently displays the original sales prices, rather than the so much more sensible inflation adjusted sales prices we display the paintings by in the list. Could you change that? You could also stretch the timeline to, say, 1500-2000, which will highlight the big gap between 1611 and 1875, though there is something to say for just showing the last 150 years. It looks you picked out all paintings above the Titian in the list, except that you left out "Portrait of Joseph Roulin". And, finally, with respect to color coding, if you highlight Warhol, you might also highlight Klimt with his two 100M+ paintings). When you include more painting, Rothko (three 75M+ paintings, believe it or not), Cézanne, De Kooning, etc. would also wanna have colors. It might also be an idea to display all (adjusted) prices paid each year since 1985 in a graph like this. This would show the fluctuations and the upward trend in this crazy market. Afasmit (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A page you started (Scotts Creek) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Scotts Creek, Miketwardos!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Your move created misdirected incoming links, could you please resolve them? It also created a dab with only one entry plus a see also, please see WP:2DABS."

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)