User talk:Minkus

re. John Matusiak and Andrew Clark
I have recently reverted the vandalism that caused you to suggest the page for speedy deletion. It appears that the inaccuracies that were present on the page were the result of one user, one User:Chris Hallam.

Referring to the Criteria for speedy deletion, the criterion that qualifies an article about an "unremarkable" person is that the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Upon inspection, the importance of the subject is addressed in the introductory paragraph: for example, his four published essays that make head-way into the post-revisionist perspective on this period of mid-Tudor England. It therefore appears that John Matusiak does not, at least, qualify for speedy deletion.

This was asserted by User:Herostratus, who, in its place, suggests that John Matusiak objectively fails WP:PROF. Let us first note that this is a "proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process" (original italics). But let us inspect the criteria further. It is stated that "an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, they are definitely notable" (original italics). We see criterion 5: "The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea." As we have seen, this is true, and is also verifiable: his work on the Mid-Tudor Crisis, as the article states, "opened a new chapter in the debate", as we can also see from the articles themselves, published in History Review.

If this is not enough, let us consult Notability (people), a "guideline for Wikipedia". Has "the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field"? His specific field - the Mid-Tudor Crisis; the enduring historical record - The History Review; a contribution -, , , ; widely recognized - 889 Google results, What links here, or simply consult the page itself.

I hope that this clears matters up.

Jameshfisher 15:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi James,

I'd contest that the suggestion that John Matusiak made a 'widely recognized' contribution is inaccurate. The fact that he has had some articles posted on History Today and that you can find them in Google does not mean that his conclusions are 'widely recognised', or that his articles 'opened a new chapter in the debate': the Google Search you suggested only brings up the Wikipedia article, the History Today articles in various guises, and information about the religious author 'Father John Matusiak', who is a different person. Perhaps this alternative Google search would be more revealing?

If his contribution was 'widely recognised' you would presumably expect it to be cited in other works: I challenge you to provide a single link or reference along these lines.

I would also point out that the second paragraph of the Biography section is entirely spurious and unverifiable, and that you do not hold the copyright for the image in the article either.

Minkus 12:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Minkus?
Are you the minkus from the computing a-level quake playing days? If so, hello old chap and welcome to the wiki, Pete here. What you up to nowadays?

Pluke 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

re:Number of remotes supported by the Wii console
Fine, put it back. I don't care. « ₣M₣ »  18:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)